Talk:Hyrule Warriors

No character lists

Per WP:GAMECRUFT, bare character lists, even if sourced, should not be included. Please stop re-adding it. Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKERRRRRRRRR! But we like lists! Here's a list of Wikipedia policies which have been emphatically abused in this article: WP:PROSELINE (the turbo hyperactive re-re-re-re-introduction of data blurbs before anyone else beats me to it), WP:NOTNEWS (because I am the sole beacon of light in this world, Wikipedia is my personal news podium and weblog, and the people have a RIGHT TO KNOW), WP:INFO, WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:OR, a little bit of WP:CRYSTALBALL, and even for the first time in my personal history, WP:YOU. Let's just throw in a collective WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:3RR C-C-C-COMBO for the group high score!

There may be no way to do this with the scant information presently available about this particular game, but the only way to describe characters outside of WP:GAMECRUFT is if it's a notable detailed list of a notable character, their notable history, and how their attributes are uniquely essential to the game. But! Without being a gameplay guide or manual. So that might not even ultimately apply to all the characters in the game.

We wouldn't describe every character in Animal Crossing without giving it its own list article (thus demonstrating the unencyclopedic mundanery of each one alone, and that they're only notable as a whole anyway); but we do describe some characters' slightest attributes in Super Mario Bros. 2 because in that game, they redefined a major genre as well as that particular series, and this information is spread tastefully across the Gameplay and Legacy sections and more.

As for basic form of notably-established information, I'll quote Serge from his Talk page on this subject: "Bare lists like that aren't used unless there's a paragraph of information to go after them, (like Tales of Graces) or of the characters used is crucial to understanding the premise of the entire game (like a crossover game like Super Smash Bros. 4.)"

How do I know this stuff? It's not because I'm the smartest editor but because I've read WP:GAMECRUFT several times in the time since E3 2014, and because I read the commentary by other experienced editors like Serge, before acting. Besides, this junk is just what the marketing departments WANT us to do!  ;) Thanks! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 22:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

If there is demand for a character list, then it could. I personally feel indifferent about it, but i dont see why theres a a reason why we shouldn't. I also don't understand the claims of Gamecruft. for a game based entirely off of the Zelda series, with a mix of returning characters from previous Zelda and some original characters, it might be good to have a list of playable characters. but i guess it depends on how many are revealed and how many original characters will be used. Lucia Black (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, no. It depends upon exactly what we just said. We even just said how to do it, when possible. Feelings and demand are irrelevant; only notability is relevant. If you say you don't understand these claims of gamecruft, then you don't understand WP:GAMECRUFT. So please read it as many times as is necessary, as we have done. Otherwise, everything you just said, if taken literally, is merely WP:ICANTHEARYOU and is against what Wikipedia is. Good luck, and feel free to ask policy questions on the policy's Talk page! An encyclopedia's nature and policy can be extremely difficult for a person to understand or uphold, and I completely totally say that about my own path. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 05:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

When i said how i personally felt on it, its another way of saying "in my opinion". Even then, i'm not basing everything on solely my opinion, i'm only saying whatever the circumstances are, there could be a "need" for a list. The "demand" for a list is not based on editors but on sources and how well info can be conveyed in just prose or in a table. Looking through WP:GAMECRUFT there is nothing explicitly saying its gamecruft to even have a table of characters, regardless if their all notable or not. Notability isn't what stops a character list/table to be included.

Right now, Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS/Wii U has a character list despite the rest of the articles in the series not having a list of characters. Hyrule Warriors is made up of A) previous Zelda characters from specific entries and some from non-specific, and original characters. It would not be gamecruft to organize a list to show which character was introduced from what, and which one is an original character (similar to how Super Smash Bros Nintendo for 3DS/Wii U also organizes which ones are newcomers and which ones are 3rd party characters).

This isn't a strong case as you make it out to be. There are sources covering individual characters that are being revealed, are they here now? no, but they can be implemented quite easily. Lucia Black (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If you look through history, you'll see that it's never been well-implemented - always unsourced and poorly written. Beyond that, as I was saying, character/level lists are just about always rejected unless they're based around understanding the premise of the game, like Smash Bros or Sonic Generations. Not the case here. Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually i argue that Hyrule Warriors is the perfect fusion of the situation of Sonic Generations and Smash Bros. It has multiplayer components (super smash) and its characters are from previous Zelda games in similar fashion that Sonic Generations has a table for the levels from previous games.

Now i'm trying to keep this "open-ended" as possible. i'm not for the current rendition nor against. If the table used in similar fashion of Super Smash Bros for Nintendo 3DS/Wii U is moderately acceptable in this case. We can highlight certain characters as original, and which ones came from which specific Zelda game. properly organized, and informative. Lucia Black (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Knowing the characters doesn't hinge on understanding the premise of the game. Try describing the premise of Smash or Generations w/o referring to the levels/character crossover. You can't really. Try doing it for this game. It's "Zelda Musuo". Easy. Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

At this point youre only pushing opinion and answering questions you asked and making it seem the others meant impossible to answer. if its easy to claim Zelda Musuo by name alone then the same applies to every game ever to exist.

But we know better (or rather...you should know better). A Warriors game based on the Zelda series is what Zelda Musuo is. And because some characters are exclusive to specific zelda games and some of them are original characters, it makes a table for them that much viable. Just like Sonic generations is based on previous Sonic games and Super Smash Bros is based on Nintendo characters.

Im suspecting WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Lucia Black (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand, what are you proposing I don't like? Character lists? You realize I proposed and helped create both of the character lists at Smash and Generations, right? Sergecross73 msg me 15:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You like it when you want it, not when its possible to have one. And there's definitely room for "Zelda Musuo" to have a table of the characters. Lucia Black (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

So your criticism is that I judge things on a case by case basis, and then weigh in favor or against it? Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope, i'm saying the favor is predetermined. At the moment, i'm not in favor of a list merely because its too short, but i'm not very restricted on the idea either. if more original characters appear, and more Zelda characters from specific Zelda games return (Hypothetically, Ruto from Ocarina of Time or Sky Fish from Link's Awakening), it would benefit "Hyrule Warriors" (a Warriors game designed to use Zelda characters). Lucia Black (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Predetermined based on what? None of your bad-faith accusations seem to be based on anything, or make any sense. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

personal preference. And perhaps provide a real argument against Hyrule Warriors, and maybe i can take you seriously. The Hyrule Warriors is no different from Super Smash and Sonic Generation in terms of playing tribute to the series (in a lack of a better word). Lucia Black (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

To reiterate *again*, this belligerent WP:ICANTHEARYOU nonsense is all in response to people who just exhaustively detailed some ideas already, and who had cited exhaustive site policy against explicit implementations for explicit reasons. Please stop it. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 20:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this. Also, Lucia, you have neither consensus, or even desire, to make the change, so I need not your approval. It seems that you're only here to argue and cause trouble. Do it somewhere else, I'm not interested. Sergecross73 msg me 23:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all, there's no policy explicitly saying that a list of characters isn't allowed. WP:GAMECRUFT/WP:FANCRUFT is not against table of characters nor is it even making the claim that such a table can be considered "gamecruft" or "fancruft". if you're making that claim that it is cruft, its out of your own personal interpretation. For a character-based game, it can be beneficial to both new readers and those familiar with either Zelda or Warrior series to have a table of characters. WP:OR and WP:CRYSTALBALL isn't an issue. sources can "easily" be found. Siliconera has been covering every single new character and even which ones are playable, so OR isn't an issue here. And if you knew anything about OR is about someone conducting their own personal research and applying it as fact based on their own interpretation. So just because you don't see it being cited, doesn't mean its original research. WP:CRYSTALBALL is also not an issue. That is more on the lines of predicting, which i highly doubt someone will be making predictions anytime soon.

Sergecross reasoning is that Hyrule Warriors is enough to explain what the game is by name alone (which is ridiculous because multiple sources have cited how unfamiliar the Warrior series is) while other games such as Sonic Generations and Super Smash Bros for Nintendo 3DS/Wii U isn't (despite being the only one in the series other than the main article to have a table, so again. "preferences" or WP:ILIKEIT comes to mind). And i'm only saying that i'm not for a list of characters "for the moment", so if circumstances change (which most likely will), i'm planning ahead. And really the issue is only "size" of the table.

citing WP:ICANTHEARYOU is ridiculous. The discussion here is to provide consensus, not to make claims that you are the consensus. Lucia Black (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for repeating yourself again. We get it. Lucia is pro list someday. Noted. Sergecross73</←span> msg me 17:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

How tactful of you to ignore my comment and trying to dumb it down to a vote. My comment is more than a vote. you do it again, i will "continue" to repeat myself. Lucia Black (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

All you did was rehash your same argument, which hinges largely on baseless and confusing bad faith accusations of me. The rest of it is just repetition of "You think its necessary. We don't." We get it, loud and clear. Say it as many times as you like, it'll come down to consensus, and I doubt many people bother to read your long winded tirades... Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

What i said was real reasoning. And really, you're not using any real reasoning at all. you're relying on consensus so you don't have to. But there's no real consensus at all right now. Right now, you both don't have consensus to even be using WP:ICANTHEARYOU or WP:STICK. The amounts of policies Smuckola is also claiming have all been countered too.

And my "assumption" that this is out of your personal preference is based entirely on the fact that you support other articles while trying to pass off Hyrule Warriors as not needing it without any real concrete reasoning. You make the claims that it is done case by case? i ask that you prove it. You previously brought up Sonic Generations. But Sonic Generations is an entirely different situation as the game's stages vary between game drastically. However, Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U does the same, and its stages aren't being listed, and is the only one that has a character list while Super Smash Bros., Super Smash Bros. Melee, and Super Smash Bros. Brawl do not have one. Two of which are Featured. Lucia Black (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Break

I don't find it to be a central focus of the game. As such, I find it to be unencyclopedic, and more crufty/gameguide-y in its inclusion. I find an article like Super Mario 3D World to be a more accurate comparison, where no list is present or necessary. It's fine if you can't understand what I'm saying, and/or disagree, but there's no logical reason given for you to jump to any bad-faith assumptions. Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that while I don't think a character table is needed, I totally support the idea of just working the playable characters somewhere into the prose under gameplay. Other games with multiple playable characters, like Super Mario 3D World, have a list of playables integrated within their prose, and it's not like there are a gazillion hero units to clog up the article. The character select screen indicates the game will have nine playable characters; that's not so many that it risks taking away from the article itself. On the other hand, though, I certainly don't think we need to list all the "major" bad guys; that could get by with something simple like "Several villains from past Zelda titles, such as Ghirahim and Zant, appear as bosses in Hyrule Warriors." -- 69.136.149.237 (talk) 05:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: If you don't find it logical, perhaps provide better reasoning, because it sounds completely subjective. The game has a number of characters, and each varies between game play, and even has multiplayer, so we will be seeing characters interact. So the characters are indeed part of the gameplay. This isn't close to Super Mario 3D World because Super Mario World is still part of the main "Mario" series. Hyrule Warriors is a spin-off and more of a celebration/tribute to the Zelda series in similar fashion of Super Smash Bros. to Nintendo characters. And its easy to see, Impa isn't a new version, its specifically taken from Ocarina of Time. Midna and Agitha was exclusively to Twilight Princess game, and same with Fi from Skyward Sword. Then of course more playable characters such as Link and Zelda.

For now i'm not for it, only because of the length and that alone, but what i don't like that its being rejected completely even if circumstances change for subjective reasons. Lucia Black (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@IP - I have no objection,in theory, to discussing the characters in prose. My objection to it so far is that it's been largely redundant to the current plot section. However, as time passes, and more details are released (or the game is out) a paragraph or sub-section of prose would be easier to create as part of the Story or gameplay sections. I fully support this approach. Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@IP if you would follow the main site thoroughly, you would know that the "coming soon" would always be just one empty slot. So long as we get more and more characters confirmed a new "coming soon" slot will be added. They recently confirmed Shiek, Ruto, and Darunia from Ocarina of Time as playable characters, that's around 12. And i believe that's an appropriate length already. SO if length is an issue, thats no problem or it wont be a problem anytime soon.

@Sergecross73: thats the problem i find with how this works. if there is a need for a "characters" section, a table should be more than welcomed. Lucia Black (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not a problem, that's just one approach, not a hurdle or a guideline or anything. I guess we'll see how consensus goes, but right now there isn't anyone supporting your stance on the talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 10:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Everything upto this point has been assuming consensus to avoid any real reasoning as well. And i agree with his reasoning. and a table isn't a hurdle or a guideline either. Not many editors are involved, but i find it inconsistent. I rather see "real" reasoning. Its a bit insulting to only hear "well in my opinion i don't think its necessary and i wont delve into any more than that". I'm asking questions, i'm making real comparisons. everything i'm asking and challenging is being ignored. Lucia Black (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That's only because you've dismissed every argument you disagree with as non-existent. I can't help you with that... Sergecross73 msg me 11:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

there's so many things wrong with what you just said. First: I'm asking questions after all, i'm providing real comparisons for you to answer, in fact im asking you to elaborate on the comparisons you provided. If you see bad-faith, its well-deserved at this point. Only way to change that if you do provide more. Second: Even if that were true, you're only feeding the viscous cycle by not providing any real reasoning. And if you call that dismissing your argument, then that's the problem. Perhaps if you provided the extensive reasoning and elaborated from the beginning, this wouldn't be an issue. Lucia Black (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Your referral to WP:GAMECRUFT as being the reason why character lists shouldn't be included is faulty. WP:GAMECRUFT does in no way argue that point, it only mentions CAST list, as in list of voice actors and motion capture actors. However, the existence of character lists are in no way discussed in that document.Djungelurban (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about point #6 - listing off unlockable characters. Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing in this article suggesting that all these characters have to be unlocked in order to be played. Afterall, the Warriors series always had a number of characters to play from the start. You're looking at it too much like a main Zelda game, not a Warriors spin-off. Lucia Black (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe mainline/spinoff/canon or anything matters in interpreting this guideline. There's no "unless it's a spinoff" clause in GAMECRUFT. Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not using canon as a reason, but my argument isn't that its a spin-off but it leans toward one series more than the other (one of them designed to use multiple playable characters). First things first: The game bears "tribute" to the Zelda series by returning specific Zelda characters from the series just like many Warrior games have done. The reason why it matters is because Zelda characters are being taken from specific game to "celebrate" the series. For example: 3 new characters have just recently been announced as playable characters: Sheik, Ruto, and Darunia. All 3 exclusively to Ocarina of Time. Fi is also a character that is exclusively from Skyward Sword and Midna from Twilight Princess. So its not like we're seeing reccuring Zelda characters (Link, Zelda, Ganon, Epona), we're seeing specific characters from isolated games (for the reason i already said before).

But back to my main point. You're treating this like a "Zelda" game first, not a "Warriors" game. A main Zelda game normally uses one character: Link. So listing multiple characters isn't needed. But this game uses multiple playable characters and even multiplayer game mode, which leans closer to Warriors series.

Warriors series have used tables for characters in the past too. For example: The Dynasty Warriors series bears tribute to Dynasties, historical people and fictional characters from China. Dynasty Warriors (video game) uses a table for each character and which Dynasty they are from. Samurai Warriors also lists famous Japanese people as playable characters. Warriors Orochi lists characters from both including new characters.

Also, Gamecruft doesn't apply here at all. These aren't "unlockable" characters (or it is not confirmed), these are confirmed for the moment as generally playable. Lucia Black (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

At bare minimum, there's currently NO mention of any playable characters other than Link. We should at least add the following until the issue is sorted:

"In addition to Link, Hyrule Warriors features several other playable characters drawn from different entries in the Legend of Zelda series, such as Darunia from Ocarina of Time, Midna from Twilight Princess, and Fi from Skyward Sword, as well as introducing new characters like Lana, a sorceress who aids Link and Impa. Additionally, bosses from other Legend of Zelda titles, including Twilight Princess's Zant and Skyward Sword's Ghirahim, appear as enemies."

This way, it doesn't sound like Link is the only character, we make mention of all three entries that the other characters are drawn from without getting to crufty, and we explain who Lana is so that no one is confused by the fact that she's right on the box but not mentioned anywhere in the article. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

That sounds good, I have no problem with that, IP. Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Official PR E-mail - for use in citation

Nintendo just sent out a PR e-mail following tonight's Direct which has been shared on news sites and clarifies multiple details, including the full list of playable characters, several gameplay modes and elements not yet mentioned on the page, and the retailer-specific nature of additional costumes in the United States. It could provide a helpful source for adding many of these details to the article. [1] - 69.136.149.237 (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Nintendo SPD as co-dev

Unless I just overlooked it somewhere, where is a source stating that SPD is co-developing the game? (and not just providing assets) ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Spinoff status

There's many sources stating that Iwata says this isn't the next main installment in the Zelda series. Despite this, an editor keeps on challenging the term "spinoff". Plenty of reliable sources have labeled it a spinoff, and I'm not sure what third status beyond "main" and "spinoff" there would be, so it seems like an appropriate label. Any input? Sergecross73 msg me 01:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hyrule Warrior's status as a non-spin-off

In the Encyclopedia, as sourced in my most recent edit which was reverted, Nintendo's most reliably official source of Zelda information, the "other games" (games that are not part of the "main seventeen"; pre-Breath of the Wild, which make up the canon chronology) into three distinst sections of "spin-offs", "appearences in other games", and "other" and gives definitive definitions for each one.

• Spin-offs are actual Zelda series games that are set outside the canon Zelda chronology, but are still considered to be set in the canon world (e.g. Link's Crossbow Training)
• Games in "appearences in other games" are NOT Zelda games, but rather their own game, which feature generic aspects from the Zelda world along with it's related lore, and it's characters. They are basically considered games where Zelda guest stars.
• The "other" section lists a bunch of other video games in which Zelda content has been included in passing, but not with regards to any lore or story content. Stuff akin to the Switch port of Skyrim having Zelda Amiibo support.
  • There is also a third seperate section which is reserved for Tingle's own mini-series of games.

Hyrule Warriors is placed in the "appearences in other games". This is the same category as games like all Super Smash Bros (muliple Zelda characters guest star), Soul Calibur II (Link guest stared in the Gamecube version) and Sonic Lost World (there was a full-fledged Zelda DLC level). In actual fact, that is the order in which the examples appear in that section and Hyrule Warriors is placed AFTER all three of those other examples, which in itself basically signifies that Nintendo does not consider the game to even be as important with regards to it's guest-starring as those three. Although this last part would be pure original research interpretation on my part. That being said, everything else about this is just factual information. The edit is hardly confusing if you ask me. It is important information about the official status of the game, sourced via Nintendo's own words and definitions. If you can think of a less confusing way to word the information, then be my guest and change it. If you have any issues with the actual core information contained within my edits, please discuss them here. Thanks. --2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:699A:2252:5AAA:B519 (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I don’t particularly think it’s worth mentioning, but if it is, it shouldn’t be such a rambling explanation in the opening sentences of the WP:LEAD. We need to define what the game actually is, not crufty tangents like whether or not Nintendo considers it canon or whatever. At the very least, per WP:LEAD, the lead is only supposed to briefly summarize content that is covered later in article - nothing should exclusively appear in the lead, as you’ve presented it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that it isn't worth mentioning, considering it's a major piece of offical information about the game's official status as a non-Zelda game. You also seem to misunderstand the point. It isn't whether Nintendo consider the game canon, it's whether the game is a Zelda game or not. People wrongly consider the game a Zelda game, when Nintendo themselves have directly acknowledged that it is not one. It is considered a Dynasty Warriors game that is set in the Zelda world, not a Zelda game that uses a Dynasty Warriors gameplay structure. This distinction is an important piece of information to note at SOME point in the article at least. And the lead in is the perfect place to describe the game fundamentally is. Namely that it is a Dynasty Warriors game set in the Zelda world. Not an official Zelda game in the Zelda franchise. I do believe that it should be rewritten though, to directly indicate that is what the information is supposed to be telling the reader of the article, since as it is right now, it is admittedly just a ramble about it's non-status as a spin-off --2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:DD48:7D2:4F49:9F64 (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

That is up for discussion. But how you are handling this is not. Following WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOCONSENSUS is not optional. Content that is being challenged is not to be included unless there is a consensus to included. This is your final warning. If you re-add content again either here or at the CDi Zelda article without consensus, the pages are going to be locked from editing, and you’ll be restricted from editing it at all. I assume this option would not be preferable, so please stop and follow the rules. Do not add your content unless/until there is resolution on how to handle this. Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you saw my latest edit before writing this or not, but did that edit before I saw this, just to clarify. I won't edit-war anymore. I do believe I am correct though, and that my latest edit, even if it gets undone now, is good information for a lead in to the article. The prior edit incorrectly states that the game is part of the Zelda series, whereas the most recent source for all official and most up to date Zelda information, the Encyclopedia, makes it clear it is not one, so the former information is wrong and misleading. --2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:DD48:7D2:4F49:9F64 (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It’s a step in the right direction, but there’s still issues. If you want to make a comment about this is the development section, that’s fine, but it doesn’t belong so upfront in the intro. It also lacks context. This encyclopedia is not the only authority on this. Even ignoring the fact that we don’t have to strictly adhere to Nintendo’s stance, Nintendo isn’t even consistent on this front. On Nintendo’s one website, they clearly label is as “A Legend of Zelda game for Wii U” and the same for the 3DS. The appropriate way to handle this is to add a note about this in the Dev section that one of many interpretations, and this is the book’s interpretation. Sergecross73 msg me 20:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

While I'm willing to agree to an extent, I do want to present the argument that I do not believe there has been any more up to date official source for Nintendo's stance on the game after Encyclopedia. While the website and numerous other sources from Nintendo do conflict with Encyclopedia, the Encyclopedia has the latest, explicitly shown interpretation of the Zelda franchise from Nintendo. When it was released, it was explicitly intended to be a most up to date collection of information (the book, as well as Hyrule Historia released in 2011 in Japan explicitly makes reference and it openly clear to the fact that the interpretation does change over time, but that the compiled information is, as of publication, as up to date as possible. There are several differences between Hyrule Historia and Encyclopedia, for example, some of which Encyclopedia even explicitly highlights). I believe that as of right now, unless someone can find an official source from explicitly AFTER the publication of the book that gives a different interpretation, the Encyclopedia's placement of the game as a non-Zelda title should be considered the official stance. And as that stands, it should be in the lead in, as it is official info on what a game explicitly is, without colliqual jargon/interpretation involved, which is what a Wikipedia page is supposed to display. It should not be formed around fandom interpretation or what have you, this is about hard, offical information. May I possibly suggest this, in fact, as a compromise: We can have this info in the lead in, but with a note, that says something like, "Although there are countless sources that conflict with this, the most explicitly up-to-date, and verifiably offical stance as presented in Encyclopedia is that it is considered a non-Zelda game which uses elements from the Zelda world, in the same category as Super Smash Bros."2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:9075:AE00:3650:3927 (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

No offense, but none of this is how things are handled on Wikipedia. We don’t introduce content in the lead that isn’t covered in the rest of the article. We don’t add rambling editorials about trivial matters like fictional canon or classification in opening sentences of the article. And we don’t just pick one favorite source and state it as fact when there are differing viewpoints from multiple reliable sources. We can open this up to other editors but I’m telling you, they’re just going to tell you the same thing. It’d be a lot faster and easier if you’d just take my word on this... Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

All of those points are strawmen though:

• "We don't introduce content in the lead that isn't covered in the rest of the article" - This doesn't really mean anything. This is base information that doesn't need to be covered in the article since it speaks for itself. You cannot expand on something as basic as "this is a Dynasty Warriors game. It's not a Zelda game".
• "We don’t add rambling editorials about trivial matters like fictional canon or classification in opening sentences of the article." - This is not about "fictional canon", it's about whether a game belongs to a franchise or not. Why do you keep dragging this back to an argument about in-universe lore, it has nothing to do with the game's placement as "canon" or not. It isn't canon since it's not part of the chronology. I know this, the article knows this, Nintendo has been consistant with this and said it countless times. Whether it's a Zelda game and whether it's canon are not the same thing. And as for just pure, broad clarification about what a game fundamentally is, why WOULDN'T that be included? You call an egg an egg. The fact that it's a Dynasty Warriors game that crosses over into Zelda, NOT a Zelda game that crosses into Dnyasty Warriors or a joint simulatanous Zelda and Dynasty Warriors game, is literally core info about the game's base identity. Like I've said, the previous information on the article basically said that the game is a joint Zelda and Dynasty Warriors game that is part of both series, but, if you do hypothetically take Encyclopedia as the most reliable, up-to-date source, this would be patently false information.
• "And we don’t just pick one favorite source and state it as fact when there are differing viewpoints from multiple reliable sources." - This completely ignores the entire argument I put forth. Can you actually address that argument, please? 2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:9075:AE00:3650:3927 (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• WP:LEAD counters your first point. Very straightforward. Follow the established Manual of Style.
• Its not important to spend a ton of time on whether the game is a “spinoff” or “a game that just uses the Zelda IP”
• Im not saying the encyclopedia isn’t reliable, I’m just saying it’s one of many, and must be treated as such. Nintendo’s own website actively contradicting it is an equally important viewpoint.

It doesn’t take a long dissertation to explain why your approach isn’t the best. The problem is that you don’t seem to understand the basics of Wikipedia, so you don’t seem to understand the issues with your proposals. Sergecross73 msg me 19:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• This is contradictory and doesn't make sense. The previous version of the lead-in contained information regarding the game's status; regarding whether it belongs to the Zelda series and the Dynasty Warriors series or not, only it was the exact opposite stance on the information. It doesn't make any sense that me changing "This game is a game in the Zelda and Dynasty Warriors series" to "this game is a game in the Dynasty Warriors series but not in the Zelda series" would be a problem. Can you please explain this to me plainly, rather than just linking to and citing the Manual of Style, which does not address this issue at all. In fact, it just seems to back up my issue that your stance towards my edits is entirely contradictory and that, moreover, you are viewing them in a way that construe them as strawmen of adding information, rather than what they actually are, which is simply updating information that was already present.
• Refer to the first point as it's basically going over the same issue.
• I understand that this is a more sticky point of dispute. But the fact of the matter is that there is no definitive right answer with this. It isn't as simple as saying that contradicting sources exist, therefore Enyclopedia is not the definitive source. If the source itself which is contradicted specifically calls itself the definitive source that stands in spite of contradictions, what do you make it this? This entire mess is Nintendo's fault, if anything, for approaching the info on the Zelda franchise and what's considered definitive sources in such a wishy-washy way and being all over the place with this. I appreciate it's difficult to cast-ironly put the Encyclopedia down as the only source that should be used, but again, when the source itself offically dictates that it is the all encompassing collection of information that retcons all previously believed information, it's no longer a simple matter of "there's other sources". It becomes a sticky mess.
• I do understand. The issue is that I think my edits are being miscontrued, and that strawmans are being set up surrounding my edits. Refer to the first point for more on this, since that basically covers it. 2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:9075:AE00:3650:3927 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit: The entire mess with sources is particularly true when you are trying to stick to being totally impartial, using only official informtion. Places like the Zelda Wiki are fandom based and are therefore free to be a lot more loose with their interpretation of official content, incorporating the notion of common sense into inconsistencies and messy sources when they feel fit. Wikipedia does not straight out offer that luxury as a get off of a mess like this. If you'll allow me to be blunt, simply acting like you're right and I'm wrong would be oversimplifying this entire mess of how frustratingly inconsistent Nintendo is with Zelda information. In fact, I can admit that I'm not "right" on this either, since it's is a mess. 2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:ED78:1A05:A9B9:2E9A (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:VG discussion

To summarize the dispute, since the discussion above is lengthy: An IP wants to add this edit to the article. He has further attempted to add this edit instead. I oppose on multiple grounds, but the IP continues to revert it into the article, so I wanted to get a consensus here. Anyways, there are many issues:

1. They violate WP:LEAD. None of this is covered in the article body.
2. They're poorly written - its rambling and editorializing. Its neither well written, nor in the proper tone. And its very awkward to go on a tangent like this in the opening sentences of the article where the subject is barely defined.
3. It lacks context. The IP is attempting to establish that the game isn't part of the Legend of Zelda series. The source given says that its "not a Legend of Zelda game. But it's just a single source. Plenty of third party sources call it a Legend of Zelda spinoff (https://www.theverge.com/2015/6/10/8758737/legend-of-zelda-hyrule-warriors-nintendo-3ds), while Nintendo themselves call it a Legend of Zelda game on the Wii U and 3DS. Its a WP:POV and WP:UNDUE issue to present his stance as fact when multiple reliable sources support multiple other stances on this.

In summary, it's not that I oppose the information's inclusion in a general sense. It just should be rewritten in a more concise manner with proper context ("According to source X, the game is Y") and placed in the development section alongside the other stances, not as an rambling editorial in the lead. Sergecross73 msg me 22:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

If I may add my own points of dispute here:

• As stated above, the previous iteration of the information in the lead was the exact same information, but reversed. When you paraphrase the basic idea of each, the previous iteration and my latest edit would be, in order:

• "Hyrule Warriors is Zelda game and a Dynasty Warriors game."
• "Hyrule Warriors is a Dynasty Warriors game that is set in the Zelda universe."

As can be seen, these two statements contain different iterations of the same information. The latter simply alters the "Zelda game" aspect to clarify that the game is actually only set in the Zelda universe, but is not a Zelda game. I agree that perhaps this paraphrased version would be a better version of my edit, as it infers the idea of it not being a Zelda game without directly saying that fact. In fact, this appears to be the main point of dispute. Namely that it states something ("This is not a Zelda game") which is not discussed anywhere else.

• I have explained this at length above. I suggest that should be read before jumping to conclusions relating to the source.

With the altered edit I am proposing above, I believe it actually irons out the issues relating to this dispute. Namely, it inparts no bias either way with stating definitively that it isn't a Zelda game, but also infers the idea that that it definitely is a "Dynasty Warriors game set in the Zelda universe". Which in itself keeps it open for the interpretation of the game's status as a non-Zelda game in Encyclopedia, while only inparting factual information. 2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:ED78:1A05:A9B9:2E9A (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this does not belong in the lead. There is room for debate about the exact wording used in the lead, whether it's "in both series" or "a crossover between" or whatever, but it should be kept as brief as possible. My personal preference would be to try to find a compromise wording that implies neither canonicity nor lack thereof, and leave it as that; that sources are inconsistent implies to me that it probably isn't something that is considered important. However, if canonicity is to be discussed at all -- and I don't object to it per se so much as I consider it unnecessary -- it should be deeper within the article (the development section seems reasonable to me) and it should cover multiple sources, with an emphasis being placed on out-of-universe sources where possible. Lowercaserho (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, my primary concern was removing the LEAD violations and rambling tangents. I’m open to compromises on how to label it in the lead. My intention was not to open up one of those debates over canonicity or anything like that. I just felt the plain statement of “it’s not considered a Legend of Zelda game” to be a pretty incomplete assessment of the overall situation. Many sources consider it many things. I’m fine with mentioning them all. Briefly and succinctly in the proper places. Sergecross73 msg me 01:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

"However, if canonicity is to be discussed at all -- and I don't object to it per se so much as I consider it unnecessary -- it should be deeper within the article (the development section seems reasonable to me) and it should cover multiple sources, with an emphasis being placed on out-of-universe sources where possible."

The thing that I think is confusing the issue is the dissonance between canonicity and about the placement within a franchise. I am talking about the latter not the former. Like I've said multiple times, there is no dispute as to whether the games are in the Zelda canon, as they are not. Canonicity and the status of the game as a The Legend of Zelda game are two differing things, and I don't know why you guys keep drawing canoncity into it. The information in the lead in is not about canonicity, it's about whether the game fundemantily belongs to the series or not. For example, Link's Crossbow Training, the BS Zelda, and Zelda Game & Watch also all have no actual Zelda canonicity, but those game are still nevertheless Zelda games (and Encyclopedia lists it as a Zelda spin-off. Like I said, Encyclopedia lists Hyrule Warriors as a game that belongs to another franchise and simply has Zelda elements within it). This has nothing to do with canonicity, it is to do with the core identity of the game. Why such basic information as stating what franchise the game belongs to should not be in the lead in baffles me, I have to be honest. Like I said, the current version of the article literally already states the same kind of information when it says it's a crossover game between the Zelda and Dynasty Warriors series. It's beyond me as to why it's even a point of dispute for me to propose to slightly altar this to reflect that it's a "Dynasty Warriors game that takes place in the Zelda universe"/"Dynasty Warriors game that crosses over with the Zelda series" (the latter of these fit a lead more I feel), which would simply state a more accurate version of the exact same information, . I can understand the dispute regarding the Encyclopedia as a source, but the fact that you would still have issues with the fundemental nature of the edit even if Encyclopedia was to hypothetically be taken as a completely definitive source, honestly seems completely ridiculous, to be totally blunt. I don't get what the problem is. The only thing I can think is that you're not understanding what I mean whe I say that the game is "not a Zelda game", as like I said, it has nothing at all to do with canonicity. 2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:4C99:4D8A:1806:AD04 (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Your point is, I believe, broadly understood at this point, and continued discussion is just going to move further into minutiae and away from the central issue. Let's see if we can find consensus by moving towards some sort of compromise that is acceptable to everyone. While it might not be your absolute first choice, would you be willing to accept the proposed solution of keeping the current wording in the lead ("a crossover between Nintendo's The Legend of Zelda and Koei Tecmo's Dynasty Warriors series") and the addition of a paragraph in the development section covering the different stances that different sources have taken on how the game fits into the involved series? If this is an acceptable compromise that everyone can live with, then let's just go ahead and get that done. If this isn't an acceptable compromiseto you, would you care to suggest an alternative compromise? Lowercaserho (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, my main issue with this would be that the current wording in the lead leans towards inferring incorrect information according to some sources, but correct information, according to others. For a lead that is supposed to inpart base information that doesn't seem like a good idea. My proposition for a compromise is that the lead should use inpartial wording that allows all all possible sources to be simulataneously uncontradicted, and then information can be added about the status of the game according to contradictory sources in the develop section, if people want to read more into it. The info as it is gives an biased stance towards a non-definitive source just as much as my previous edit (admittedly) would have. My proposed wording for the lead as a compromise, is to basically just get rid of mention of it use of the word "series", to avoid it leaning towards the idea that it is part of the Zelda series, and make it, "a crossover between Koei Tecmo's Dynasty Warriors and Nintendo's The Legend of Zelda" (Dynasty Warriors being named first would be preferable, and I think fits in the first place, since it uses Dynasty Warriors gameplay and so instantly inparts to the reader a better image of what the game might be through that order choice, but I'm not fussed either way). As this is still true, regardless of whether you consider it a "Zelda game" or not, and I'm willing to compromise because otherwise we'll be going in circles. --2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:4C99:4D8A:1806:AD04 (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I find that acceptable, and have edited the article accordingly. Does anyone have any objections at this point? Lowercaserho (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

As long as my addition to the development section was fine, then I'm all good on my end. 2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:4C99:4D8A:1806:AD04 (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't assume to speak for Sergecross73 or anyone else, but personally, I'm OK with it. Lowercaserho (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this was more or less what I was striving for here. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 11:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with Sergecross73 here that the additions are inappropriate, for both WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE reasons. What comes to mind for me is Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix, which is still considered a Mario game despite utilizing Dance Dance Revolution mechanics as it is set in the Mario universe with Mario characters. @ the IP: since you clearly have access to the Zelda encyclopedia, are you able to provide the exact text extract from the encyclopedia that clearly and explicitly states that Hyrule Warriors is not a Zelda game? Because it seems to me that this is all based on the encyclopedia listing it in the "appearances in other games" section, and everything else is WP:SYNTH from there. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 01:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Well this has been resolved now, but for the sake of clarification, sure. It isn't just pure speculation on my part regarding the meaning behind the sections given in Encyclopedia. To clarify in length:

• The main seventeen titles are each given their own section in the Archieves chapter (this is pre-Breath of the Wild & the main seventeen also incoroprate their respective remakes/remasters, rather then them being standalone). This seventeen are are the main series and are part of the chronology.
• After the section for Tri Force Heroes, the latest main series title, there's another section called "Still More Legends". This incorporates all the other Zelda related content that are not part of the main chronology. The description for this section describes it as incorporating, "...spin-off titles set in the Zelda universe, games set in other universes in which Link and other characters have guest stared..."

• The first subection in "Still More Legends" is "Spin-off Titles". The description for this subsection reads, "Games that are not nessecarily part of the Zelda chronology, but still exist within the same universe".
• The next subsection is "Appearences in Other Games". The description describes that, "Link, characters, items and worlds, appear in all sorts of other titles". This indentifies this section as listing games outside of Zelda which have featured Link, characters, and generic Zelda lore.
• The third and final subsection is "Even More Games". This is described with, "Zelda elements have featured in a score of other titles to date". This lists titles where Zelda has had an inpact in some way outside of featuring some sort of direct crossover with the characters, worlds, and lore, by featuring only Zelda "elements" (for example, non-Zelda games that have used Zelda music are listed here).

Hyrule Warriors being in "Appearences in Other Games" signifies directly that the game is officially considered a non-Zelda title and also a non-Zelda spin off, which has Zelda-lore crossover. Even if it is colliquatly referred to as a Zelda spin-off. It's true that the Encyclopedia does not, if you want to be strict about it, directly state straight out something akin to "Hyrule Warriors is a non-Zelda game", but, for starters, why would it. That would be silly, given people reading the book have their common sense and inferrence, the book stating that would be redundent, so it would be useless to expect there to be such a direct source as a description in the Hyrule Warriors description that states such a thing. The game being in that one subsection is enough to see the listing in the book as a direct statement on the status of Hyrule Warriors in itself. 2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:4422:575C:674F:5CE4 (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

What you are describing is pretty much the definition of WP:OR, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

It is not original research though since there is no personal interpretation or assumptions involved. The point I'm making is that this is practically the purpose of this section of the book in the first place. Maybe if you wanna be completely, insanely strict about it, it's technically original research, but there's a touch bit of common sense that needs to be involved with this. Not regarding the interpretation of that section, but regarding the fact that it isn't even one in the first place. Like I said, I agree that the source was not substantial for what I was initially planning, but the compromise come to is just fine, and everyone's agreed as such already, so there shouldn't be any issues. 2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:501C:5DE5:D887:53BC (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

”The-source-doesn’t-state-it-directly-but-my-interpretation-of-it-proves-it” is original research. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The source does "state it directly" though. It just puts the game into a section with is given it's own direct description that applies to all within games, rather than directly attatching said description to the game itself. If you're going to approach claims of "original research" with such violations of base common sense as this, than I don't know what to tell you. Just because the book doesn't treat the reader like a child who needs every description to state the absolute obvious that they've already stated outright. 2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:501C:5DE5:D887:53BC (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

That is absolutely not what the word “direct” means. At no point does it actually say that it’s “not a Zelda game”. They just put it in a grouping of games that you personally deemed to be “not Zelda”. That’s OR. Sergecross73 msg me 22:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

To be quite frank, I'm getting sick of being hounded over this, even though this has already been resolved. Someone comes along after you've already flat out told us all that you're okay with this now with a comment and you suddenly flip attitudes on a dime and act like the source still isn't valid. Stop contradicting yourself and get your damn story straight. I don't care if this counts as a personal attack. Not only are you constantly acting like a total tool regarding this source, ignoring your violation of common sense and a compromise in favor still raising a stink by being a stickler for your perspective on the wikipedia rules (even though, like I said, that is just your interpretation. Whether this counts as OR is a debate in itself. You are not "right" on this), you've also begun hounding me over my other edits, reverting them without any discussion before hand even though they're fully sourced because you personally think the way they're worded is not valid, while actually leaving snide comments in the edit summary regarding how this isn't the first time it's happened. Just stop, and shut up. This has been resolved. You agreed to that. Stop backtracking, and learn both some common sense and common decency. 5.65.226.212 (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it was resolved until you went out of your way to give a very clear, detailed, undeniable account of it being OR. Don’t get mad at me, you shot yourself in the foot with that explanation. It appears you already realize that though, as you’ve resorted to lengthy whining and personal attacks instead of anything content related. Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I was clarifying something because someone wanted to be clarify something. And the fact that you're acting like this is supposed to be an argument and that I "shot myself in the foot" just says a lot. You were happy with the resolution, than you completely flip over on yourself over something trival that I had basically already stated in the first place. My "clear, detailed, undeniable account of it being OR" was something I had already stated in uncertain terms already, and you should have understood that already when you agreed to the resolution. Again, it was a clarification, not me giving a new explanation. What I said was literally just my very first comment in this page but with a bit of extension for the sake of clarification relating to the other user's enquriy; which does not impact how much actual information was contained therein, it only impacts how the information is taken in by that user so as to clarify their confusion/worries. The actual information is the same. I'm also not the one who's checking a user's editing history and undoing their other edits while adding personal insults. Maybe it's a stretch to consider them insults, but comments like, "once again, this [isn't a valid edit]" are unneeded references to completely seperate matters that you don't need to throw in my face nor the faces of those who might see the page history. Maybe my edit on particular pages is excessive and unneeded, I admit that, but just because I can admit I was in the wrong in part, that doesn't excuse your wrongful actions either. You could have just undid it, without the snide jab aimed personally at me. 2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:10E5:9C68:A829:8D12 (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Look, I was happy that the compromise got the rambling tangent out of the article’s opening sentences, but that doesn’t change the fact that there are still irreconcilable problems with your added information, what the source actually says, and Wikipedia’s OR policy. Sergecross73 msg me 19:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Just forget about it. Untill; or should I say unless, someone else steps in a puts their word in, this clearly isn't going anywhere outside of a "I'm right" vs "I'm right" scenario. Considering this has been resolved, let's just move on and let bygones be bygones rather than blocking up a talk page with trival nonsense. 2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:10E5:9C68:A829:8D12 (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

You literally don’t have a policy-based rationale though. Sergecross73 msg me 21:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Zelda Warriors

This is blatantly untrue. The game is known as ゼルダ無双 or "Zelda Musou" in Japan. The source cited even states this, and doesn't mention the name "Zelda Warriors" at all, so this seems to be original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.151.173.250 (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Isn’t “Warriors” just the word Tecmo Koei uses for the word “musou” though? It doesn’t seem like much of a stretch if one were trying to capture the Japanese name with English words. Sergecross73 msg me 12:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Other Nintendo franchises

Hi, just a small question. Before Zelda was chosen for the Warriors collaboration, do we know at all if there were any other Nintendo IPs considred for it? I remember reading from someone a few years back (it might have been someone at Game Informer but I'm not certain) that at least Mario (no surprise there) was a possible option but other then that, nothing.158.174.97.127 (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

There’s been vague rumors of other franchises, but nothing concrete or confirmed. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Well if Mario wasn't mentioned before, atleast the series was mentioned this week. Thats something I guess.--158.174.44.11 (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)