Jump to content

Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword HD

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge to the normal Skyward Sword article.

[edit]

Before I put the merge template on this page, I wanna know if this is a good idea or not. It simply seems like it'll be a slightly better version as the one on the Wii U but I wanna hear your guys' thoughts before I propose to merge the articles. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that. Little is known so far. It could easily be condensed into a paragraph in the main article. Sergecross73 msg me 18:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like we should wait until release to determine that move. The precedent alone of the 2 prior HD remasters having pages should be enough for the moment, and the improvements are currently similar to those of Twilight Princess. Mitchy Power (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Typically it's the opposite - you merge now, and only split out if more info comes. Sergecross73 msg me 21:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Development

[edit]

So, I've been reverted on a couple of my attempts, so I'll try to workshop it here a bit instead. I'm merely trying to convey that Tantalus is the porting/remastering company, but that Nintendo is the creator of the actual game content itself. Yes, Tantalus converted the content to Switch, but they did not create the puzzles, design the characters, write the music, etc etc. It shouldn't be controversial to allude to this - it's literally what happened. I don't even care about the specific wording, I'm just opposed to omitting it entirely, as every revert has done so far. Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a couple days without comment. Just reminding people that they cannot concurrently revert but not participate in the discussion afterwards, unless you're dropping it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

[edit]

I have noticed this article accidentally, being mentioned on WikiProject's talk page. Not sure that it needs a separate article, there is no actual WP:SIGCOV in development beyond passing mentions or WP:PRIMARY, and the changes listed aren't significant either. The best thing is for this to be merged into in The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword, with article sections to mention both versions where needed to (such as Development, Reception, etc.). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one needs to cite OSE, citing WP:MERGE will do just fine - articles being short and redundant to one another are perfectly valid reason's for merging. Sergecross73 msg me 11:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is short because no one is expanding it, not because there are no information to be added. 106 reviews shows that this port is notable. Neo-corelight (Talk) 12:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's also perfectly acceptable to merge until someone does the legwork in writing a full article. Look, I get that you don't want to merge it, and there's a valid approach somewhere in there, but stop trying to find wrongdoing. This is strictly about editing philosophy. Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOMERGE #3 stated being short isn't a reason to merge. This article isn't even that short. It's in adequate length. Neo-corelight (Talk) 23:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be having a hard time understanding the full scope of the argument, which is not just that it's short, but that it's short and largely redundant/duplicative to the parent article, to the point that it's better to just be covered at the parent article. In other words, most of the points mentioned at WP:MERGE. So as I said, you're free to your opinion on the merge, but your attempt to assert there's some sort of misconduct here is misguided at best. Sergecross73 msg me 01:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your perceived redundant/duplicative-ness is because the current condition of the article, not because it don't have potential. I'm going with the principle of preserving content and improving where there are perceived problems, not removing them. People are more likely to "do the legwork in writing a full article" if there are materials they can pick up on, instead of starting from scratch. I'm not trying to "assert there's some sort of misconduct", I'm sorry you perceive it that way. Neo-corelight (Talk) 02:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter why, what matters is that it's completely redundant/duplicative, and as someone who's been maintaining it since it's creation, I don't particularly buy in to your "it just needs time to improve" argument. It's existed for almost a year. The game has sold millions of copies. And the article hasn't made any noteworthy improvements quality-wise. (Even less when you remove my edits out of that equation.) If it hasn't improved yet, I don't see any reason to think it's coming. Sergecross73 msg me 02:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This game is a straightforward HD remaster. Minor gameplay differences, little development info, and reception that mostly amounts to comments about the quality of the port. It is better summarized in the main article. TarkusABtalk/contrib 05:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: There's no actual interviews about the creation process, and what's there could easily be merged into a subsection or into existing sections. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Unlike the 3DS remakes of Ocarina and Majora, plus the Switch remake of Link's Awakening, this info could easily go into the main page of the original version, as it doesn't contain a lot of major changes compared to the Wii version. Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Seems very clear that this could just be a piece of the main article as this is just a straight remaster (instead of a much more iterative process). Nomader (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. My instinct with these kinds of articles is to err on the side of merging for readability reasons. "It deserves an article because it's a remaster/remake/whatever" is not a convincing argument. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - My general opinion is that having a separate article for a video game remaster just makes things needlessly difficult for the reader (having to flit between two articles to read about what is essentially one subject) and maintenance editors (having to watch over and update two articles to ensure the integrity of the same information). The only reason I can think of for an exception is that there is too much independent coverage of the remaster for it to be covered in the same article as the original, which is clearly not the case with Skyward Sword.--Martin IIIa (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - On the basis of Wind Waker HD and Twilight Princess HD having the same relative amount of content, and the lack of one of these pages in the presence of the others presents parity issues for the end user. If consensus were reached on the HD remasters as a whole, which don't do much outside of control, gameplay, and graphics tweaks, then I would support the merging of all Zelda remasters into their parent articles. Mitchy Power (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Skyward_Sword_HD&oldid=1203045312"