Talk:Link (The Legend of Zelda)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Pictures need changing/ updating

Why on earth is there NO picture of the Ocarina of Time Link, particularly his adult form? It is ONLY the best selling zelda BY FAR and the game MOST OFTEN considered the best game of all time by the media and fans alike.

What kind of celshaded fan put phantom hourglass Link as the main picture? An Ocarina of Time Link image should go there, he was the first 3D incarnation and the most popular, thereby defining Link.

Also the Twilight Princess Link picture is not ideal, it is one of the worse pieces of artwork from TP and does not look anything like his actual character model ingame. It should be replaced, with an actual render of the model if possible.

Anything, ANYTHING, but the Phantom Hourglass model. It hardly shows any of the details of the Link of the Zelda series. Get a more detailed picture, like one of OoT's Link or of TP's Link.

Wow, was just about to post this when I saw your poat, but I'll add my agrument to your lone voice of justice.

I find that having a picture of link as he appears in phantom hourglass or windwaker style as the 'leading' picture is nonsensical. Of course these are the newer games and such, but Link's most popular appearances were in Ocarina of Time (voted the best game ever) and Majora's Mask. I'm just suggesting that it would make more sense to show him as he was in his most popular time, not recent. If someone saw Sean Connery when he was four years old, few would recognize him, but at his most popular time later in his life, everyone would recognize him. I think it only makes sense. Ringwall 03:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

1) Just because it's considered the best game ever by a game magazine does not mean that that is because of Link, or that it was the most popular. Looking at the sales numbes, PH's opening sales are just a little bit behind Ocarina and Majora. Comparing recent numbers for all but PH:

1) SD Link:

• LoZ: 6.51 million
• ALttP: 4.61 million
• LA: 6.05 million
• OoS+OoA: 7.92 million
• Total: 25.09 million

2) "Realistic" Link:

• Zelda II: 4.38 million
• OoT: 7.6 million
• MM: 3.36 million
• TP: 4.93 million
• Total: 20.27

3) Cel-shaded Link:

• TWW: 3.07 million
• FS: 1.63 million
• TMC: 1 million
• Total: 5.70 million

So "most popular" would very definitely give us the original "SD Link", though we'd have to re-compare all the numbers each time a game came out. If you're willing to argue that the Oracle Link should be used as it is "the most recognizable", then I won't stop you, but "Realistic Link" can only win by fanboyism.

By the way, 4-year old Sean Connery is not his "most recent", so that analogy completely ignores the reasoning for using "most recent" (i.e., that it is the image that is in the public's mind now, and has the most facetime in ads, commercials, stores, etc.)Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Why should sales factor in this at all? Popularity should not factor in to this, as it seems to be doing so with your argument (you obviously are a very big fan of Ocarina of Time and uphold it as the "standard"). If anything, I say Twilight Princess Link should be up there because: It is the most recent home console game, it is soon followed by the Crossbow Training game featuring him in this style (which would then become the "most recent" game), and it is also how he is being presented in Smash Brothers Brawl. It is the most common face of Link at this time. 24.113.67.17 11:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how being the most recent home console game has any relevance, the portable games have to be just as significant, else we'll be judging this on opinion. Although I would say Link's Crossbow Training is a valid point, it is made by Nintendo. Haipa Doragon (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

How am I in any way acting like an OoT fanboy? It's my third least favorite game in the series, right before TP and TAoL! "Popularity should not factor in to this" - then the most recent picture is Cel-shaded Link of Phantom Hourglass. End of discussion. Neither Brawl nor Crossbow Training are out yet, and that's even if you neglect the fact that they are NOT PART OF THE SERIES - they are as much part of it as Tetris was.

The overarching guideline behind "lead image" is what is most recognizable to all readers - not just fans of the series, not just those who still think OoT was the first game. The easiest way to do this, barring extraordinary circumstances, is which is the most recent - not because it is most recent, but because it is the image most widely available to the public, in the form of the games, advertisements, news articles about the game, etc. Using images from games not yet released not only ignores what it means to be recent, but is highlighting something with almost zero availability to the public. The reason the most recent image is not used in all circumstances is one of those extraordinary circumstances - Ganon has a fair number of different forms, none of which appear massively dominant (at least, between green and blue boar forms - Ganondorf is hardly ever used), and if a prior game was so much more well received (about a Oracle Link versus Minish Link level of difference), then that image will probably be used - but with fairly equal levels of reception - TP versus PH - the more recent will be more accessible.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Foolishness. The reason OOT Link should be on here is not becuase of popularity but becuase it is the best game out of them all. The game is heralded as the best of all time in most magazines (Game Informer, NP)and just seems to be a standard that cant be surpassed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.32.212 (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Being "the best game of all time" means nothing; that does not make OoT Link any more recognisable, especially since the game is about nine years old now. Haipa Doragon (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny, the Oracle games seem to have been much more popular. Maybe what is most recognizable is what the populace know, and not what a couple of elitists do?

Oh, and it's no longer heralded as the best.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha, no wonder all the zelda articles on wikipedia suck more than anything I have ever read. A bunch of crazed fanboys control all of the zelda articles apparently. AND kryten koro, stop lying. What IS heralded as the best? Not by you, by people whose opinions actually matter, like the gaming industry. Ocarina IS the best selling game in the series (adding TWO games together to beat it is beyond even your idiocy) and IS the highest rated game of all time, on average. Of course idiotic publications would give it a 9/10, but ON AVERAGE it remains the highest rated game of all time.

It is fact. Not my opinion. You can hate the fact all you want, wish that phantom hourglass was rated higher or whatever, but it isn't. Try POSTING whatever game and the source for it being higher rated than ocarina. No wonder wikipedia gets such a bad rap, you people have no conception of citing sources or anything of the kind.

Go to metacritic. See how Ocarina of Time is the highest rated? Now find and go to other review averaging sites, and find that Ocarina is the HIGHEST at EVERY site that averages reviews.

Saying "oh, its no longer the best" is meaningless. That is your personal opinion, which is worthless. The combined opinion of the game industry is what matters, and it has declared ocarina the highest rated game yet made.

...OoA and OoS, two games that act together, have the highest sales of any game in the series. OoT is only a little bit ahead of TLoZ and LA. As for OoT being the highest rated game ever - no, SMG has taken that title.

"It is fact. Not my opinion. You can hate the fact all you want, wish that phantom hourglass was rated higher or whatever, but it isn't. Try POSTING whatever game and the source for it being higher rated than ocarina. No wonder wikipedia gets such a bad rap, you people have no conception of citing sources or anything of the kind."

I wasn't disputing that it was the highest rated game in the series - I was disputing that that made it the most recognizable image of Link. As it is, the original SD form of Link has had the most sales and availability, which would seem to rate it the "most popular" image of Link. And the Cel-shaded Link is the one most recognizable to people RIGHT NOW, as it is actually in commercials, and available to buyers without having to search for it in used game bins or downloading ROMs.

This article isn't written for the benefit of game magazines, and shouldn't be tooled to what they think is the most popular - it is tooled to the AVERAGE reader (INCLUDING those who are not gamers), and should be tooled to what THEY will recognize. At this point, all I can say is: Get your head out of your ass. It is neither the "best game ever" (in terms of critics or sales in the series), the most available representation of him, or the image of him that's gotten the most sales. There is no criteria, besides fanwank, that can be used to justify that image being used - and once we allow arguments like "I like it", and disregard the clear-cut policies we have agreed on, continuous edit warring will break out, as it did before we agreed on the policies. If you have such a problem with what the FACTS show, then set up your own wiki, and do whatever the hell you want on there.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• PS: The reason Wikipedia gets such a "bad rap" is because of people constantly changing things to what they like, instead of following guidelines or sources - like you are suggesting. At least, in the eyes or people who want to actually use the site for information.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

KrytenKoro, Super Mario Galaxy may at ONE point have had a higher average review score, before all reviews were in. Now that most reviews are in, it has dropped below Ocarina of Time considerably. For example, on Metacritic, SMG is 97/100 and Ocarina of Time is 99/100. Choose whatever reliable averaging site you will, Ocarina of Time simply has higher reviews. In any case, it is irrelevant, because SMG is NOT a zelda game. How blatantly will you ignore fact that contradicts your position? It's like arguing with a creationist. Pointless. Except of course in real life, logic and reason control the outcome, not in the wiki world, where a few people who spend their lives on wikipedia apparently dictate what is and is not fact.

And that is without saying that Super Mario Galaxy has come out a month ago, while Ocarina of Time came out nearly nine YEARS ago. Will SMG be remembered as fondly as Ocarina? No, because it simply was not as revolutionary.

Your opinion is NOT fact. Dismissing the opposing view as "fanwank" is an idiotic position. If you do not wish to be called an idiot, do not act like one. Signing up for wikipedia and devoting more time to it by getting a membership and the like DOES NOT make your position automatically correct and the opposing one automatically wrong. If you ever debate in REALITY, you will understand why. (and if you had insulted me in reality the same way, you would be having your head smashed into a wall, but that's beyond the point)

You also seem to have a great liking to the bending of fact. Of ONE game (not two DIFFERENT games, regardless of whether you can plug them together for some bonus), Ocarina of Time is the best selling Zelda game. It is still the highest rated Zelda game (even if SMG beat it, SMG is amazingly not a zelda title!) These are facts. Ironically, you seem to support facts, yet were wrong on both positions, and didn't even bother to cite sources for your "facts": unsurprising, given that they are wrong.

Check metacritic. Then go to vgchartz. Notice how Ocarina of Time is the highest selling AND the highest rated Zelda game?

How do you think that you know what the average reader will or will not recognize? You don't. I've never seen a single commercial for a cel-shaded zelda. I know at least five friends who have played Ocarina of Time and/or Majora's Mask, and who would recognize the "realistic" Link from either of those, yet never played a cel-shaded zelda.

And that is without even mentioning Super Smash Brothers Melee, which was the most popular game on Gamecube and exposed the "realistic" young and adult Link to a large audience of millions. Super Smash Brawl today posted screens of the Link and Zelda from realistic series, who are about to be exposed to the 13 million plus audience on the Wii. Do you really think that after the release of the next zelda game a cel shaded Link is still going to be the most recognizable, even if he was now?

Even if more wikipedia editors SAY that they think realistic Link is more recognizable, you simply say "we don't care what you hardcore gamers think, to "normal" people cel-shaded Link is more recognizable."

If you think that alone can refute opposing arguments, you need to prove it. Take a survey of a thousand people in New York, show them a picture of the Link from phantom hourglass and see how many know who it is. Nobody other than "gamers" would know who the hell it was. And of course the only people who read an article about Link ARE gamers, unless they arrived here out of an extremely unlikely accident.

How about justifying why Nintendo would choose the realistic Link and Zelda models for SSBB, when Phantom Hourglass would be released closer to the release date of SSBB, and also be released on a console that sold 5 times more than the Wii?

Because they know realistic Link is the most recognized version and has been since Ocarina. That's why he was chosen in Smash Bros for the N64, in Smash Bros Melee for gamecube, and now in Brawl for Wii. I'd like to see the logic that the creators of Link have mistaken who is the most recognized version.

Also, your sales figures fail to take into account that Ocarina and Twilight sold the majority of their copies in North America and Europe, whereas the other zeldas sold comparatively poor in those regions. Since this is the ENGLISH article for Link, the realistic Link is the most recognized. In Japan, I agree that the cel shaded Link is probably more recognized, what with the overwhelming popularity of the DS there. But here, it is quite the opposite.

Wind Waker Link

If you play through New Game + on Wind Waker, The king of red lions clearly states that this game's Link is NOT a reincarnation of the Hero of Time, or therefore any other legendary heros. As this would seperate his character from Link in the rest of the series, should we make note of it?

Not unless you can find verification for this because it is extremely hard to know if this is true. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 01:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wind Waker is easy and boring. It's a push over. Not an actual Zelda game because he isn't related to Zelda, Hyrule, Master sword or anything. 2-9-07 Electricman —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elecricman (talk • contribs) 22:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

What was that? You think you can disinclude the game's info because you think it's BAD? 3 things: First, Miyamoto-san has said it is canon. Sorrow, but that's the way it is. Second, the first person who started this section points out a specific area in the game. It's not made up. It did happen in the game. We should add it to the article. Lastly, I am sick and tired of people acting like they can put their timeline theories on wikipedia! And don't tell me I'm breaking guideline rules, about being nice to people and all, but this has GOT TO STOP. Elecricman, I don't care what you do next; this is being added to the article. There are no reincarnations, because it's never said so in the games. Follow the games canonical info, and stay neutral

thank you--Superbub 19:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

ya i read that part when he does says that to the blue thingy.--Hitamaru 15:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)--Hitamaru 15:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

HE DOES NOT SAY THAT LINK IS NOT THE REINCARNATION - He says he is not the Hero of Time himself, or anything related to him (related in this case including Navi, as she was part of the group, instead of bloodline - KoRL doesn't care about the bloodline, he cares about the Hero).KrytenKoro 04:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert

Okay. I don't know who it is that made the huge, sweeping changes to this page, but they need to stop it. I'll admit that it wasn't perfect, but it was rated highly and got a half-star. That means that while it needs impovment, it is still on the right track. You don't take that and destroy it. The newer form was awful; it had few headlines so it was difficult to find out where you were. In any case, just work off of the current page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.114.111.187 (talk • contribs)

Ummm, No. The article is on its way to being defeatured as we speak, and I am in the middle of fixing it up. There were tons of unjustified, unsourced and un rationaled images that were removed, there was a trivia section that are not up to FA quality that was removed, and the sectioning was horrendous and was simplified, and vital information such as character creation and characteristics didn't even have sections.

True, the article currently looks bad as it is being totally reshaped to meet current Featured Article requirements and requires a massive copyedit, so lets fix up the prose, add more references, and not revert back to the version riven with errors and destined to be de-Featured. Clear enough? Judgesurreal777 03:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not quite clear. This article has been the way it has for months, with minor improvments being added on over time, and now you come in and remodel it in two days? You don't get to chage this article all on your own. The countless others who worked hard on it don't get their stuff thrown in the trash because you, (and you alone, I might add,) don't care for it. It still needs to be changed, but not by the discretion of one individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.114.111.187 (talk • contribs)

This is outrageous. This article will be de-featured unless it is brought up to the current FA standards for writing about fiction, and you are attempting to keep it as it is, even if that means that it will LOSE the FA status? Totally outrageous. I have every right to improve any article I wish, and can remodel any article I wish as can anyone else, as long as it follows the guidelines of Wikipedia and is for its betterment. AND the things I have done have been requested at the Featured Article Review. Judgesurreal777 03:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

First off, you're making a big assumption in saying that Judge is the only one who thinks the article could use massive improvement. Secondly, large edits are fine on Wikipedia, and there are even entire templates dedicated to it. And third, if you don't want your contributions being changed in later revisions, then don't edit a wiki. That's sort of the essence of the project. --Digital Watches! 15:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not telling you not to edit it. I'm just saying don't trash the page. It has a lot of good info in it. Besides, good wikipedia manners would require you to state what you dissapprove of on this talk page before taking things into your own hands and deleting others hard work. Its not just yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.114.111.187 (talk • contribs)

Here, take a look at the Featured Article review currently going on now, and you tell me what should happen to the tons of unjustified fair use images, and extranneous gameplay text that belongs in their respective game articles and not here. For example, here is a recently featured fictional character Palpatine. That is what this article needs to look like to stay featured. I am not trying to undo your hardwork, but the article may lose its star to save it. Judgesurreal777 04:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoever has been changing this page has definitely changed it for the worst. It REALLY sucks now. I could write a better one in 5 minutes.

What about WP:Bold? I've never heard of a need to discuss everything in the talk page before making an edit. -- Digital Watches! 15:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't talk about Link without mentiong the games that he's been in. How is it unjustified? And, please, be specific so we can be on the same page.

Look at the sword & sheilds section. That article is ridiculously long and does need to be trimmed. It only needs most of the first paragraph and the picture of various swords and shields, not all of the additional, excess stuff. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.114.111.187 (talk • contribs)

Your right you must mention the games, but that's the point, the layout should be this:

• Appearances in games
• Characteristics
• Concept and creation

The appearances in games must be concise, but in the old version there are huge paragraphs about his weapons, clothes, all of which belongs in the article, listed in the Featured Article Review that relates to Links weapons and items. That is a start, and you'll hear the FAR reviewers echo that.

Also, there needs to be fewer images, since those multi-game image collages are problematic for multiple reasons. Also many of them are duplicative or have unclear usage in the article, which is why I reduced it down to the lead image, a shot of Link from the original Zelda, and him from Windwaker and its unique art style.

Finally, there needs to be a lot of sourced information added, like who created Link, and why was he named Link, and all the real world information the article needs but doesn't currently have.

There may be other stuff, but those are the main points. Judgesurreal777 04:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Here, click on this and read it, these are the reasons, but many people other than me, why this article is being redone. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Link (The Legend of Zelda series) Judgesurreal777 04:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I agree to a point. Look at the sword & sheild section, which I am trying to use as an example. I condensed it down to the more essential info. And, there was a point made about the pictures being collage's. I don't know if the swords picture is, but if it can't be sourced, then how about replacing it with a picture of one Master Sword form a particular game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.114.111.187 (talk • contribs)

But that section doesn't even belong in this article, it belongs in the weapons and items article. It needs a one Sentence mention, not a section here, it's not the place for it. Judgesurreal777 04:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The mention of his weapons are definatley deserving of a section. Not in the elongated form it has now, but breif mentions of his Master Sword, secondary weapons, and magic. You could put all of that into one fairly short paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.114.111.187 (talk • contribs)

I'm going to have to agree with Judge on this one, anon editor. Obviously, the need for a major overhaul of the article is not only held by one person and obviously, Judge has been working very hard to keep this article featured. He has cited the current existing featured article review, a process which has the possibility of delisting current featured articles, as his reason for the major edits. On Wikipedia, all older revisions are stored in the page history so if any absolutely vital information is deleted, there is always a record of it in the history where it can be retrieved and rewritten into the article if necessary. Judge's sweeping edits are based on his own (and others') initiative and desire to improve the article and part of the reason he feels so strongly is because all of his edits were casually reverted by an anonymous editor with less than 30 edits to his credit. As it stands, most of the "pre-Judge" version of the article is not vital to the understanding of the topic and also violates the Manual of Style regarding fiction, specifically focusing too much on the in-universe aspect. Much of it already has perfectly suitable destination articles for the excess information (such as the individual game articles, the weapons and items article, the animals article, etc.) which would make the article much more readable because of the shorter length. In a nutshell, the Judge is trying to make the article better and reverting two days of hard work isn't going to help it in any way. Axem Titanium 04:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• 67.114, please do not disrupt the editing to this page - it is being edited based on comments on a FARC, and this is delaying the work effort. Please stop; if you wish to voice your opinions, please do so on the FARC page (you can click the link at the top). — Deckiller 05:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I was also wondering why the article had been completely changed, seemingly for the worse. my comments in the FA review pertained to this version rather than the old. i understand why fair use images were removed, but there was a lot of good info there which just needed sourcing, and the layout was better too.

i tried to edit the current video game section, but realised i was deleting pretty much the whole thing as its all about the storyline. theres less about his character now than there was before. i cant edit it at the moment because i dont know what you're trying to do to it... but we'll see how it is after this major edit anyway. -- jeffthejiff 09:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should note at which version your comments were directed to on the FA review page, as well, to avoid confusion for people there. I agree with Jeff, the state it's in right now is much worse. I think there's not enough bold text and headings in it's current state. {{inuse}} has been on for a number of hours without any edits so I'm removing it. Feel free to put it back in when you're editing. - Zero1328 _Talk? 12:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

New edits

I don't like it, but fine. I'll concede the argument. But, I won't, however stop editing and let changes be made that I disagree with. Therefore, I removed the part in the intro where it said 'Link had a close but un-romantic relationship to Princess Zelda' and changed it to 'Link had a close relationship with Princess Zelda'. I did so because you can't say what their relationship is. It is never explicitivley stated, so anything else wouls merely be opinion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.114.111.187 (talk)

This seems like as good a spot as any to note changes while we're whipping this article back into FA shape, so: I've put the "a peculiarity of the character" paragraph back in the intro with some alterations. We need a cite for Miyamoto confirming the many Links of the series, but I think it's pretty important to esablish that there are several from the start.

Also, I think the games section did better with sections. Right now it's a big old block of text. I also think that the section might be better off titled "Incarnations within the games" or something along those lines to help prevent the "storycruft" from previous versions. --Sparky Lurkdragon 13:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Starting to look better with the headings. But, SSB, SSBM and the CD-i games aren't "2002-present". Perhaps a separate heading for non-series games? We still need big cuts/paraphrasing to the video games section, too. Too much game plot. Sraan 05:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Sorry, Judge, I sound like a nag. I will help when I have a little more time. Sraan 05:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries. This article needs a lot of help, so continuing updates on how it looks are very helpful. Judgesurreal777 05:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's starting to shape up now. Nice work! Sraan 17:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want to edit this in prior to approval: Regarding the Character Creation entry, it mentions the series' actual chronological order is currently unknown. This interview seems to shed some light on the issue, straight from Miyamoto himself: Miyamoto Shrine, Interview (10-19-98). Is there need for some sort of validation before placing this in the article? 18:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, go ahead and add it :) Judgesurreal777 19:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it'd be best if someone else did it -- I don't wanna screw up the wording... :P 67.123.110.70 06:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The new article looks fine, but the image at the right looks pixellated. Someone needs to fix that.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Link (The Legend of Zelda) — Mets501  (talk)  18:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Article move discussion

A Man In Black has recently moved the article to its current name from Link (The Legend of Zelda series) citing an unnecessarily long name. However, I remember some previous discussion about this topic and a group of editors agreed that "The Legend of Zelda series" would be a better description (presumably because it would disambiguate it from just referring to The Legend of Zelda, the game, since Link has appeared in more than one game with that title). I'm just asking around for other people's opinions on this. Keep in mind that if the current title, "Link (Legend of Zelda)" is kept, over a hundred redirects would need to be fixed. Axem Titanium 01:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend we move it back soon and then have a discussion about renaming it. Everthing else in the whole Wikipedia Zelda world is titled "Yadda Yadda" in The Legend of Zelda series. Though I think that capitalizing the "The" is an error (it would be "Yadda in the Legend of Zelda series", just like it would be "Yadda in the Mario series", wouldn't it?). Not that we should go changing all of them now. Sraan 05:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The capitalized "The" referes the the series title: The Legend of Zelda, not the Legend of Zelda. It should stay. Jaxad0127 18:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Series" makes it way too long. I would be just fine with Link (The Legend of Zelda). Specifying "character" of "series" to me has largely been abandoned - see The Matrix; we have Trinity (The Matrix) instead of Matrix character or The Matrix series. Hbdragon88 08:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Not true. The only essential thing we need to fix are the double redirects, and there are only about 15 of them. Hbdragon88 08:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that shortening the title would be a good idea. I just think we should have had this discussion before someone up and moved it. Sraan 17:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

So we agree on Link (The Legend of Zelda)? Axem Titanium 20:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yah, sure. Sraan 02:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Should we do that with all of the articles? Jaxad0127 03:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, certainly if there are any other articles using parentheses. Otherwise I would probably leave "series" on. Looking again to the Matrix sites, they have "List of ships in the Matrix series". Sraan 13:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've put it up for requested moves. Most Zelda articles have the "series" bit but don't have paranthetical titles so they do not need to be changed. Axem Titanium 18:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with Link (Nintendo character)?

I took a quick tour of other video game characters' titles. There's Kirby (Nintendo), Sonic the Hedgehog (character) (I think to differentiate if from the sonic hedgehog gene - a real gene named after Sonic), Master Chief (Halo), Mario (he's big shot enough to get the main title, also Luigi), Pico (F-Zero series), Guile (Street Fighter), [[Marle (Chrono Trigger)]. Most of them seem to name the game involved, and not say "series", but there is plenty of variability. Sraan 01:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Since Link is in many games outside LOZ, we should just say Nintendo for him (and similar characters (like Zelda, possibly)). Jaxad0127 04:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with the move in this case. "Legend of Zelda" is fine. Sir Crazyswordsman 16:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, the move is good. Renmiri 14:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Age of Link

Doesn't Link go between 13 and 20 in the Ocarina of Time? I mention this because the intro says he is protrayed between 7 and 18, which doesn't fit the upper bound. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.98.160.165 (talk • contribs) .

His exact ages are unknown, but that range is where most of the speculation is. Jaxad0127 16:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

He is generally thought to be 10 and 17.

Uh, says who? Is this official canon for every game? When is he 10? When is he 17? Has this been stated by an official source? -- Digital Watches! 23:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What is stated in the lead links to a reference where the creature, Shigeru Miyamoto, says he is 7-8 in Ocarina of Time. the uppward bound I did not mention I don't think...Judgesurreal777 00:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The link regarding Link's age is closer to 7-12 is from August 1998! That's before MM, WW, TP, FSA, TMC, and PH. That's 6 games for the average age to change drastically. Scepia 03:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Common sense should tell you that he is probably 10 and 17. Its the most popular theory and anyone younger would be not realistic. This is Zelda, not Pokemon... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.32.212 (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Link's age is never specified; this is all original research. See WP:OR. Haipa Doragon (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the name

The character we call link is named by the player in every game. This article does not discuss where the name link came from, or how it became the common reference to the character. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs) .

You get to name your saved game files, but those names are never used in the games themselves, at least not the early ones. I've read somewhere that Miyamoto chose the name Link because the character was the player's link to the game world. Not sure if this is true or just fan speculation, though. I do think that any official information on this should be added if it exists. — BrianSmithson 22:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So "Rinku" is Japanese for "Link" (as in "connection: something that ties, connects, or relates two or more things")? RobertM525 08:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Japanese use English words for names alot. So this IS possible. - FWesley

that's how Link is written in romaji. 67.164.35.55 06:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I hear "link" means "left" in German and the name might have been decided because Link is left-handed, but I don't know whether this is the reason of his name.--203.110.125.215 15:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Try creating a new save game in OoT and, without inputting any text when it prompts you for a name, continue. The file will be named Link. I believe this works in other games, too.

Actually, I just recently played through Ocarina of Time, and it does use your 'save game name' in the game various times. The earliest I believe is by Saria in the Kokiri forest. I do not see how anyone could miss this as the character name is said by many npcs throughout the game. Furthermore, there is a goron in Majoras Mask as well as Ocarina of Time named your own character name, in Majoras Mask being a goron who stays at the inn, and in Ocarina of Time, the son of Darunia.Ringwall 03:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

...They're saying that Link is the default name, not that it is the only name.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No Dialouge?

I think I distinctly remember Link in my pirated OOA. Early in the game, when asked to push a really big rock aside, Link says something like "I can't do it" or something. Of course I sold the game for LTTP because the damned thing wouldn't actually remember its own save files after five seconds, so I cant confirm... -Purple Pikmin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Purple Pikmin (talk • contribs) .

I just replayed that part, it's actually Impa who says that. Axem Titanium 23:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I remember him saying something in OOT, when he says to Zelda something like "Did he see you?" Around before you go to death mountain.

That was Zelda. --Sparky Lurkdragon 00:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Article name

This article does not have the correct name! The article is about Link in every game in the series, not his role in The Legend of Zelda (the first game). Does it really matter how long it is? Scepia 22:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Um...wow. The series is also collectively referred to "Legend of Zelda" too, just so you know.

...wow.—ウルタプ 22:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The page right now is Link (The Legend of Zelda) not Link (Legend of Zelda). It doesn't matter if people just think it's fine this way, it's incorrect. It's either Legend of Zelda or The Legend of Zelda series. You can't just make an arbitrary name and keep it because it was there. Scepia 03:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ambidexrous

In The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (Wii version only) he is right handed!!!!! Frankyboy5 02:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Great. The article already knows. Axem Titanium 02:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And if you go off the almighty "flip the sprite when it faces left" rule, he's right-handed in Zelda II as well. Now I see why people said it wasn't a true Zelda game ^__^ --ReloadPsi 14:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Wooohooo, we did it!!!!

The article is still FA. Weeeeee! Renmiri 03:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Split

• I suggest that we split the article into Link, Hero of Time, Link, Hero of Winds, and after Twilight Princess comes out, Link, Hero of Twilight. Bly1993 11:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

…Why? You gave no reason.—ウルタプ 13:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Different characters. They have enough backstory to splitBly1993 20:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Except not really. A split for that would imply that we should have splits for every game he's been in, or at least every one that has a significantly different Link. Axem Titanium 22:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I also object; the Links, while technically being several different people, are closely related enough that one article can cover them all quite nicely, especially if we keep complete story summaries out of Link's article - those are better suited for the individual games' articles. Pikachu do just fine with one article, as do the several Princess Zeldas and their alter egos. --Sparky Lurkdragon 02:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

And we just renewed our FA status, so I wouldn't mess with what's working. Besides that lots of Links in the series are heroes of None of the Above. Sraan 03:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I mean the major ones with alot of backstory. Even though connected, they are totally different characters. Bly1993 23:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

All the Links are major in some way or another; they wouldn't be a Link otherwise.

Like I said, all the Zeldas are completely different but related characters - heck, one is a pirate and one's a ninja, but we don't have a seperate article for Tetra/Wind Waker Zelda or one for Sheik/Ocarina Zelda. All the Pikachu are unique characters as well; you have the Pikachu from Hey You Pikachu!, Ash's Pikachu from the anime, Red's Pikachu from Pokémon Yellow, assorted random wild Pikachu, and so forth, but for obvious reasons they're all lumped together at the Pikachu article.

The Links are in a similar situation. The ones who do have backstories really don't have much more of one besides what's currently described in the article; much else and you get into the overall plot of the games rather than what's directly related to that particular Link himself. A split would get you several articles at lengths not much more than two paragraphs apiece, plus you'd have to duplicate all the stuff about common attributes among the Links to each article. --Sparky Lurkdragon 02:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

2D ---> 3D

"The character's first appearance took place in the 1986 video game The Legend of Zelda, where it was portrayed by a two-dimensional sprite; in later releases Link's appearance has been conveyed by a computer-generated image (CGI)."

Wait, in Zelda II and ALttP, not to mention MC, FSA, OoS, and OoA, wasn't Link protrayed by a 2D sprite? And aren't all Links made by CGI? It's not link The Legend of Zelda was drawn on paper. Scepia 19:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Left-Handed/Right-Handed

The article states that link is left-handed except in the Wii version of Twillight Princess, which is true EXCEPT for a graphical glitch in the game A Link to the Past, in which he appeared right-handed when facing right. Should that be mentioned?

KLink-NiN10col/Neotendo123 00:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the thing about Link being right handed in the Wii version should be mentioned either since it's so trivial, just like the memory saving technique that they used in ALttP so he would be right-handed when facing a certain direction (they flip the sprite to save space on the cartridge). I think that stuff should just be moved to the individual game articles. Axem Titanium 15:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I'll edit the other articles if it's not already there, but leave the fact in here. Why not. -KLink/NiN10col/Neotendo123 02:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking for a source for the old in-universe explanation for the sprite flipping, in that Link always keeps his shield towards death mountain and as such swaps hands when facing east. I -think- it was stated in the old Link to the Past players guide, but as I no longer have access to it, can't check. Could someone look for me, if you have it? Fieari 03:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Though I do not have it in my possession, I do recall reading that in the same guide. I'm near positive that you are correct in the origin of this explanation. Justin The Claw 12:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not that trivial, really. If you've ever tried to make a game, it's easier to make a sprite facing one way (for instance, left), then simply mirror it. So, if Link was holding his sword in his left hand, and your mirror it, he's suddenly holding it in his right. Hope that helps clear up some of the confusion. Kuro Yoake 02:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

the first line of the article

The first sentence in the article states that Link is a flaming homosexual. Why hasn't anyone else addressed this? Where is it written or said that Link is homosexual? Not that I have anything against homosexuals, but the individuals responsible for this article should remove such a remark considering it has no basis for being stated.

signed, Aaron Ni. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.184.116.55 (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

It was vandalism by a blocked user. You can fix it yourself by clicking the "edit this page" tab at the top, although it seems to be already done. Axem Titanium 00:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I just had to delete a line of vandalism where someone had added...

== Headline text == LINK IS AWSOME..<ref name="staff">{{cite web | url=http://www.miyamotoshrine.com/theman/interviews/0898.shtml | title=Miyamoto Interview| date=[[1998-08-01]] | publisher=Nintendo Power | author=Nintendo Power Editorial Staff| accessdate=2006-09-23}}</ref>

...in the middle of the Actor portrayal section. Seriously people... Is nothing sacred anymore?

Thanks for your help. Keep up the good work. Unfortunately, there are a lot of lost souls get some sort of sick pleasure from vandalizing Wikipedia. It's the same with telemarketers and people who send spam messages by e-mail. Axem Titanium 20:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Dog or not?

The wikiproject dogs banner was removed because (rv not a dog?) I belive the person who put it there meant his werewolf form. Should that be placed here or on the TP page? -KLink/NiN10col/Neotendo123 16:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It was removed because his wolf form is so tangentially related to his character that it amounts to nothing at all. Axem Titanium 22:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad footnote in cameo section

The footnote after this text:

Also, some of Link's weapons and items have shown up in different games, such as the Master Sword appearing in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance and Animal Crossing. He is also parodied in World of Warcraft as a gnome named Linken.

is highly unuseful, as it ONLY references Link's appearance in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. No mention of his appearance in WoW or Animal Crossing is mentioned here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Todfox (talk • contribs) 22:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Video game appearances

Wouldn't it make things simpler if this section was divided into the titles themselves rather than the vague time periods in which each one was released? What is it that distinguishes each of these time periods from each other anyway? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A gx7 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

It appears to be organized by system. The first section is for NES and SNES (with a little of the Original Game Boy too). The second is for N64 and Game Boy Color. The third is Gamecube and the rest. Axem Titanium 05:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparent Irrelevance

Could someone please explain how this is irrelevant? Not only is it verifiable, it also aids users with a proper context about this section. Jhamez84 15:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

please check out this. thanks! Scepia 21:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That only refers to 2D sprites and mirroring. Of course people are going to use the wiimote in their right hand so it makes perfect sense to state this.Ringwall 03:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

page name

what the page name should be is not Link (character) or Link (The Legend of Zelda), but Link (The Legend of Zelda series). with the current name, people may be lead to believe that the page is only about the first game in the series, The Legend of Zelda. in fact, this page encompasses all of Link's appearances, in every game in the SERIES. Scepia 21:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Reading the first sentence will tell any reader that this is about a character in a series, not a single game. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 08:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it was already discussed earlier (maybe on the Princess Zelda page) that (The Legend of Zelda series) is too long a name to type out. The way that it is now works perfectly, and the article's pretty clear in telling you that this is all the Links in the series, not just one. Kuro Yoake 11:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

the page name needs to speak for itself. example: if I sent you a link to railroad, you would expect that the page is about railroads, not frilly pink lampshades. do you see the point? I don't care how long it is... the only name is The Legend of Zelda series. Scepia 05:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Most people looking for this character will almost always just type Link, and even the disambiguation page says the name refers to the character in the series. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 09:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

so... why should the pagename be inaccurate? it really doesn't matter how long it is. we are an encyclopedia, not a lazy fansite. Scepia 03:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

While I think it's fantastic that this featured article has been moved four times without consensus, please do try to fix the many many double redirects that pop up after moving the article. Thanks. --- RockMFR 20:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

We need to get a consensus first, although obviously the correct name has series on it *cough cough*. I'm telling everyone, he did not appear just in the first game, he appeared in every game in the series! Should the pagename be Link (Ocarina of Time), simply because he appeared in that game? Scepia 22:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Twilight Princess Age is 16? That can't be right.

We need a reference for that; seeing as how the common belief for OoT is 10 and 17 years old (I SWEAR it said something like that in the Instruction Booklet for OoT), this Twilight Princess Link seems much older. Because we have no proof, I'm going to remove the age. If you can get the proof, put it back in. Kuro Yoake 19:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

He barely looks older at all if you ask me. Hell, aside from the different hairstyle (TP Link's is parted more to the side), they seem almost identical in age and height. I'm not insisting to put the 16 back, but it's safe to assume that he's at least that old. And as for OOT Link being ten to seventeen, it was actually stated in an official strategy guide that Link, at the beginning of OOT, was ten years old.

THAT's where it was! I knew it had been stated somewhere. But does an official strategy guide even count for a source? Is it canon? Kuro Yoake^{Speak to me!!} 02:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine not, simply because the folks at Nintendo Power aren't the Zelda creators. The Japanese official TP guide would be more canon I would think. We can pretty much be sure that the enemy names, etc. are correct, but considering NOA's mis-translation "Gannon", they aren't the best source always. Scepia 22:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

True but that was 20 years ago so I don't think that should discount anything NOA says now. Translations have improved greatly since that time. There was also evidence that Gannon was a typo. --67.68.153.6 04:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it wasn't NoA that misspelled Ganon. It was NoJ. The intro screen was in English even in the Japanese version, and the items were subtitled in Japanese. NoA did the manual, where it DID say Ganon properly. In addition, the Japanese version of Zelda II included "Gannon", but NoA noticed that time and corrected it (as well as 'un-Engrish-ifying' the intro text). The last time it was ever Gannon was in Zelda's Adventure, but Nintendo as a whole didn't have a part in it other than licensing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.101.143.63 (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Where is it said that his name is actually Link?

Not that I'm argueing the point, we all know it is, but in all of the Zelda games I've played you have the option of setting the character's name to whatever you want. Is it just stated in the manuals? Because I don't think he's ever referred to directly as Link in any of the games. So where is it ever pinned down that his name is Link? --SeizureDog 14:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In all of the games, the default name is "Link," but that wouldn't be a very good source, would it? In the Twilight Princess manual, however (which I have right in front of me), it says this:

"Among the villagers is a boy known as the most skillful rider in all the land. A boy who, it is expected, will one day take over the responsibility of leading Ordon as the village chief. His name is Link..." Throughout the rest of the manual, though, it refers to the character as "you", but it does call him Link, so there ya go. Kuro Yoake^{Speak to me!!} 15:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Checking your theory: Legend of Zelda, Ocarina of Time, and Oracle of Ages (the three Zeldas I own) have no default names whatsoever. The name entry starts off blank and you have you type it in from there. In any case, his name had obviously been set by Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, but is his name anywhere for the first Zelda?--SeizureDog 23:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Leave the game running at the title screen and it gives you an intro narrative. His name is in there, telling you that it's "up to you, Link, to save her". --ReloadPsi 13:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It actually says: Go find the "8" units "Link" to save her. btw. I never knew there was an intro, but it sure is especially poorly translated. Many years ago Prince Darkness "Ganon" stole one of the triforce with power. Ugh. --SeizureDog 00:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

He's referred to as Link in the Super Smash Bros. series, too. While it's not technically Zelda canon, the series is closely supervised by Nintendo and generally gets things right about backstories and such. --Sparky Lurkdragon 19:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There's also the fact that in all of the instruction manuals (i know a lot of you don't read them), he is refered to as "Link" in the short narrative explaining why the game is taking place. As far back as Zelda 1 and all the way up to Twilight Princess, the instuction booklets, players guides, and even other official Nintendo sources, including Shigeru Miyamoto (the guy who MADE the series) call him Link. Nintendo Power has been running an article called "Inside Zelda" (now defunct) since TP was announced; in all cases, Link is refered to by that name. Miyamoto has stated he picked the name to emphasize the connection the protagonist makes between the player and the game, rather than being a totally defined character.

German for left?

Aside from the pun on his name in "A Link to the Past", I've never seen anything stating what the heck "Link" is actually supposed to mean. I've drawn my own conlusion that, since he's a leftie, it's taken from the German for "left"; "link" is its most basic adjectival form in that language, as opposed to "Links" which means the direction in its noun form. Oh yeah, if "adjectival" isn't actually a word, would someone please alter that in the article? There's also that point further up this discussion page about his Link between the world and the player, but that seems a bit weird: Aren't all video game player characters exactly that? --ReloadPsi 13:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are, but I seem to recall that being the reason series creator Shigeru Miyamoto gave for the name. Unfortunately, I don't have the interview on me. That's the only real-world explanation we have that I know of. There is no in-universe explanation for it, and while the German coincidence is interesting, to me it really seems to be just that; a coincidence. Unless someone who helped develop the original Legend of Zelda speaks German, I guess.

Does anybody have the interview I remember? If someone can find the source, that would really help the article. --Sparky Lurkdragon 18:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the interview on me, I've got a link somewhere, but I know that the entire series was started based on Mr. Miyamoto's wanderings in the woods nearby his house. He used to dream up adventures, and I think he called himself Link. Kuro Yoake^{Speak to me!!} 20:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I always assumed it was because there are multiple "Links" and they're all links to the Hero of Time. This just might be my wishful thinking, but it sure does make sense to me. DevinOfGreatness 04:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll find said interview with Miyamoto, but I know that the reason is that the character is the link between the player and the game. That's the explanation. The German (and Dutch) thing is a coincidence. JackSparrow Ninja 06:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interview with Bill Trinen, Nintendo's top localization manager (interview is for Twilight Princess). "Part of what the development team has always felt is that Link the character is the link between the player and the game, as such..." Then he goes on about different things but you get the idea.Unknownlight 16:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Link is NOT ambidextrous! Please stop saying he is!

Just so no one is confused any farther: Link is not ambidextrous. He's always been left handed. Even in Twilight Princess, he's left handed. They made an exception with the Wii because of the sword swinging, and even then, they just mirrored the whole friggin' game, so he's STILL left handed, it just doesn't look that way. So please, PLEASE, stop listing in ANY article that Link is ambidextrous. Kuro Yoake^{Speak to me!!} 17:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude... chill...Justin The Claw 15:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

They did what? Are you saying they really reversed the entire game left to right for the Wii? That is insane and also disappointing for several reasons. It would be slightly more sensical for the Gerudos to be in the West, based on Ocarina of Time, for instance. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

They did indeed flip the game map over at the eleventh hour of the Wii version's development. There's a spoiler-free section on it in the Twilight Princess article. --Sparky Lurkdragon 00:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been changing anything... But I think he's technically ambidextrous. For example, look at the artwork for the original Zelda. In half of them, he's right-handed, in some he's left-handed. Then there's the sprite mirroring. Laziness or not, it's there, it's part of the game, and it shouldn't be ignored... Same with the Wii version of Twilight Princess.

Link is officially depicted as being left-handed. They made the exception for the Wii version because at E3 Nintendo realized that, though Link was swinging his sword with his left hand, most gamers, including lefties, were using the "wiimote" with their right. And yes, they completely mirrored the game. Though I'm not positive about which version is the original, but I'm assuming it's the GameCube version. The animated series shows him as right-handed, but that would be considered a non-canon depiction. Illustrations may show him holding the sword in his right hand, but that's also due to image mirroring, probably by graphic designers who don't consider left- or right- handedness of a fictional character to be all that important in a video game manual or strategy guide.Justin The Claw 15:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Twilight Princess was supposed to be a GameCube exclusive long before the news of it getting a Wii version hit. It's obviously the original.--SeizureDog 16:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Good pointJustin The Claw 05:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Quirks

I think there should be a section on link's quirks. You know, like never sleeping or using the bathroom, breaking other peoples' pottery, and taking so little damage from fatal situations (ex. falling into a pit or lava, being electrocuted, or being on fire). Armogohma 01:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

...but all video game characters do that. You don't see numbers popping up above your head when someone hits you, do you? Axem Titanium 03:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in a lot of games, falling into lava is a game over, barring magical recuperatives like Sonic's rings. And lava and fire seem to be plenty fatal to much greater creatures (King Dodongo or Deku Scrubs, for instance). The comparison is made within the games, so it should be acceptable to mention.KrytenKoro 01:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Skills

Okay, who transcribed that ridiculous section concerning Link's skills? I mean, this has a close resemblance to RealUltimatePower, or to Chuch Norris-esque lines of exchange. Can we please modify this passage to be a bit less childish? -EarthRise33 23:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. -EarthRise33 18:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency in Chronology

Concept and Creation: Character Creation: "Miyamoto has stated that Ocarina of Time is the first story, followed by Majora's Mask, then the original Legend of Zelda, then Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, and finally A Link to the Past, with Link's Awakening falling sometime after Ocarina of Time."

Appearances: Video Games: 1986-1996: "In The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, centuries before the events of The Legend of Zelda..."

Just thought I'd bring this to your attention. 71.195.76.153 20:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Movie Link

Apparently there's a live-action movie of Legend of Zelda coming out this autumn. Still don't know who the director is or when the exact date is. It might just be a fan project but just in case it isn't could someone find out who's playing Link.

~~Anon~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.241.27 (talk • contribs).

Ah yes, looks like a fan project.

Anon

news

heres some news, Link is for the most time NOT the same person in the games. he is more of a reincarnation of himself again and again and again. zelda appears just as her own decendants/ancestors. Ganon is the only of the three main characters that is the same person in the whole series. however the point is that this article dont seem to mention it any where, neither Zeldas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.200.164.254 (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2007

Mind giving a source? JackSparrow Ninja 22:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

In game dialouge, maybe, and the clear differences in appearence kinda prove the different Links and Zeldas. The closest thing to a different Ganon was either in FSA and(maybe) TP.

Actually, more often than not, a Link has been in more than one game. Ocarina-Majora, Legend Of Zelda-Adventure of Link, A Link To The Past-Link's Awakening, Windwaker-Phantom Hourglass, and Oracle of Ages-Oracle of Seasons (that one's arguable, admittedly). The only games with unique Links are Four Swords, Four Swords Adventures, and Minish Cap, and those all involve the Four Sword. I don't count Twilight Princess for either group simply because there hasn't been enough time to make (or not make) a sequel to it. Sir Pudding Sir Pudding 03:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hero of Twilight

I just KNOW heard it in Twilight Princess somewhere....it sounds so familiar....could someone tell me when he was dubbed the Hero of Twilight? I can't seem to remember what scene it was right now.... --Superbub 01:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, now someone says he's the Hero of Light....which is it people? I'm way to confused now.--Superbub 01:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

now, all of it's gone except for hero of time. Ladies and gents, we now have an edit war>_>--Superbub 00:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Midna says that the Twili's hero is said to appear in the form of a beast. A wolf is often considered a beast. Link is chosen by the gods and transforms into a wolf. So I supose the answer would be YES. He could be considerd "Hero of Twilight". Though I don't remember if that's what it's called... 18:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if we connect a bunch of dots, we can suppose he could be called that. But that's not the same thing as it being true or appropriate for this article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, now I know...thanks for the verification^_^--Superbub 02:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Link is the Chosen Hero in TP. It says that throughout the entire game.Unknownlight 16:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Smash Bro or Twighlight Princess

I don't want to have an edit war, so I am wondering...Is the heading pic for the Link (The Legend of Zelda) article a pic from Super Smash Bros Brawl, or The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess? §†SupaSoldier†§ 16:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's smash bros. someone has already changed it....--Superbub 01:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Too many images!

The number of images this article uses has more than tripled from 8 (when it was featured) to 25. This is unacceptable people; we have to trim this down.--SeizureDog 17:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I will take some of them and put them in a image gallery within 3 days if nobody oposses.-Dark Dragon Flame 05:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Galleries tend to push the claims of fair use. It'd be better to just lower the number.--SeizureDog 07:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I was considering adding the artwork there, then delete some of the screenshots and moving other ones so they don't look cropped. -Dark Dragon Flame 23:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted some pictures, moved some and moved character artwork in a new gallery, but I think some images still need to be cutted down. -Dark Dragon Flame 03:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The gallery has to go for obvious reasons: how can we justify the claim to fair use. I say keep the number of images under 10 and no more than one image per game in the franchise. Phils 16:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

SSBB image

Please replace the SSBB image with the Twilight Princess image. TP is current enough and a good enough depiction of Link that he shouldn't be replaced with a depiction of him outside of the main Zelda universe. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A valid point. The main image should be in-universe. I have changed it to reflect. Brawl image still in article, just moved down.--SeizureDog 06:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a note- As a hardcore Legend of Zelda fan, I actually believe, as a title picture, the image from Super Smash Brothers Brawl does Link better justice. Besides, it fits better with the image used for the Princess Zelda Article. Please keep in mind that his Brawl appearance IS essentially his Twilight Princess form. -- (visitor)

^You may be forgetting that the picture in the Princess Zelda article is a piece from the actual game's(3D) art.

No, I'm not- but I believe you're forgetting that the only reason someone would want to look up an article on wikipedia is because they don't know much about the character in question- I really doubt the reader is going to care about the nuances between the pictures; They're going to see the Zelda article, then see the Link article and think "hm, that's funny- why isn't it in 3d?" If the Twilight Princess Legitimacy is in question, which it shouldn't be, you should keep in mind that Brawl's Link is pretty much taken directly out of Twilight Princess. Therefore, there isn't really a difference between Brawl's Link and TP's Link- it's only a question of aesthetics. Obviously, the 3D Link looks MUCH better than the Artwork. I'm sorry: don't want to make a big deal about this, but it just seems too obvious not to think about. -That same guest

No, that artwork is disgusting, get a better image from the Zelda universe, original Link is fine, but TP Link with that stance and coloring is bad. Besides, Link is portrayed as a child in most games so either get something we can all agree on or just go Ganondorf route with this (check Ganondorf wiki to see). (Forgot to sign in, I did the edit on the article as well) --ChibiMrBubbles 22:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this what you directed me to the talk page for? You don't like the image and therefore it's off limits in the article? I thought for a moment there was some kind of consensus to remove the current image from the page, but it appears it's just you pushing your edits again, like in Ganon and Fahrenheit (video game). Anyway, I liked that other image, but since you decided not to bother to stop its imminent deletion, we'll settle on the current one.--Atlan (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Lookie here, you can't read dates. I don't know what Ganondorf and Fahrenheit have to do with this situation but congrats on irrelevancy. Regardless, we could have a vote like Ganon's page over the picture not 'settle' for what you think. --ChibiMrBubbles 23:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't settle on any image. I merely reverted the image back, because the other one was about to be deleted. It has nothing to do with my personal preference for one image or the other. The current one is fine by me as well. No need for a vote as far as I'm concerned.--Atlan (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Dark Link text

Under the "Characteristics" title, there's a paragraph about fan speculation over the origin of Dark Link. It's interesting, but without a citation, I don't think it should be in the article. In the meantime, I'll get a citation-needed tag. Sir Pudding 03:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a source, you may want to move the information to a "Dark Link" section. It seems out of place in the "Characteristics" of Link section. Bucky 19:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think I'll just remove it now. Now that I look at it, it looks even more like speculation. Sir Pudding 02:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference not working

reference 41 no longer works —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.109.211.204 (talk • contribs).

Yeah your right. But I think the problem is that the actual website isn't working 'cause I don't see anything wrong with the link. Maybe I'm wrong though... Unknownlight 16:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering...

it says in the artical that in the wii version all the maps were fliped while flipping link making him right handed. i understood that link as well as other NPCs, enemys, and skins in general but are the maps really fliped. its just that that is a much larger change than i think nintendo or myamoto (sry cant spell) would do. just wondering if it was or was not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.190.109.11 (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, the maps were indeed mirrored along with all the characters at the eleventh hour of the Wii version's development. The Gamecube version remained unchanged in that respect. --Sparky Lurkdragon 23:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Images - artwork vs screenshots

I'm really confused after looking at the images used in this article. We're using official artwork in places where we should be using screenshots, and vice versa:

• The LOZ artwork is from the manual, right? Why not use Image:Legend of zelda gpscreenshot.png or a crop of that image instead? That's what Link looks like in the game, and how most people would recognize him.
• The official art with the goron mask is pretty useless. Probably should be replaced with an image of Link in goron form or be completely removed.
• Oracle of the Seasons artwork is bad. Again, Link doesn't look like that in the game.
• The Minish Cap artwork is pretty much the same as the Wind Waker artwork, plus a hat. Is it really needed? If we want to show how Link looks in Minish Cap, we should again use a screenshot. The sprite design was very different in that game, so it wouldn't be redundant.
• The Faces of Evil screenshot should be replaced with a screenshot from one of the CGI sequences. This is the place where a non-gameplay image would be really great. --- RockMFR 20:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a Featured Article quality page anymore

Wow it's sad too see what happened to this page since it made FA, at the moment the page is full of Original research, Pov and in some intances weasel words, like it is if this page was underwent a Featured Article Review it will fail badly, I will just tag it but the page needs serious help. -凶 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Think perhaps this article should be reverted to when it passed Featured Article Review, I am unconvinced anything good has happened since that occurred. Judgesurreal777 23:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this page constantly attracts large amounts of original research and cruft. A complete revert is probably too much, but probably large portions need to be reverted. Pagrashtak 00:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am in favor of performing a full revert and subsecuent inclusion of the games that were released afterwards, it's a lot more easy than having to remove all the OR and other cruft present at the moment. -凶 01:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if a full revert doesn't take place, people will do a Featured Review, and defeature this article, which is not fair to those who worked to get it to Featured status to have to choose either letting it lose its status, or take hours and manually pluck out all the junk that has been added. Judgesurreal777 02:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I am pretty damn mad that this article has been degraded like this...who can revert it back to the way it was? That way, we can add the little bit we now know about Link in Twilight princess here, and it will be good again? Judgesurreal777 05:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a old version of Link's page, if no valid arguments are presented within one week I will revert the page. -凶 18:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Go for it! :) Judgesurreal777 18:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'll help cull the improvements from the crap once you do. Axem Titanium 22:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

IT IS DONE! Let's start updating it :) Judgesurreal777 04:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I see Judgesurreal did the revert while I was busy with two GACs, either way that certainly was a fresh start now let's keep it like this, cheers. -凶 01:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This page, along with Captain Falcon, was passed to me for copy edit by the League of Copy Editors. Having a quick read through it, it is clear to me that, in terms of standard of prose alone, this article does not meet the required standards for FA status. I propose that this article be submitted for FA review. Once the review is completed, I will be happy to assist with any copy editing that is required to get it back to FA (or more likely GA) standard. carelesshx _talk 20:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

An image on this page has been listed for speedy deletion due to having no fair use rationale. I am nominating this article for FA review --carelesshx _talk 20:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up

I updated the main picture to the newer model used on the relaunched smash bros site. The newer model is brighter in most places then the older one. Takuthehedgehog 14:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it has been listed for speedy deletion. You need to add a fair use rationale to it if possible --carelesshx _talk 21:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

All the same character?

If some one can awnser this, please do so. How can Twilight princess take place 100 years after Oot and still have Link look like he's 17?!?! My guess is that he's not the same character because, judging by his hero shade lessons, Twilight Princess is his first adventure. Also, the orginal ZELDA game introduced Link to adventure while OoT did the same! Am I the only one who's ever thought about that? If not, please don't be shy. Son of Jadoja 14:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You're not. It's generally accepted that there have been many Links. Wind Waker even mentions past Links. There have been a few times where it's the same link between a few games (The Legend of Zelda and Zelda II: The Adventures of Linkare one example, Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask are another). But for the most part their different.DurinsBane87 20:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, DurinsBane87. It's good to know one of the most poular character in Video game history isn't the oldest! Son of Jadoja 01:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You can name the hero whatever you want in TP though :)--Svetovid 09:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You can Name him whatever you want in all of them, I believe. You could in the first one, and Ocarina, and Wind Waker, and so forth. But he is Link, regardless. The manual refers to him as Link, and as far as the canon story is concerned, his name his Link.DurinsBane87 09:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Svetovid, your starting to get off topic. Son of Jadoja 12:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This is rather pointless in the first place. It's like inquiring how and why it's possible that The Simpsons characters never age.--Svetovid 17:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Simpsons is a cartoon; it's not supposed to make sense! There's a diffrence between simple animation and cartoons; one makes sense and one dosen't. There has to be reasons for stuff like video games. You can't just forget about what makes sense and put random stuff for things like this! Son of Jadoja 02:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is your opinion, but it has nothing to do with the article really.--Svetovid 09:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If it was in the article, I wouldn't ask it in the first place, would I? Son of Jadoja 20:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, link is generally accepted to be rencarnates of the great hero. Like in the Wind Waker, the villagers of Outset Island would dress their boys in green clothes when they would come of age, in hopes that they would be the Hero of Times rencarnate.

Twilight princess is a descendant or reincarnation of the actual Link (Hero of Time) that's all there is to it

How do we know LoZOoT's Link is the original? For sure we understand that Link from one game is not necessarily the Link from another, but we can't assume which Link is the original. The next Zelda game might have the original for all we know. [[User:SxeFluff--SxeFluff (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)]] 00:44, 19 November 2007

Time frames

The section for Wind Waker Link reads: In The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, set hundreds of years after Ocarina of Time ....

The section for Twilight Princess Link reads: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess ... is set approximately 100 years after the events of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask, in an alternate timeline to The Wind Waker.

How do we know that Twilight Princess is set in an alternate timeline? Since TP is just 100 years afterwards, and WW hundreds of years, I can't see where the two would collide and mess things up. Unless one of the creators said so or I'm missing something. :P .--Asaki Su 18:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's now been confirmed by Aonuma that there are two seperate Zelda timelines. While it's incorrect to refer to one as the regular one and the other as "the alternate one" because they're both equally legitimate, there are two timelines.

However, there was an IGN interview in which Myamoto confirmed that Twilight Princess takes place between Wind Waker and Ocarina of Time. Found here: http://media.cube.ign.com/media/572/572738/vids_10.html (The end of video 4 and the beginning of 5 are the ones in which the quote and context is found.) Rather than arguing who's right and who's wrong, I personally think it'd be in the best interest of the fandom as a whole, on this and other matters, to finally admit that there *are* contradictions in the Zelda universe. 76.18.95.22 10:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It probably follows Ganondorf's fate as of OoT; in one he was simply sealed up and the other had him sentenced to execution (which would make more sense!). So, I guees it's up to fans to decide what is and isn't canon. Cool! Son of Jadoja 15:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fictional Sumo Wrestler

Explain this categorization please.XinJeisan 08:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone must believe that the Sumo Wrestling mini-game in TP is legit enough to categorize Link as a sumo wrestler. Sure, it was fun and all, but it was in that game only (and was only playable on two occasions). Hell, Link's to slim to be an aknowledged sumo wrestler anyway.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.62.64.131 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 20 June 2007.

I don't think that that mini-game places him in that category. That is not what he is known for and not his "specialization" at all.--Svetovid 10:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I would just call it "life experience" Its similar to being a mailman in MM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.32.212 (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Info to integrate

Just moved this all from the TWW page, as it should be here instead of there. Thanks!KrytenKoro 04:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Linkfromtlozww.jpg In The Wind Waker, Link is a boy living in a village on an island called Outset Island, who dresses as the Hero of Time of ancient legends (the Link from Ocarina of Time) for his birthday. When his sister Aryll is kidnapped by a large bird, the Helmaroc King, he is forced to come forth and become a hero himself, like his predecessor the Hero of Time, and soon finds much, much more is at stake than just his sister. Early in his adventure Link obtains the "Wind Waker", a conductor's baton which can control the winds, and receives the title of Hero of Winds before his final confrontation with Ganondorf. Gannondorf says at the end of the game he believes that Link is a reincarnation of the Ocarina of Time Link.

There is a far bigger emphasis on Link's facial expressions in this game than in previous titles.

Link being a heavy sleeper

I added Link's notable comical portrayance as a heavy sleeper to his personality and traits.

Ok, we need to update the article

At one point, the article states that Miyamoto said that OoT is the first game in the series, but we need to change that now, that information is way too old now, especially with all of the games out NOW. Chao9999 14:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Current setup

If it's going to be organized by real-world dates, shouldn't it be talking about real world events? It just doesn't make sense to me - the games are put together here by release chronology, which is a connction they share only in the real world, not in-universe.

If we toned down the plot summary, and added stuff about how the artist's decided to develop the design between games (like in TWW, where they decided to make it more artistic and allow greater range of facial emotion).

I don't know - maybe this is normal for fiction articles, and there's some brilliant reason for it I can't fathom. But right now it just doesn't make sense.KrytenKoro 05:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that sort of information is out there. It would be wonderful if we could get atists' rationale or perspective and reference it but that information isn't out there despite some minor references in interviews. Also KrytenKoro, if you want to represent a dash use: –. What you're currently using is a hyphen which is totally different. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

fictional whatever's

Since when is Link a knight?. I certainly have never seen him portrayed as one. And secondly, hylians are not elves. DurinsBane87 09:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Does Link's name change?

I just started playing TP and I noticed that when I finally returned to human form and first received the green tunic, the spirit thingy referred to the Hero of Hyrule as "Link"... Now since ALttP when you first have the option to name your file, I have always named the character "Link," due to the fact that the game uses your file name as the default name for the Hero. I am curious if TP automatically renames your character "Link" after he is declared the Hero of Hyrule or if it retains the original name you gave the game file. Can anyone answer for me? Justin The Claw 13:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Noo, that would be silly, Links name remains whatever you name your file in every game.

Yah, like if I name him "Bob", he would be called "Bob" instead of Link. 68.5.28.194 20:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hai guys, which image do we want to use for Link? Vote

Brawl image or Phantom Hourglass. --ChibiMrBubbles 16:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated before, I'm somewhat indifferent to the matter. As it is, the Phantom Hourglass image is the most recent rendition of Link (whereas the Brawl image is just Twilight Princess Link). From that point of view, I would choose the PH picture. On the other hand, it could be argued that PH just uses Wind Waker Link, which of course pre-dates the TP rendition. I'm not so much concerned about the canonity of SSBB, like Takuthehedgehog, because like I said, it's just Twilight Princess Link in that game (which is part of the Zelda canon).

So basically, I don't really prefer one over the other. These are just the facts so everyone can make up their mind with those in consideration.--Atlan (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize Atlan, but most would had insisted between Phantom Hourglass (as it is the newest form of Link) or Brawl (also new form). As I said, I have no qualms over the TWW design art, but I do like the Brawl one. --ChibiMrBubbles 18:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think its obvious you like the Brawl version :) Anyway, editors do believe that the character image should be from the main franchise in which the character originated from, maybe we and other editors should now decide if that should be the case before moving on to use the TP or PH design. Whether or not its necessary, I do believe some clarity (at least in the form of footnotes) is needed for the CVG character template. FMF|contact 21:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so much concerned with the fact that Smash Bros isn't canon as I am that it's a spinoff franchise, whereas Phantom Hourglass takes place in the main series. I used both spinoff and noncanon in my edit summary to try to explain my point of view. Takuthehedgehog 21:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Smash Bros. is a secondary game for Link. Use a primary image.
2. Phantom Hourglass is not yet released in any English-dominant countries. So use TP Link.
3. When PH comes to PAL or North America, use that image. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Link model from Brawl is identical to the Twilight Princess model. So elaborate on TP Link (your second point).--ChibiMrBubbles 19:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It has slight differences. The fact remains that the SSBB image is not from a primary game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I vote for SSB image since it's more accurate and detailed.--Svetovid 13:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

How is it more accurate?? DurinsBane87 17:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

lol, more acurate. Takuthehedgehog 02:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand, accurate IS spelled with two c's. DurinsBane87 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I was just laughing at him thinking one image was more accurate then the other, spelling it with one c was a typo. Takuthehedgehog 02:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Okie dokie. sorry about that. DurinsBane87 03:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I vote Brawl image as I said. There is a double standard to this image rule, Alucard's wiki article uses the Symphony of the Night as the main image despite being outdated and Kirby's image is using the Brawl image. Same goes for Mario's image. --ChibiMrBubbles 23:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Castlevania Symphony of the Night? How is that relevant to your point? Isn't Castlevania the main game series, not to mention its also artwork. and...Mario's image, where? btw There's always a rush to add new images, and Kirby? so? Snake, Bowser, etc, etc. FMF|contact 00:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

...Are you even aware of what you're writing? Alucard has a completely redesign in Dawn of Sorrow which DUN DUN DUN is part of the main series. It's completely relevant. I don't understand at all what you mean by Kirby and so? So what? So what that Kirby's image is the Brawl image while Link's image has to be TP artwork? So what to that? Hypocrite.--ChibiMrBubbles 00:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Its still part of Castlevania, the primary games. Why are you using Kirby as an example? Mario, Bowser, etc do not use Brawl as their main image. FMF|contact 00:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

So why isn't Alucard using his newest portrayal? Because the fans obviously like that design more than the Dawn of Sorrow one. I'm using Kirby because you're saying we shouldn't use Brawl Link because it's not from the main series while Kirby gets away with that with an image that's not from his primary series. Mario does not use his latest image, yet Bowser does. MetaKnight uses the Brawl image, while Pit does not. Why do we have such double standards?--ChibiMrBubbles 00:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I do not see that to be the case with "King" Bowser. As for Kirby, isn't the director of Brawl also the creator of Kirby and its series? Maybe that's an exception! lol The problem is that it is stated no where that the primary game images should be used or an image that best represents the character in question in its own primary games. Only a lot editors suggest it, some guidelines need to be set for the CVG character Template! FMF|contact 00:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What about Alucard? He's a major reoccurring character in the series and his image is the SoTN artwork. I don't see how the exception would work for Kirby or MetaKnight. Regardless, where does this leave us with Link's image?--ChibiMrBubbles 01:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)$Insertformulahere$

Well change Alucard and see what those regular editors (if any) there say. Like I said, written guidelines for primary character game images do not exist, there only largely suggested, so a lot of editors would agree of using TP over Brawl - if that hasn't become apparent already. FMF|contact 01:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That image was just added not too long ago so you can discuss it with User:Sephiroth_BCR if you feel it is necessary. FMF|contact 01:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

When exactly did it become 'apparent' already that editors want TP over Brawl Link? We have me and another editor saying Brawl while there is A Link To The Past who says TP Link. It's a stalemate with undecided editors who haven't mentioned which one they want. --ChibiMrBubbles 01:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope you do not mean User:Svetovid, who has yet to explain. Though I hate to suggest it, just check the majority of characters who are in the Smash games. What images do they use? I hope you at least have an image without that blue background just in case it is used. FMF|contact 01:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If we are to use the Twilight Princess art, we require a new updated image. As the current one does not have a source. (http://www.nintendo.com/gamemini?gameid=fce85fe2-688f-4276-a3c2-84e0f270ab8b) is no longer there.

I think you should just use the Smash Bros image, as it is clearly the best picture of Link. The question of canonicity seems kind of moot; Link appears almost identical in Brawl as he does in TP, and Smash Bros is an official Nintendo game. I could understand the concern if it was a fan-created image, differed drastically from the canon, or was a picture from the cartoon or something, but it's a licencsed Nintendo image. Regardless of it's canonicity (which, as I've said, seems moot due to his appearance being the same as that of TP), it's still an offical Nintendo image of the fictional character of Link. What's the point of using a inferior picture (and, POV or not, the Brawl picture is much better), just because it's "non-canon". The Zelda series feature very loose continuity, with Link's appearance changing drastically with every entry, so I fail to see the controversy of using this image. Paul730 11:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

We use the canon image. And don't say that a lack of continuity is a reason to ignore the logics of canon, because A. It's not, and B. It DOES have continuity, as clearly shown. We won't use the Mario from the Olympics Games game, so we won't use a spinoff's image. And in respect to the "they're using SSBB images, so this page should too!" So if a page has a typo, all pages should have typos? The only reason Kirby's page has the SSBB image is because someone removed the original one, it eventually got deleted as an orphaned image, and I can't find the Squeak Squad depiction of Kirby. And looking at Meta Knight, there is no suitable alternative within my grasps. I've looked, but cannot find any recent image of Meta Knight that would work. In this case, we have a recent, canon image of Link. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Zelda has continuity? Sure, that's why we have a real structured timeline? Is Link always depicted the same in all games? The main character Link is depicted as young adult and adult in all of the franchise's games. The Twilight Princess Link model on Brawl is identical to the GC/Wii Twilight Princess Link model. Tell me these 'blatant' inaccuracies that make him look out of character or unnecessarily alter his normal depiction WHICH mind you is always different. The typo example falls flats on itself. It's incoherent and nonsensical. A typo is fixed without a shadow of a doubt without any need for complexity. An image obviously is not if we are still on this.

Your take on the double standards is nice but contradicts your own admission of canon by making a excuses for Kirby and MetaKnight, as well as ignoring Alucard and perhaps hundreds of other Wikipedian game characters.

I also would like to remind you that the Legend of Zelda website as well as Nintendo's own site no longer have the artwork of Twilight Princess Link, therefore we require new sources for the TP artworks.--ChibiMrBubbles 01:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You ignore vandalism on Wikipedia. If other articles using secondary images means that this article can, that means that this article should be vandalized. And nonsensical? You're using the argument of "if they can do it this way, we can do it this way!" Are you saying that because other articles use secondary images or outdated images, that means that it is how it should be done? THAT, my friend, is nonsensical. No more sensible than saying "if an article uses typos, that means it's okay to use them". AKA - if everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you? TP is neither outdated nor secondary, so the image should be used. It's more or less accepted that images from games such as Smash Bros., Mario Party, Mario Kart, etc. should not be used in place of sensible alternatives. SSBB's image is not only not current and thusly without exposure to mainstream, but it is secondary. TP's image is. The extra detail is enough of a difference. It's like saying "what's the difference between LoZ Link's art and ALttP Link's?".

Also, a-duh? Ocarina of Time was stated as the first game, timeline-wise. Majora's Mask follows it. TWW references OoT explicitly. Phantom Hourglass is a direct sequel. A Link to the Past mentions the Imprisoning War (OoT). LA is a direct sequel. AoL is a direct sequel to LoZ. I don't even have a single bit of idea where you get "Zelda has no continuity" just because every single game doesn't directly reference each other. Well, tell me - what's better continuity than the constantly recurring theme of Link? There is absolutely no reason to use images taken form a non-Zelda game. Not a single one in this universe or any other. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're spouting out crap about continuity. I specifically said "Sure, that's why we have a real structured timeline?". I applaud you completely ignoring the question about how TP Brawl and TP Link are different as well as damage controlling the inconsistency of Wikipedia. All you said is "The extra detail is enough of a difference". Pray tell what that inconsistency is. Please, by all means.

They are different, how can you say they are the exact same thing? Of course there are very similar but not identical. I'm not even sure about using Smashbros.com as a source, that web site has gone through many redesigns. FMF|contact 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It has slight differences. The fact remains that the SSBB image is not from a primary game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one asking what are the differences. In fact, I believe both of you are grasping at straws at this point.--ChibiMrBubbles 16:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever even stated why Brawl should be used rather than an image from an actual Zelda game? Since the images are so similar why should a non-Zelda game image be used instead? FMF|contact 16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A Link to the Past, I find your fanboyish outrage at my insinuation that Zelda has loose continutiy very immature. Your timeline theory is all OR, Nintendo have never confirmed the official order of the games and you can slot the games together in almost any order you want. I too, have my own timeline theory, but the fact remains that the Zelda games, which a few exceptions such as MM, are simply remakes of each other, with the multiple-Links explanation an aferthought. Either way, the Zelda universe is not real, it is a series of video games set in a fictional world, and provided that the picture represents what the characters look like, their canonicity is irrelevant. I personally believe that the Brawl image should be used because it is a better picture; yes, it may be a personal preference, but I think it is more encyclopedic because it shows him simply standing there looking normal whereas the TP artwork shows him from funny angles and positions. For the record though, I'd rather have TP artwork than PH. Paul730 16:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So basically, I'm being called immature by someone who immaturely attempts to instigate a flame war by claiming that they have "fanboyish outrage" and is "immature". It's almost like pot kettle black, but I'm grey (ie, you are immature for being the first one to actually make inflammatory statements). Anyhow, PH is a sequel. MM is a sequel. AoL is a sequel. OoT was clearly connected the moment Miyamoto said that it was the "earliest game in the timeline". Either he's referring to other Zeldas or just OoT as its own timeline. Unless Nintendo is lying when they flat-out confirmed the connections, you're mistaken. Each game is not a remake of the original base plot (LA, MM, AoL, OoS, OoA, TWW, TMC, FS, FSA, and PH are drastically different from LoZ). The one-Link theory has been destroyed. Just because you'd rather have one Link over multiple Links doesn't mean that it was added half-heartedly late in the series.

Anyhow. Like other articles correctly do, we take images from primary video games and the most current. SSBB Link has absolutely no exposure if one is not looking for the image - take the image from a Zelda game, not an unrelated spin-off. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, I like the multiple Links theory, I never said I didn't. It allows the storyline to be reinvented, and allows the player to experience Link's evolution as a character over and over again. However, at the end of the day, the idea of Link being reincarnated or whatever was basically a retcon to explain the fact that Nintendo had remade the same story three time; young boy must overcome great odds to rescue princess from evil sorceror. Like I said, the games can be slotted together in a take-it-with-a-pinch-of-salt kind of way, but let's not delude ourselves by pretending it was all a great master plan from the begingning. Nintendo care about the games being fun, not the continuity. Now please stop arguing about the timeline. While an enjoyable debate, it's OR and is irrelevent to the current discussion. As for the SSBB picture, why does it matter if it's not canon? He looks the same as he does in TP and it's a better picture. Paul730 22:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So instead of the person who initially brought up the timeline debate, I should stop discussing it? That makes sense. Well, actually does, since he's on your side. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What? All I know is, I said that the Zelda series had loose continuity, you denied it, someone responded with a sarky comment about the timeline, and you exploded. Look, I'm sorry if you think I'm being rude or something, I'm told I have a dismissive manner and I don't mean to offend you. I just think we use the SSBB picture, that's all. Paul730 04:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally vote for that SSB aka TP Link picture, because the kind of picture I am most interested in is one that has the best graphic detail of that person and I feel that picture is the an would have a better accurate description of the character. -Adv193 18:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a note for everyone, we used the Twilight Princess design as the main image two years before the game's release, so Phantom Hourglass not being released yet shouldn't be the reason given to not use the image.Takuthehedgehog 04:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

why don't we just leave the image section of Link's article blank and put PH and Brawl pics in the Appearence section. geez can't believe people are fighting over a picture of Link. 67.164.35.55 02:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Link only had the cel shaded look for two games, i vote tp, plus, it doesnt look good. you pull up the page and go, "hey I saw that dude on spongbob!" Also, I think the TP look would be more recognizable to people. Wii2-13 02:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The Wind Waker, Four Swords, Four Swords Adventures, The Minish Cap, Phantom Hourglass. Five games, not two - almost half the series, and more than the "realistic" look.KrytenKoro 01:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yo, listen. I like Wind Waker fine... but could we change the main picture of Link at the top of the article. Use Twilight Princess or Brawl. Hell even OoT Adult Link will be fine! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.220.199.246 (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? It's the least-used form of Link, and not the most recent, either. There's no benefits to it other than fanboyism, and if we give in to that, than we'll only ever have edit wars.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 11:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say we should keep using the Phantom Hourglass image, it's the most recent canon iteration of the character. I wouldn't mind the collage idea Paul730 mentioned in the "No lead picture" section on this page, though, similar to the Doctor Who articles on the Doctor and the Master. Haipa Doragon (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, there's a clash of whether the "most recent" image should be used or the "most recognizable". Certainly it would make more sense to use the "most recognizable", like Mario. Now who would like to whip up a collage of a young Link and adult Link (w/o the blue background) ? « FMF » 19:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Most recent makes more sense, recognizability is based on opinion and can easily vary. And don't use SSBB images, the game's not part of the series. Haipa Doragon (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it varies, but with the characters from the Mario games, its pretty obvious. However, for this situation, isn't that why a collage is needed in the first place? Does it really matter in this case if it is from Smash? The TP image is not a very good image to use in the template and the only thing really notable that is different between the two is that one is just artwork. Until a better image can be found from the Zelda games that can replace Smash, SSBB should be used, as stated numerous times. « FMF » 21:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

For Mario, that makes slightly more sense, since it's specifically meant to be many different takes on the same basic concept - canon and storyline are not really held down. In Zelda, it is, and so the various designs are a lot more constant. In any case, there is no reason why the SSBM image should be considered "most recognizable" - Hell, he isn't even a mandatory character in the game, much less a primary one. As for using Adult Link...well, he only appears in two series games and the crossover series. Out of 14 games. As Durin explained, collages only make the fair use problem worse - we're trying to use the picture that we can get the most leeway from, and that is "the most recent picture".Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I never did say Smash is more recognizable. Most recognizable is just the character image in general and since more than one version of this character exists, its more of a matter on who you ask. That's where the idea of combining two images into one started from, but if that cannot be done obviously it has to be the most recent or just go the Ganon route. « FMF » 22:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Or simply tallying how many times he's appeared in each form/most recent form. He's had the anime/chibi child form for six games (and even in the manga for the cel-shaded games (possibly the realistic ones as well); hey, is there a manga for TWW?), cel-shaded in five games, and realistic in three games. If we overrule the cel-shaded as "most recognizable", that would leave the SD early Link form as the most recognizable, not the OoT form.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A collage of Link headshots seems like the best choice. Ignoring this whole "degree of recognizability" and "technical canonical character design" talk, we should have one image of each different art style over the ages. Not one from each game, but one of each different art style. The caption can say that the style has always been changing, but the basic look is always the same. From the top of my head, this would be: one style from the S/NES and GB/C games, a style from N64, a style from GCN/GBA/DS, and a style from Wii. A full size image of each art style is already in the article, so someone could just do a 10min cut-and-paste job if they're lazy. - Zero1328 _Talk? 07:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not just headshots, they're not illustrative enough. Haipa Doragon (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

But why do we need to create a collage for the lead picture? The differing art styles thing is good to have in the article, but there's little reason to try to make a collage for the lead that will just violate fair use and style guidelines. I'd support it if we were only allowed one image per article, but we're already using those images throughout the article for fair use purposes, and it isn't wise to test our luck.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have any other ideas to stop these recognizability arguments, then tell us. Obviously, the argument of "use the latest iteration" doesn't work well, because there's the choice of GCN/GBA/DS Link and Wii Link. You could also just put both in. Make some sort of compromise. - Zero1328 _Talk? 01:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

...latest works damn well - PH is the latest game. "Most recognizable" inevitably devolves into fanwanking and fanwars. If we have a clear cut policy, such as "most used" or "most recent", we can avoid that - one leads to the cel Link, the other leads to either cel or the anime Link. No non-OR reasoning would lead to the OoT or TP Link, or in any way Adult Link being used as the lead picture, because they all amount to "I like OoT/TP the most."Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the most recognizable would also be have the most recent image. The only "alternative" would be to find a single picture Nintendo published that has both versions of Link. Otherwise, the image should be left as is. « FMF » 17:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree the picture should be updated with each version, but how about this? A timeline showing the different pictures of Link over the games, or is that too fan-wiki-y? ````

Someone Help

I am having a problem uploading this, so could you help me, or you do it?

http://zelda.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Z06_13_big.jpg

Not that I'm against Fierce Deity, but why do we need a pic of him? --ChibiMrBubbles 14:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. We don't need any more images. It's been way too easy for this article to end up with way too many of them.--SeizureDog 16:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Category Possibility

Given that both the Twilight Princess and Majora's Mask articles are categorized under Category:Shapeshifting in fiction, wouldn't it make sense to categorize this article under Category:Fictional shapeshifters, given Link's ability to change form in some games? Cipher ^{(Talk to the hand)} 19:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I say yes. Paul730 06:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Image in non-Zelda appearances

Should this image be added to the non-zelda appearances section? It's relevant, as it is official SSBB art. -KULSHRAX 19:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Add fair use rationale then yes. I even think this pic would be appropiate as the main picture (as I've stated above) but the concensus seems to be that only a "canon" picture can be used. Paul730 06:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it already has rationale. The tag that it has is an "orphaned fair-use image" tag. You see, I originally uploaded it for inclusion in this article, but it was recently removed from the "non-zelda appearances" section with this rationale provided:

"No significant difference between the lead image and the following image. Without any differences, there's no fair use rationale to use two redundant image."

Of course, this image is different from the main image at the time, which was the twilight princess art, as this is super smash bros brawl art. The rationale for removal actually amuses me somewhat because of the heavy opposition against using SSBB images as main images, because if this image is considered to be the "same" as the main image, why can't it be used there? Of course, I am merely pointing out a flaw in logic, and would like the image to be placed back into the article, because otherwise it would be deleted for being orphaned, despite it providing fair use rationale. And also, because currently, the main image is minish cap artwork, this image would be unique to the article. Thanks for your support of the image...which is a change for once. -KULSHRAX 21:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Twilight Princess > SSBB in regard to which image gets on the page. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh right, I only glanced at the picture and saw it was tagged. Didn't think to look at what the tag said. D'oh! Paul730 09:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Link image

Isn't using the picture from PH a little redundant? He's the same one from WW. It'd be better if we had one or the other or just another one entirely. For example, we have an image from MM but not OoT. They're both the same but we don't use both.Darth G 03:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What we really need is in-game screenshots again. Link obviously looks radically different in the games than he does in the artwork.--SeizureDog 21:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Not in PH.

Anyway, Zelda TP's image is pretty redundant to OoT's somewhat. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was specifically thinking of the original NES Link. Granted, newer games are able to be more faithful to the artwork.--SeizureDog 03:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

How, they're two completely different Links?Darth G 03:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we should use the link on the official Zelda website: Zelda.com. He's the most recent representation of the Link character, and he looks close enough to the OoT adult link at the old - school adult link. Or maybe we could make a collage like with the WWE logos.

Okay, this has really branched off the point I was trying to make. The Phantom Hourglass picture can be seen as redundant due to the fact that he's the same exact Link from Wind Waker. Keep the discussion about that!Darth G 22:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

-He has a point! The most recent "rendition" of link is the one from Twilight Princess, and I think everyone would agree that when one says the name "Link" they would imagine his appearance in TP/OOT, not WW/PH. I personally recommend using a picture of his image from Smash Bros. Brawl- it is unequivocally the best picture of Link there is. In fact, as long as the Zelda page is using an image from SSBB, then why not Link? -Guest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.250.57 (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No lead picture

As explained here, the arguments for Link having a lead picture are essentially the same as those for Ganon - he does keep a green outfit and is Hylian (which correlates to Ganon's armor and Gerudo-ness), but otherwise changes design as much as Ganon, is only the same person for pairs of games, and actually changes form nearly four times as much as Ganon.KrytenKoro 21:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss this, please respond at the previously linked discussion, so that we aren't reiterating our points over and over.KrytenKoro 21:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

How about a collage of all the different Link's from different eras? Doctor (Doctor Who) and Master (Doctor Who) use collages for characters who change their appearance over time. Paul730 03:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the Ganon page, but that seems reasonable.KrytenKoro 06:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Robot Chicken appearance

I object to Link's appearance on Robot Chicken being referred to as "trivia" in User:Svetovid's edit summary. Featured articles Jason Voorhees and Jabba the Hutt both detail the character's appearances in spoof television series such as Family Guy, South Park, and Robot Chicken. This article is not just for "official" Nintendo appearances by Link, and any mention of him in mass media should be acknowledged in the article. Paul730 21:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? Any mention? Pagrashtak 22:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, not any mention, I worded that incorrectly. But still, a significant appearance in a notable television series is definitely worth a mention. It shows the character is a recognisable figure of popular culture and not limited to just his own series or Nintendo games. As I said before, other FA articles have "In mass media" sections and I don't see why Link should be an exception. Paul730 22:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Was he referred to as Link in the series? SpigotMap 22:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No, but Ganon, octoroks, rupees, and the Triforce are all mentioned by name. And his appearance is identical to Link's. Here, watch it yourself. There's no doubt that this is a Link reference. Paul730 22:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's trivial information. The fact that Link appears in Robot Chicken is not necessicary for a well rounded knowledge of the character. Mention Robot Chicken, and then you'd have to mention VG Cats, Mad Magazine, Cracked, Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic), and a hundred other spoofs.--SeizureDog 23:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If all of those spoofs you mentioned above do feature Link and are notable, then I believe they should be mentioned in a "Link in popular culture" section. Why are his appearances in Robot Chicken and VG Cats any less notable than his cameos in Final Fantasy, Donkey Kong, or Animal Crossing? Because those aren't video games? As I've mentioned before, other FA articles such Jason Voorhees#In popular culture contain mass media references to the characters. It's not trivial. Listing every sword-wielding elf in pop culture who looks like Link would be trivial. Discussing the spoofs in "She said to him, he said to her" detail would be trivial. However, I don't think that acknowledging direct parodies of Link would be trivial. Paul730 00:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that pop culture references are about as notable as cameo appearances. In which case, I think that neither belong in this article. Popular characters get cameos and spoofs. This goes without saying. We don't need to elaberate on how many times they've been mentioned in other media.--SeizureDog 02:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, and refer to other featured and good fictional character articles for examples of standard practice. I believe that info on parodies/other appearances is neccessary to show the character's impact/influences on pop culture. We can't just assume that the reader is aware of how popular the character is. Paul730 13:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead image

What policy says "use the most recent appearance" for the lead image? I saw this in the edit summary, and I'm quite curious as to what policy is promoting recentism.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that is a misuse of the essay on recentism which is more geared towards avoiding articles on temporarily newsworthy topics that don't have notability in the long run. The lead image is an entirely different issue discussed several times, above. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Then I would say it's a "misuse" to say "policy says use the most recent appearance of the character" to support the re-addition of an image. If this is the case, then the image in the lead now is actually the wrong image to use...considering Link has appeared in a new game and doesn't look like his little Gameboy Advanced counterpart. I mean, if that discussion is arguing that "the most recent version" is the version we should use...then I believe we should be changing that image. BTW, the first line in RECENTISM states:"Recentism is the practice of some Wikipedians to edit articles without regard to long-term historical perspective"--Basing image selection on "what is the most current version" would be directly related to the idea stated in the first sentence of that essay. It's not just about article creation, though that is what the essay is geared toward.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I misunderstand. First, when Kryten said "policy", I believe he meant "consensus" because the current consensus would say to use the most recent appearance (see above for the reasoning, the most compelling of which is that it is most neutral image to use, compared to the "most widely known" OoT or TP image, which is impossible to determine). Second, the thing you referred to was an essay which has no policy bearing, whereas consensus does. There is little to no misuse here. Finally, what new game are you referring to? I don't see any GBA image of Link up there and I'm certainly not aware of any new games he has appeared in yet. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was unclear, though I did ask for you to check the talk page - I was not meaning to say that it was Wikipedia's policy - I meant that it was the policy agreed upon for this article. If you can find an image of Link from Crossbow Training (not TP...), go ahead and insert it, though I'm not sure if others will support it, since it's technically a spin-off game like Smash or Soul Calibur. I have not actually seen or heard of this essay on recentism, though.

As for the basis behind this "policy" - the cel-design of Link is about as frequent as the others, and was actually subject to a lot of notability as to its "divergence from previous depictions" (if you disregard all the games but OoT and MM...). While the original design would seemingly have much more widespread appeal due to how the games using it have sold more (indicating that it would have the highest chance of being recognizable by a reader), PH Link is in the media now (and very much so), and so is most likely to be an image accessible to a reader. It is a decision meant to make the page as accessible to readers as possible - even the South Park "Imaginationland" episode uses this design of Link (well, a close approximation, it is South Park after all...). If there was a strong argument that any one image was the "definitive image that everybody knows him by" (one that is not based on fanwank, like the argument usually is) and the argument could convince the editors to its correctness, it would be perfectly fine to change it - lacking that golden argument, we need to come to an agreement to keep from devolving into all out edit war, like the picture tried/s to.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The page currently uses The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass, released in June (October on a more wideworld scale) on the DS platform. Link's Crossbow Training was just released widely about a week ago. Would that not be the "most current version" of the character? From what I've read, basically looks like the version from Twilight Princess for the most part. The point is not that we should be changing images to show what he "currently" looks like, because his "current" look will constantly change. Wikipedia is built on history, not current events. What is wrong with the image of his first incarnation? It seems to embody all the qualities of the character that you find in all the other incarnations, as far as general style and coloring go. It would appear that the best manuever would be to use that in the lead, and only use other images where critical commentary is provided to discuss the "look" of the character in that incarnation. Otherwise, you'll be constantly changing images, since the character's game doesn't appear to be dying out in popularity any time soon.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As the person who removed the lead image, I don't think it should be his most recent appearance, since, as already stated, his appearance is always changing. Wikipedia shouldn't strive to be a current events site, articles should be as timeless as possible. A suggestion I made above was to have a collage of Link's appearances, similar to what the articles Doctor (Doctor Who), Master (Doctor Who), and James Bond have done with characters played by various actors. Not sure if that would pass WP:FU or whatever, but I'd rather have that or no lead image at all. It's too subject to recentism and POV.  Paul  730 03:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and stick in the Crossbow Training pic (not a TP pic). With the first incarnation - what proof do you have that that would be most recognizable to the editors? From the articles I've read, a good bit of the fanbase still thinks OoT is "Zelda 1". Wikipedia is built on being accessible by its readers, not on being "timeless". It would be great if we could be timeless, but admit it - TLoZ isn't timeless. It will fade, just like all games fade over time. As for the collage - because it would be messy, would be hard to see, and for the same reason we don't use fanart - it's not honest to parade a fan-edited image as "official". His appearance is always changing - not enough for a lead image to be useless. The "policy" is not to make it "current events", it is to make it accessible, as I have explained over and over, and over. This is the whole point of having any images on wikipedia - to make the material more accessible to the reader. If you can explain how removing the picture, or putting up OoT Link (as suggested below, with no evidence) would make the article more accessible, then please do. But images are not there for the sake of making the page look pretty - they are there to explain concepts or topics that are difficult to describe without images, and to make the topic more accessible to the reader. This is our utmost goal, above all else - to be useful to the reader.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

change lead picture

the picture of link at the top of the article is not definitive of link. a picture of adult link from ocarina of time or twilight princess would be much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.62.234 (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

-I agree. I think, though, that, as many people have argued, an image from SSBB would be best. I say this because the Link that Nintendo is choosing to use for that game is a depiction they are choosing because they believe, obviously, that it is most easily recognized by the public and "a definitive link." I don't see Nintendo using PH Link for brawl since it is "the most recent game and *obviously* therefore the most canon." Point is, that's what Nintendo defines as your standard "Link." So shouldn't we go by that? -<I'm a guest so I have no idea how to sign, sorry.> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.229.17.29 (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before (see above). Read that and if you have anything new to bring to the table, please do. What you have said so far has been said before. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Voice in Brawl?

I know that we'll have to wait until SMBB comes out so that someone can see the game's credits and verify this, but doesn't it sound as if Akira Sasanuma (y'know, Link's seiyuu in Twilight Princess) is doing the voice for Link, instead of Nobuyuki Hiyama? ChromeWulf ZX (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, it is Akira Sasanuma. ChromeWulf ZX (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Voice in SSB, SSBM, and Soul Caliber 2

Hey, I noticed the only voice credits here are for official Zelda games. I'm pretty sure his voice for his appearances in the games I've highlighted were just reused loops from Adult Link in Ocarina, I'm not entirely certain, so I'm not gonna just put it in. Anyone know for sure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.94.76.172 (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

On the main link at top of page should it be toon link or not —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marioman12 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discuessed - as of right now, the consensus seems to be that we use the most recent image, as it would be the one most accessible to the general public.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)