Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

User:Dr90s Sockpuppet edits (removal of Miyamoto)

Hello again. I'm sorry to bother everyone about this matter again. I have filed a report now with WP:AN/I. An admin there has blocked the most recent Dr90s sock, User:Akane7000, and has suggested that he would be the go-to admin for issues involving Dr90s. This adminisrator is User:Tanthalas39. He will only do this, however, if he has admin as well as non-admin support for the idea. I just left a note there saying that I would ask for non-admin comments at a few talk pages that Dr90s has been involved with. Please, if you can spare the time, weigh in on the matter at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A campaign of systematic vandalism (User:Dr90s and puppets). I am open to all ideas, so I am happy to see either agreement or disagreement with what I have written and proposed there. I hope we can finally get a bit of respite from this matter and I thank you all for your patience. -Thibbs (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

References about directors and miyamoto

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Currently edit war is happening. The issue is with the sentences about the directors and miyamoto's works. Some persons oddly try to remove these information. But how the game was developed by directors is a MUST information if it is available. And how the producer was involved in the game and how producer feels about directors are also precious information. As an encycropedia, we should not conceal these facts many people want to know.--Akane7000 (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC) I don't know what you mean by, "the information was originally in this article," but I cannot find this information in any past versions of the article until Dr. 90s socks tried to add it. It also violates Wikipedia's policies on non-English sources as no one who can't read Japanese can verify the information's accuracy. Please, refrain from making such changes unless an English source can be attributed to this information. You are also clearly a single-purpose account and likely just another Dr. 90s sock. DKqwerty (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC) This stuff wears me down. Anyone reading the sockpuppet reports I've been making concerning the edits made by Dr90s and his sockpuppet accounts can clearly see by the evidence I have presented that the person behind all of these accounts is systematically trying to remove the name of or downplay the achievements of Shigeru Miyamoto in all Wikipedia articles that give him any credit. I think this is extremely close to defamation of the character of a living person. This violates an important rule at Wikipedia - WP:BLP. To explain WP:BLP's take on defamation in a word, BLP states: "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. ... From both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other undesirable information from these articles as far as possible.." Dr90s and his sockpuppet accounts are the only editors who are trying to do these kinds of edits. He uses sockpuppet accounts to make it look as though he has support for his edits from other editors. In point of actual fact he is the only editor who feel this way and his obsession with Miyamoto causes him to be extremely uncivil to other editors and to completely ignore Wikipedia's rules just so that he can keep the version of the article the way he personally wants it. The person behind Dr90s feels that Wikipedia is his own encyclopedia, and for this reason, he has been excluded from Wikipedia by consensus. My edits reverting him are intended to mitigate the harm he has caused here. If there is any support for the edits he has made (beside the support of his sockpuppet accounts) then I am happy to leave the articles he has edited in whatever state the community decides. Please go away Dr90s. Nobody is interested in your revisionist history. -Thibbs (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Well said. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 12:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC) The fact that this miyahon person seems to claim that Miyamoto did nothing creative with the game, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary that has been provided previously in many links, through both Miyamoto and other designers from Ocarina, such as Eiji Aonuma, ultimately proves that this person, just like Dr. 90/whetever his name is currently, has an agenda. What Sunngle was doing before was CLEARLY downplaying Miyamoto's involvement, as addressed by really useless unnecessary quotes such as 'Oh everybody else did most of the work, i just did maybe 2 mini games at the most'. Something that no one cares about and has no point in mentioning. Never mind that AGAIN it's inaccurate because of the dozens of links from interviews posted otherwise. Miyamoto was heavily involved with the creative aspect of Ocarina of Time, and no matter how you try to spin that he didn't, it won't become true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.112.32.18 (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Shigeru Miyamoto did nothing creative in the development of Ocarina of Time

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have a totally opposite view from thibbs'. First, Thibbs claims sunglle removed the name of or downplay the achievements of Shigeru Miyamoto in a disruptive way. but i do not think so. i think the reason why he removed the name of miyamoto from some articles is that miyamoto is not the directors of the games, and on this discussion it was decided that non directors should not be listed so he removed miyamoto's name. Second, why on earth showing facts is treated as downplaying? I am a Japanese , and i can tell you western people that many Japanese gamers know the fact that shigeru miyamoto did nothing creative in the development of the game because shigeru miyamoto stated the fact in several interviews in Japanese. What sunglle did is adding facts that many people know and shigeru miyamoto himself stated. showing the facts the person himself admits and many people know is a defamatory claims of another? definitely not at least in Japan and i assume it is not in America and all countries. Why on earth showing facts is treated as downplaying or defamatory? It is definitely not. Why do you guys conceal the facts shigeru miyamoto himself stated? Third, Non-English sources are acceptable according to non-English sources. It states "sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available." In this case, an English equivalent is not available so we can use the non-English sources. For people who can not read Japanese, I show the direct translation. [1] Miyamoto said ほとんどはデザイナーの仕事なんですよね Most are designers' works. ぼくはそれをくずさない程度に音の注文をつけたり、ゲーム要素を入れたり。I requested sounds and add mini game elements in a way that do not vandalizes designers' works [2] Miyanaga said「空気感」を表現した this sentence means " expressed atomosphere" [3] Aonuma saidねじれてる通路があって、there is a twisted passage これは、３Ｄじゃないと出来なかったことでした this is possible only on 3d [4] Osawa said 64の３Ｄゲームを、どうしたらもっと「間口」を広げられるのか、と思っていました。 I was wondering how 3d games for n64 can be widened. ある程度までは出来たんじゃないか、 it was achieved to some degree. [5] Koizumi said システムの「器」をつくる make a basis for system [6] Koizumi saidZボタンを押すことでつねに敵の真正面に立つ、という仕様を入れた。 created the system that by pushing z button, the characters can stand near enemies face to face [7] Miyamoto saidクリエイティヴでも、デザイナーが各パートでそれぞれフルにいい仕事 as for creativity, the designers are fully doing good works サブゲームをつくるだけで、今回はせいいっぱい。 all I could do were to add mini games You can verify this by using translator or asking people who can read Japanese. This game was made in Japan and Japan created the game so Japan has much more accurate and precious information about the game. As I said, many Japanese gamers know these facts. Look squarely at reality instead of twisting the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miyahon (talk • contribs) 07:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Something worth noting: "Miyahon" is an alias that Shigeru Miyamoto used in his earlier games. So, is this Miyahon user an account created specifically to make Miyamoto-related edits? You decide. And the fact that Miyahon has the exact same stance as Sunglle (even mentions him by name) seems awfully suspicious to me... -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 08:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I totally agree with miyahon. This is not an issue of downplaying or defamatory. This is an issue of whether we should show facts or conceal facts, and in this case, no reason to conceal facts.--Baldanderz (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I don't need opinion; consensus reached on this very talk page is that we need an incontrovertible source that supports that information. Translations by Dr90s and its socks are obviously not usable. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 10:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC) The guy did an interview in Nintendo Power explaining where he got the ideas for Ocarina of time. http://www.miyamotoshrine.com/theman/interviews/111998.shtml Why is someone trying to convince people otherwise? Some sort of sick game you playing there kid. Dream Focus 10:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Ugh, don't encourage him. DKqwerty (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Incontrovertible sources are the given sources above themselves. As Miyahon showed, non-English sources states "sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available." So the non-English sources are only required sources. The information is verifiable. Assume good faith, and if you still challenge the accuracy of the translation, just verify it, as Miyahon said, by using translator or something. The reason why I think the information should be included is that 1. The intension of Shigeru Miyamoto should be respected. As a team member, Shigeru Miyamoto knows how much efforts the directors made. Shigeru Miyamoto really appreciated the directors' works so he praised them and wanted the efforts to be known by people. I agree with Shigeru Miyamoto. The information should be known. 2. By including the information, the article obviously can be improved. Currently there is too little information about the directors although there is a sentence "Individual parts of Ocarina of Time were handled by multiple directors". By including the information, the article becomes more accurate, less obscure, and overall improved. To improve this article, the information should be included.--Baldanderz (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC) You missed the point. Since I have again been singled out by name, I feel it's appropriate to make my response clear. I understand your concerns, User:Miyahon and User:Baldanderz, and I do not think you will find that we have "totally opposite views" once I explain why I have made the reversions that I have made recently. There are two important points to make here: 1)Reverting edits made by User:Dr90s and his sockpuppet accounts doesn't mean that the editors making the reversion disagree with the content. The fact is that Dr90s is not welcome to edit on Wikipedia any more. He has lost his privilege to edit by both community and now arbitration consensus due to his unrepentant incivility, his vandalistic tendentiousness, and his near-total inability to use discussion to achieve changes. The mere fact that he has changed his name to User:Sunglle (proven in this SPI w/ CU case) doesn't mean that he is now suddenly welcome to edit again. It is the physical person behind the username that has been banned from editing, and this covers edits under all usernames used by this physical person. If a person feels he has been unfairly blocked, the action to take is to file an ArbCom Appeal. Dr90s has chosen to ignore the rules and instead create secret "snruB" accounts under different names that he hopes will confuse people into believing that he has broad 3rd-party support for his edits. If other editors who are not Dr90s or his sockpuppets wish to include the same information that Dr90s wishes to include (or to exclude it as the case may be), they are encouraged to do so provided that they provide reliable and verifiable sources to back themselves up. Controversial edits made by Dr90s, however, will be reverted. To reiterate the most important point: Edits made by Dr90s and his sockpuppets may be reverted on the merest hint of vandalism, and even without vandalism new sockpuppet accounts should be swiftly reported as violating WP:BP. 2)Dr90s and his sockpuppets have been banned repeatedly for disruptive vandalism of this and many other articles. Dr90s edits many articles, and one of his primary motivations is removing references to Miyamoto or downplaying his achievements. While the edits made at any one article may appear in isolation to be nothing more than a slight correction, the history of Dr90s and his puppets reveals that he is making Wikipedia the battleground for a campaign of personal vendetta against Miyamoto. Dr90s' defamatory edits sprawl across tens of pages and tend to lack the support of any reliable and verifiable third-party evidence. His insistence that he is merely trying to restore neutrality is completely undermined by his unwillingness to present evidence and to use discussion. Instead he revert-wars ceaselessly and uses sockpuppet accounts. That is why even one edit made by this person under yet another new sockpuppet name is still disruptive and not treated as anything but vandalism. I hope this clarifies matters for the two of you. I, for one, do not have any investment in the content of this article at all. I rarely edit it except to revert the persistent edits made by a highly-disruptive and repeatedly-banned sockpuppet master. I am certainly not pushing one POV over another, and if you have specific issue with my edits please limit yourself to discussing it on my talk page. I believe that far too much ink has been spilled in this matter already. We're all adults here and this childish behavior demeans us all. -Thibbs (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Why do you disregard discussions Hey User:Sesu Prime, you have not shown any practical reasons in removing the information. To me it seems you are removing the information just because you do not like it. If so, you are violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you have neutral point of view and are not trying to prevent the article from being improved, please show the reason why you remove information instead of removing information without discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miyahon (talk • contribs) 10:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC) You work for Sony or Microsoft or something? Anyway, Wikipedians acknowledge sockpuppets like we do any other vandal; we do not tolerate it. Look, we weren't born yesterday, which means new users with a sudden intense interest in defending Dr90s will not be well received. Again, translations by Dr90s and its socks are invalid. Well, I'm done humoring you. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 11:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Even if the information was originally provided by blocked users, the information itself is acceptable if it is correctly sourced. And I verified the translation and it was completely correct as I showed. You have not verified the translations yet so you can not claim it is invalid. Claim the translation is wrong after finding mistranslations. Claiming the information was wrong without verifying the information leads to vandalism. The important thing is whether the information is correct or not.--Miyahon (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC) It isn't that sources are considered reliable until proven otherwise, it's the other way around, especially for this issue. When someone that's not a proven/likely Dr90s sockpuppet provides a reliable source or trusted translation, we'll talk. Until then, don't edit the article (I'm talking to you, the person, not just this account). -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 12:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC) The source is a subsidiary of NINTENDO so it is obviously reliable and it is why directors and miyamoto gave the interview. I merely think the information should be added. It is not a bad thing at all. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Anyone can provide a reliable source or trusted translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miyahon (talk • contribs) 13:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I'm going to have to disagree with your analysis as well, User:Miyahon. The important thing is not whether the information is true or not, but whether it is verifiable by reliable sources. I am not so sure that the source originally produced by User:Dr90s sockpuppet, User:Sunglle, can be called a reliable source. The Itoi Shinbun (1101.com) is a blog. I personally believe it is a pretty good reference as far as blogs go, but it does fail WP:RS which states "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." (emphasis added). Considering the level of popularity of this game for English audiences as well as Japanese and the rest of the world, I find it surprising that reliable English sources cannot be found for this information. If you wish to include the information you should spend less time reverting back to the version preferred by Dr90s and his socks and more time researching the matter to come up with reliable sources. -Thibbs (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Finally, just in passing, please try to maintain a calm and reasonable disposition here. Edit summaries such as this, and post titles such as "Why do you disregard discussions" are considered uncivil. Nobody is trying to conceal anything here and, from what I have seen, the editors who are involved have bent over backward to engage in discussion concerning the sorts of contentious, unsupported, and vandalistic edits that Dr90s and his sockpuppets have again and again tried to re-introduce. If you notice, most of Archive 3 is consumed with these discussions. Considering the level of vandalism this page has suffered at the hands of puppetmaster Dr90s and his socks in the past, one must understand the degree of skepticism that the sorts of reversions that have been performed just recently will engender in editors who have been here longer than 3 days. The best method to make changes at Wikipedia is to boldly introduce verifiable material supported by reliable sources, and the best way to achieve consensus to support any edits that have been reverted under WP:BRD is to civilly discuss them on the article's talk page. If we follow that model, instead of reverting before discussions are complete, I think we'll find it easier to achieve consensus favorable to our position. -Thibbs (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sequel

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is true Itoi Shinbun (1101.com) INCLUDES blog pages. But many reliable sources contain blog pages. Even if a website includes blog pages, it does not mean the website is unreliable. And the interview pages are obviously not within the scope of a blog.　Actually, Miyamoto gave interviews on the website 12 TIMES so far because Itoi Shinbun (1101.com) is reliable website and most importantly it is a subsidiary of NINTENDO. It is verifiable, reliable, verified, and important info. I do not see any reasons to hesitate to add this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miyahon (talk • contribs) 14:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC) The website has several sections and blog section is just one section. The website has a interview section totally unrelated to the blog sention. These are some examples of miyamoto's interviews on the website. [8] [9] [10] --Miyahon (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) My understanding was that Itoi Shinbun was the personal blog of Shigesato Itoi. From what I can see on Wikipedia, Itoi Shinbun is described as "a Japanese maker of various daily life products like Haramaki and the Techo notebook." I'm not sure if that's sufficient to meet the standards set forth in WP:SOURCES (under WP:V). Your contention that "Shigeru Miyamoto did nothing creative in the development of Ocarina of Time" as well Baldanderz' interest in inserting material that Miyamoto only returned to the development team after 50% of the game was complete also seem to raise red flags considering that these are "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources," "reports of statement[s] by someone that seem[] out of character, embarrassing, [and] controversial," and "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community." As further described under WP:FRINGE, such exceptional claims will require exceptional sources. Perhaps we can avoid the whole problem simply by citing a few well-known reliable sources instead. Do any other sources corroborate these claims? -Thibbs (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Please stop feeding the troll. DKqwerty (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Too late—the troll's banned, now. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oblivion Engine Total Conversion

I will be starting a project (with the discretion of Nintendo of course) on a massive total conversion for this game to the Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion engine. Should details concerning this project (should it be allowed to be worked on and released) be added to this page or compiled unto a new page? Dbrown1986 (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither. Unless your work receives any notability and coverage, it is inappropriate for Wikipedia, both within this article and most certainly as its own article. DKqwerty (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The Ultima 5 remake for the Dungeon Siege engine got its on article, because of coverage. If you manage to complete such an undertaken, then you should have no trouble getting coverage for it. An intention is irrelevant though, except on various forums where you might be trying to get some help. After you have something to show the world, then submit it to various notable sites to review it. Dream Focus 20:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

@ DKqwerty - Well considering Nintendo approves (I sent off the e-mail last night), I will hopefully spread word of the project and with any luck, it should bring a considerable fanbase to work on it. Black Mesa Source has there own wiki page, if this spreads like a bonfire, I will commission our own page and provide resources. Dbrown1986 (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

@ Dream Focus - Exactly what I was thinking. Dbrown1986 (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Character list

I don't know if anything actually needs to be merged (from what I can tell, probably not), but the list shouldn't need to exist either way. Most of the characters are very unimportant or they have very brief roles, so they don't really need to be mentioned. Any that are important to the plot should be mentioned in this article already anyway. TTN (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on merging, though I'd rather see a mass merge of all the lists into one, and trim anyone who doesn't have sufficient notability. I've already written up a couple paragraphs about Epona (one paragraph detailing that she was originally nameable, and why she was included in the series, and one of her reception), and I've written three reception paragraphs for Midna. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's take some info of the character's list and then redirect to the main article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, if it leads to a unified list, sure. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Are there any other single game characters that would benefit from being placed within the main list? Other than maybe Navi, which I'm pretty is the only other single game character that could amass any sort of reception, there really isn't anyone else important. There isn't much of a point in merging all of the lists together when only a couple characters need to be plucked out. TTN (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, as listed, Midna and Epona I've found adequate content to warrant mention. Navi, Zant, Skull Kid, Happy Mask Salesman, Dark Link, Kaepora Gaebora, Din/Nayru/Farore, Deku Tree, Great Fairy, Impa, King of Hyrule, Malon, Postman, Twinrova, Ruto, Saria, Marin, Mikau (due to his guitar being a collector's item), Ezlo, Ilia, and Linebeck may or may not have sufficient content existing to warrant including them. I'm slowly trimming a final list down here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Slightly agree. I don't really think notability rather than verifiability should be used to remove certain articles. Of course, I agree to some extent because, I agree that these:

Navi, Skull Kid, Happy Mask Salesman, Kaepora Gaebora, Deku Tree, Great Fairy, Malon, Ruto, Saria, Mikau (due to his guitar being a collector's item)

aren't very notable characters in the series besides their own N64 game (and ports).

But make sure to make a slight description for each character in the plot. Like for the Happy Mask Salesman, at least glean a possible description of him, that lets people know he is bizarre. (Sounds a lot like original research though, since it is a personal opinion, despite the the fact its obvious.) Just a small description in Majora's MAsk plot wouldn't hurt.

I'll save the page to my personal archive so that if the need to return any information/descriptions comes up, it'll be available. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I included each of those for a reason - Kaepora appears often and is annoying (a fact which I believe may be found in reviews or articles mentioning him, allowing for some out-of-universe content); Happy Mask Salesman is modelled after Miyamoto and has found some reception; Navi has some reception, certainly; Skull Kid has both reception and multiple appearances; and the others possibly have adequate amounts of verifiable content to warrant mention. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Reception towards rereleases were mixed"

I think this statement (as it appears in the lead and the Reception section) is misleading. As seen in the Reception section, the rereleases have a GameRankings score of 89.7% and a Metacritic score of 91/100. As a case in point, I draw your attention to the Portal reception section, which is featured content. The section leads with "Portal has been well received by critics", and lists its GameRankings and Metacritic scores as 89.2% and 90/100 respectively.

In other words, another featured article describes reception of 89.2% and 90/100 as "well recieved", while this featured article describes 89.7% and 91/100 as "mixed". This is illogical and inconsistent. I have hereby changed reception to the rereleases as "well recieved".Autonova (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The fan movie based on OoT

Wikipedia doesn't have an article about The Hero of Time, the nonprofit fan-made adaptation to Ocarina of Time. Perhaps a section could be created in this article to discuss the film? It's important to note that Nintendo stopped the producers from distributing the film online, but it's still available on file sharing networks. --Andorin Kato (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it warants an article yet, but it may warant a section in the series article, if not here. What would help is if you can find some coverage of the film by someone unnafiliated with the film, like a newspaper/news site or something like that. Do you know of any such coverage? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"One of the greatest games of all time"

Thread closed: initiated by a Dr90s sock.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This statement in the Lead section has been the subject of many edit wars and undoubtedly will be in the future. As it appears now, the statement is thus: "Ocarina of Time has since been regarded by many critics and fans as one of the greatest video games of all time." The sources which back up this statement are: Electronic Gaming Monthly Presents Top 100 Games of All Time (http://web.archive.org/web/20030611191341/http%3A//gamers.com/feature/egmtop100/index.jsp). Ocarina of Time is 8th in this Top 100 list by Electronic Gaming Monthly. IGN's Top 100 Games (http://top100.ign.com/2008/ign_top_game_1.html). IGN Readers name Ocarina of Time number 1 in another Top 100 list. IGN's Top 100 Games of All Time (http://top100.ign.com/2005/001-010.html) IGN themselves name Ocarina as number 2 of all time. Nintendo Power Top 100 Nintendo Games of all Time, Issue 200. Ocarina ranks at number 1. IGN's Top 100 Games of All Time (http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_4.html) Placed at number 4 in another IGN take on the Top 100 in 2007. The 100 Best Games to Play Today (http://www.edge-online.com/features/the-100-best-games-to-play-today?page=0%2C10) Edge place Ocarina at number 1 in their two hundredth special edition of a top 100 games list, "shorn of nostalgia and presumption". The Greatest Games of All Time (http://uk.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/greatestgames/) Ocarina makes GameSpot's non-ordered list of the greatest of all time. The Best Games in the History of Humanity (http://www.filibustercartoons.com/games.htm) A collection of thirty-eight Top 10 lists. Ocarina of Time is first on number of appearances in these lists, at 28 appearances to Mario 64's 25. It is also first on a weighted rankings list, assigning 10 points for a Number 1 place, 9 points for Number 2 place etc., at 163 points to Tetris' 136. Now, I appreciate that some editors may not get why this game is so critically acclaimed and get annoyed when it is said so often. While I personally think that Ocarina is one of the greatest, I do know the feeling. However, in an encyclopedia article on the game, the statement "many critics and fans regard the game as one of the greatest of all time" is clearly relevant, given the fact that equivalent statements appear in featured articles such as Mario 64 and Halo. That the game features in the most number of top 10 lists is enough to prove this statement true, not mentioning the other sources listed. We can literally prove the truth of the statement also, since "many" means more than 2, and the sources listed contain lists explicitly stating "the greatest games of all time", with Ocarina listed near or at the top of all of them. The statement isn't rammed in the reader's faces repeatedly, it's just a relevant and true statement in the lead to give the reader an idea of the game's reception, just as in all game articles. It has been suggested that the statement is Original Research in that it advances a position. This Wikipedia policy states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This doesn't hold, however, since it is explicitly stated in every source. There are many other sources which could be listed, so if you want to add those which you think are more relevant then go ahead, as I do admit having three IGN sources seems a bit narrow. However, editing or deleting the statement itself is discouraged by the above logic. Autonova (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC) This clearly violates "Synthesis of published material that advances a position" Even if you showd many lists, it does not mean nothing because the sentence itself violates "Synthesis of published material that advances a position". And Wikipedia talk:Other stuff exists is not a good reason to include it. "Synthesis of published material that advances a position" Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning or implication is not a violation of this policy, it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources on the topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. A simple example of original synthesis: The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world. Although no conclusion is drawn and both facts are true, the sentence implies that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it constitutes original research. It would be easy to imply the opposite using the same material, illustrating how, when no source is provided, facts can easily be manipulated: The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world. The following is a more complex example of original synthesis. It is based on an actual Wikipedia article about a dispute between two authors, here called Smith and Jones: Smith claimed that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references. Now comes the original synthesis: If Jones did not consult the original sources, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Harvard manual does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them. The first paragraph was properly sourced. The second paragraph was original research because it expressed the editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the second paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source would be needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor. --Haipa dragoon (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC) OK your above posts make two arguments pointing to two Wikipedia policies. The first is that the statement violates this policy of synthesis of published material that advances a position. Now, as we have both quoted above, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The statement does NOT violate this however, since it IS explicitly mentioned in EVERY source. You seem to think that anything on wikipedia that advances a position is not neutral. Any subjective information should be guilty of this in your view. The game IS considered by many critics and fans as one of the greatest of all time, as shown by the sources above. This isn't advancing a position, that's telling it like it is. Your second argument is a counterargument to me, namely that Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists is no reason to include the statement. If you completely read this policy, you will see this section: Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists#Precedent_in_usage, which I will quote here. "Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "Other Stuff Exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology. For instance, when an actor recently died suddenly, a discussion broke out about adding "the late" before his name in one of his movie pages. In order to judge the necessity of such a phrase, other articles of famous deceased actors could be checked, which was done. By and large, these other articles do not use this sort of reference, and thus the newest article did not. While not a strict OSE reasoning, the overarching concept remains, that of precedent and consistency throughout the Wikipedia project." So you see, stating that other stuff exists CAN sometimes be a valid argument when trying to preserve consistency throughout the Wikipedia project. See Mario 64 and Halo, both featured articles, for their take on the "one of the greatest of all time" statement. If other great games say they are considered one of the best, this great game should. Now that your two arguments have been refuted I hope you will agree that the statement is a sound one. Thank you Autonova (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC) The problem is that you add ONE sentence/conclusion based on MANY sources. This is what you are wrong about. You concluded that "The game IS considered by many critics and fans as one of the greatest of all time" based on several sources. It means you combined several sources and created your reasoning. "a game is ranked high on a list" and "a game is considered by many critics and fans as one of the greatest of all time" are different things. Just look at the above examples.(UN and 160 wars). This violates "Synthesis of published material that advances a position" There is already the sentece in the reception section "After publication, Ocarina of Time was featured on a number of compiled lists of best or most influential games, including those of Electronic Gaming Monthly,[13] IGN,[14] and Nintendo Power." This sentence does NOT violate "Synthesis of published material that advances a position" So this sentence alone is enough. This is why that sentence in the lead section should be removed.--Haipa dragoon (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC) "The problem is that you add ONE sentence/conclusion based on MANY sources. This is what you are wrong about. You concluded that "The game IS considered by many critics and fans as one of the greatest of all time" based on several sources." There's nothing wrong with that whatsoever. There are thousands of statements on Wikipedia with several sources. "a game is ranked high on a list" and "a game is considered by many critics and fans as one of the greatest of all time" are different things. There's nothing different about them if the lists are explicitly entitled "Top 100 Games of All Time", and if the lists are written by critics and fans. "Just look at the above examples.(UN and 160 wars)." You're completely missing the point of the example: "The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world. Although no conclusion is drawn and both facts are true, the sentence implies that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it constitutes original research." The statement "Ocarina of Time is considered by many critics and fans as one of the best games ever" does no such thing, since it's only one statement and doesn't imply anything. If the statement had said "Ocarina of Time was meant to be a peaceful entertainment product, but after its release there have been 43 conflicts in the world", THEN that would be advancing a position, since both statements are true but the sentence implies that Ocarina of Time encourages conflict. "So this sentence alone is enough." The "greatest" statement is appropriate for the lead, by the Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists#Precedent_in_usage argument. With regard to your last edit, I've reverted it purely for style reasons. The information you've included is correct and present elsewhere in the Reception section of the article so you're right about that. It just doesn't belong in the lead section of a featured article. It must be pleasant to read. Adding "and one online review aggregator ranking it as the 75th-best scoring game ever reviewed" and "with two online review aggregators ranking it as the around 300th-best scoring game ever reviewed" just doesn't flow well. The "around 300th" is a bit too vague also. The words "scoring game ever reviewed" are mentioned so many times it's bloating the content of the article. Also the "The N64 version of Ocarina..." doesn't sit right because the article is primarily about the N64 version. There are two whole sections devoted to the re-releases for the comparison. Autonova (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC) >There's nothing wrong with that whatsoever. There are thousands of statements on Wikipedia with several sources. True, but in that case those sources are saying SAME THINGS. But "a game is ranked high on The website A" and "a game is ranked high on the website B" are clearly different things. If you want to add, you must write like this. "Ocarina of time is ranked high on The website A"(source) "Ocarina of time is ranked high on the website B"(source).--Haipa dragoon (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Let's make it simple. CASE A "Ocarina of Time has since been regarded by many critics and fans as one of the greatest video games of all time"(source)(source)(source)(source)(source)(source) CASE A is "Synthesis of published material that advances a position" CASE B "Ocarina of time is ranked high on The website A"(source) "Ocarina of time is ranked high on the website B"(source). CASE B is NOT "Synthesis of published material that advances a position" CASE B is alredy included in the reception section. So case A in the lead section should be removed.--Haipa dragoon (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Ah OK I understand what you're saying. But the sources are saying the same things. They are all regarding Ocarina as one of the greatest games of all time, so the statement reflects this. Have a look at the Mario 64 featured article: "It is acclaimed by many critics and fans as one of the greatest and most revolutionary video games of all time.[11][12][13][14][15][16]" The six sources are: ^ "IGN's Top 100 Games". IGN. 2003. ^ a b "IGN's Top 100 Games". IGN. 2005. ^ a b c "IGN's Top 100 Games of All Time". IGN. 2007. ^ a b "Top 100 Games of All Time". Game Informer: 36. August 2001. ^ a b "The 100 Greatest Computer Games of All Time". Yahoo! Games. ^ a b "Fall 2005: 10-Year Anniversary Contest — The 10 Best Games Ever". GameFAQs. We're not making any leap of logic, or implying something that wasn't implied. All the sources regard it as one of the best ever, so we list those sources. It is a perfectly resonable statement. Autonova (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC) >"They" are all regarding Ocarina as one of the greatest games of all time "one of the greatest games of all time" is subjective. Some think so and some think not. So We must specify what are "they". "many critics and fans" When you say "many", this is based on "many" sources. This is "Synthesis of published material that advances a position" Please compromise on CASE B.--Haipa dragoon (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Case B is perfectly factual and correct, and there are hundreds of videogame articles you could add the statement to and it would benefit the article. In fact I suggest you go and do just that. But this is Ocarina of Time, by many measures the most critically acclaimed game title ever made. If you look at this site http://www.filibustercartoons.com/games.htm, you can see that 25 publications view it as one of the greatest ever. In Case B, we would have to say, "Site 1, Site 2, Site 3 [...] Site 25 rank Ocarina highly," which would be way too long. And I have said many times it is not synthesis of published material, as you can see above. This game is, whether we like it or not, regarded by many as one of the greatest games ever made, and this fact should be said to a reader who is unfamiliar with the game. Autonova (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Hey Autonova, why do you keep disregarding what i'm saying. You always say same things. "ocarina of time is ranked high in many sources so it is regarded by many as one of the greatest games ever made" THIS REASONING IS ALREADY "Synthesis of published material that advances a position". YOU MUST NOT MAKE A CONCLUSION BASED ON MANY SOURCES.--Haipa dragoon (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC) OK Haipa Dragoon, you win. The statement should be considered synthesis and removed. For the record I really don't see why. However, it has been suggested to me that a statement could be put in its place which isn't synthesis: "The title is often cited as the best video game ever made." and we could cite this one reliable source. http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3157459. You shouldn't have a problem with this since there's only one source. And I've left your other edits alone. Deal? Autonova (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Case closed.--Haipa dragoon (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Wow you're welcome... Autonova (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Strong disagreement with not attributing its notability as one of the greatest games ever made in the article. 1UP being used as a sole source in the lead is silly, and the lead should reflect the many number of editors/publications that make this determination. The lead isn't supposed to have original content, and it should cover everything reasonable to cover. Which would include reception, and the most logical thing to mention is its status. To say in the lead that many cite it as the greatest game ever made is true, it's compressing statements used later in the article into one all-encompassing statement. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 14:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I agree, attributing its status explicitly to the opinion of one 1UP.com editor makes it seem to the first time reader like its some narrow single viewpoint. The game is ranked number 1 in TWO different review aggregators and is also number 1 in the collection of all Top 10 Games of all Time, by tally and by weighted tally: http://www.filibustercartoons.com/games.htm. This isn't some disputed issue, is a widely held critical and professional viewpoint, whichever way you look at it. New Age Retro Hippie you have my blessing to edit the article as you see fit, I've got too much revision to do right now to devote more attention to this matter. Thank you. Autonova (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I would think something along the lines of "Several lists of 'best games ever' list Ocarina of Time in the top 10, and a few as the #1.[cite][cite][cite][cite]" would be appropriate. Haipa is in the wrong here on requiring a specific reference to the author of the list, I'd say, because it is a widely held view (as we can see from the number of citations). --Izno (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Izno you are flat our wrong. Just carefully read Wikipedia:No original research"Synthesis of published material that advances a position" until you understand the policy. Do not violate the wikipedia policy. This is not a matter of opinions, this is a WIKIPEDIA'S POLICY. Just follow it if you are not trolling.--Haipa dragoon (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC) "Several lists of 'best games ever' list Ocarina of Time in the top 10, and a few as the #1.[cite][cite][cite][cite]" You provide several sources and combine them and concluded "Several lists ~" This is original research.--Haipa dragoon (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I don't see how saying "Several sites say OoT is in the top ten.[X number of cites]" is more problematic than saying "[Site A], [Site B] and [Site C] say OoT is in the top ten.[Cite A][Cite B][Cite B]". I'd rather the cites all appear at the end of the sentence than scattered in different places. SharkD  Talk  18:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC) What he said. Further, I think you are wrong in interpreting OR. It would be OR to say that "It is the greatest game" or that "it is one of the greatest games". These are conclusions being stated as facts when the citations don't support their statement as facts. The cites however plainly support the conclusion that "there are several lists which list OOT as a top 10 game of all time". If you really think it necessary, we can replace "several" with the number of lists we have; the end result is the same. We are not advancing a position; we are noting the WP:WEIGHT of a viewpoint that many people who are experts in the field have come to the conclusion that OOT is one of the best games ever. I think it is you who needs to re-read WP:NOR, as the rest of the page seems to support my viewpoint in this manner, rather than yours. Your mileage may vary of course, which is why you are also wrong to say that I am "flat out wrong". That comment came across as overly antagonistic. --Izno (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

End of story

Thread closed: initiated by a Dr90s sock.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The IGN article[11] specifically says, "Considered by many critics to be the greatest game ever made..." That's your source. Find another one if you want. SharkD  Talk  17:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Done and done. Thanks for the backup guys. I don't get why citing multiple sources who explicitly agree with each other can be considered original research- having multiple sources makes the claim easy to agree with. By the way, the FA The Wire has an identical statement in the lead. Autonova (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Oh boy, sorry I wasn't here for this bout about that particular line. I've been fighting about it on and off for probably about a year now. I think you've found a good way to close the issue, but I have one suggestion. Perhaps it would be a good idea to actually pull out that quotation from the source and include it in the footnote. I think a lot these users who seem to have such a problem with this statement will look at the source and conclude that the statement has been made solely on the basis of the one list. Now, that would be an unwarranted conclusion, in my opinion, but in the interest of trying to make things easier for everyone in the future I think it might be a good idea to include it. I'm going to do it per WP:BOLD, but let me know here if you dislike it. Cheers. The Fwanksta (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Yeah good idea Fwanksta. I'm very happy with the article now. The game is just too acclaimed for a statement like this to be omitted. I wouldnt mind if it wasn't getting 2,000 hits a day haha. Good job all! Autonova (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not quite

I added the date and souce name.--Haipa dragoon (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Those last reverts were done by me. I forgot to sign in. Apologies. The Fwanksta (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And you have not shown a refutation at all. You know critical reception always needs the source name and when the statement was published is also important in this case. "It is consiedered~" is the writer's personal opinion and he never knows it holds true in the future. It is very likely his opinion has changed. And "overwhelmigly" is obviously peacocky term.--Haipa dragoon (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

First, I don't see how I need to provide a refutation to some Wikipedia policy that you've seemingly made up. Reference it and we can discuss.

Second, clearly it is the writer's personal opinion. However, what is important about this writer's personal opinion is that they are considered an expert because they are from a reliable source. Thus, we can reference them.

Third, any statement ever made by anyone can be made false in the future; that is no reason to never cite anything as fact. Furthermore, that information is available in the citation. There's no need to clutter up the sentence with it. It makes it very ungraceful

Fourth, you have absolutely no evidence for your claim that "very likely" his opinion has changed.

Fifth, I believe "overwhelmingly" is an accurate term in this case, based on how much dang praise this game received. Just look at Metacritic and GameRankings. The Metacritic site even says "Universal acclaim," which is an even stronger word than "overwhelming."

Finally, although I know that Wikipedia decisions are made by consensus rather than majority, I think the fact that we have such a majority is grounds to put the onus on you to prove these statements are in error. Until then, the original statements stay. We've gone past the point where WP:BOLD applies. Now discuss the issue with us before you make the changes. The Fwanksta (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Haipa dragoon's latest edit. It is absurd to cite one review as evidence that the game is generally conceived to be going downhill by today's standards. Furthermore, it doesn't belong in the lead as it's contrary to WP:UNDUE. The Fwanksta (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure It is absurd to cite one review as evidence. I agree.--Haipa dragoon (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Then the edit you made was surely WP:POINTy, now wasn't it? If you want to talk, then let's talk. But continuing to edit war (which, broadly construed, you are doing so, as consensus is clearly against you) will only result in (possibly administrative) action against yourself. /shrug. --Izno (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not edet war at all. I just add new informtion unrelated to this matter and he happend to remove it.--Haipa dragoon (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

We have come to the conclusion/consensus. It is absurd to cite one review as evidence. --Haipa dragoon (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Izno is violating WP:POINTy. He reverts the edit WITHOUT MENTIONNING REASON. Reverting edits always requires reasons and he never shows his opinion at all. He rejects talking or discussion and trying to edit war. I repeat We have come to the conclusion/consensus. It is absurd to cite one review as evidence.--Haipa dragoon (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the basic distinction between the role the two references play. The IGN article is appropriate because it is a reliable source presenting a fairly objective, quantifiable fact: that many critics consider the title to be one of the greatest games of all time. IGN is playing the role of a news source here. It is not as if we cited an IGN review that, for example, gave the game a 10/10, to substantiate the claim that it is widely considered to be the greatest game of all time. This is what you just did with the statement you advanced and referenced. You took one reviewer's opinion that the game does not stand up to today's standards and inferred from it that that is a widely held view. There is a huge difference between these two statements and references. The Fwanksta (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And the reason why we're reverting your edits is because there are a large number of people who disagree with your position, so it is up to you to start the discussion. Just look at WP:BRD. I quote: "The BRD cycle does not contain another "B". It stops after the "D". Discussion and a move toward consensus must occur before starting the cycle again. If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring your edit is a hostile act of edit warring and is not only uncollaborative, but can get you into trouble. The objective is to seek consensus, not force your own will upon other editors." The Fwanksta (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

RPGamer is also a relible source and "many critics consider~" is just his personal opinion. He never showed the evidence. It'S just his opinion and same as the editor of RPGamer.--Haipa dragoon (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I think you should try to re-read my post, I don't know how to express it differently.

A thought: I'm fine with putting up a few more references for the statement. I've found two in the past 20 minutes of searching: http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/newsArt.cfm?artid=20397 and http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3157459

These are both news sources cited an objective fact. The Fwanksta (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

A thought: I'm fine with putting up a few more references for the statement. http://cube.ign.com/articles/387/387479p2.html http://www.destructoid.com/aonuma-nowadays-oot-is-not-that-good--155808.phtml http://www.rpgamer.com/games/zelda/urazelda/reviews/z5mqstrev1.html they are saying the game is going downhill by today's standards--Haipa dragoon (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't including these violate WP:SYNTHESIS, something you've so strongly argued against in this article? These sites aren't doing what the IGN article does. They are single reviews or opinions about the quality of the game, and to put them together and conclude that it is widely held view would be what we've decided is WP:SYNTHESIS. The Fwanksta (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

True, so I claim the source name "IGN" and when the statement was made are should be mentioned. It's just his personal opinion.--Haipa dragoon (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary, as that information is easily available (in the footnote), and it clutters up the sentence. To an extent, any statement is personal opinion, so do we have to put all the citation info in the every single sentence that has a reference? No. That would create some pretty awkward writing. If you can point to a Wikipedia policy page that suggests otherwise, then we can and should discuss that, but you haven't.

Also, I propose to add the two other sources I found. I'm will also try to find one or two more. These are all reliable sites reporting this statement as an objective fact. The Fwanksta (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I added them. The Fwanksta (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of avoiding further disputes and hopefully contributing to the end of this one, as well as, in my opinion, greater accuracy, I think we should change the statement to "considered one of the greatest games of all time." (Not that the italics would go in the actual article.) Sure, Oot really is up there, but there are lots of other critics and "Best game" lists that put it only in the top 5 or something. I also personally think that's happening more recently. I think this would be a good move to help with consensus here and in the long-term, and I also think it's likely appropriate for accuracy. The Fwanksta (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've done this. I am very open to discussion, however. The Fwanksta (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree to the comments above. But if someone disagrees, he should specify what sources said so in this article.　We should avoid vagueness according to wikipedia's policy.--Vesperydia (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Epilogue

See the newest entry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr90s. -Thibbs (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your involvement with this issue. I really appreciate it. The Fwanksta (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, your vigilance is much appreciated. Thank you. DKqwerty (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sequel

Yeah, pretty sure this user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vesperydia is another sock puppet. His only contributions have been on Zelda articles and he's reverted changes on this article that we agreed upon here, which Haipa Dragoon was against. Autonova (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

SPI agrees with your analysis. -Thibbs (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Idea to help stop future problems with Dr90s

I have seen Consensus templates used in other article talk pages when there are contentious issues that are often the subject of edit-warring. These templates work well because they serve as a quick place to direct new editors who are editing against consensus and if the template contains a link to the subsection in talk or a talk archive where consensus was reached then the new editor can quickly catch up to speed. Consensus templates look like this:
{{Consensus|A consensus has been found to indicate that... Consensus was achieved in [[link to discussion subsection leading to consensus|this thread]].}}

There seem to be a few contentious issues which Dr90s and his everlasting stream of sockpuppets are intent on altering (who was the main director, whether or not the game was considered the "best ever", etc.). These issues come up again and again and consensus forms and then all involved parties drift away and only Dr90s returns over and over again to edit war with new editors who are unsure of the current consensus. I think it would be useful to try to identify the current consensus on the issues (possibly here or at WP:VG) and then add Consensus template at the top of the talk page.

I don't really know enough about the matters at hand to help determine where the consensus lies currently and anyway I'm supposed to be on vacation so if this seems like a good idea then I leave this to the editors who frequent this page. -Thibbs (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I really like the idea; however, I'm only acquainted with the consensus on Oot being widely considered the greatest game of all time. In this case, I think we've found a consensus that the statement in the lead is fair and very well substantiated by the sources we have provided. I could not speak to the issue of who was the main director. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference to Water Temple in reception?

After we see the president of Nintendo talking about how bad the Water Temple was, I think it may be in the article's interest to discuss it to some extent, possibly in a section discussing the overall quality of the game's dungeon designs? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

When did he do this? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

At E3 2010 when displaying OoT3D. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I saw that in the article, used under the heading "Re-releases." Is that what you had in mind, or were you thinking something else? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw that, but I thought it'd be better served as grounds for some additional reception. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Majora's Mask

At no point does Ocarina of Time allude to MM as its successor; the game is mentioned only twice - once in a "this is included in a collection with this" and "Majora's Mask and DK64 were bigger". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - added to the lead.Autonova (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Stuff to archive

http://www.zelda.com/ocarina/zeldaindex.html http://www.zelda.com/ocarina/art/headers/zeldamain3.swf WhisperToMe (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Takashi Tezuka and Toshihiko Nakago

Apparently they were the supervisors of the support unit only, as shown in the credits. The only supervisor of the directors was Miyamoto (he is also the only one of the three to be credited in the directors block of the credits. If someone has additional reliable sources that confirm this is not the case, please give me a heads-up. Prime Blue (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick heads-up: Not too surprisingly User:Prime Blue had written this in response to edits made by yet another Dr90s sockpuppet. Dr90s' newest sock, User:Grassyboots, made his most recent edits to this page on October 14, 2010, and he was blocked October 28, 2010. Please be aware that this problematic editor is still interested in causing disruptions here. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone who edited this was either a Fanboy or their arrogance showed in the form of their poor grammar

In the general description field, there was a portion regarding the many awards the game had won

in the last line of the general field, it read, "this game is considered by many critics as the greatest video game ever made"

although they used the broad "strawman" article "many critics" this implies to the readers that a group of established judges have place the title "greatest video game ever made" on aforemention game, through some sort of official process, such as a poll or referendum

this maybe true, but it does not cite multiple established and acredited sites as stating the aforemention

there is only one site a "1UP.com" that makes that claim, while the other sources are semi established, but not acredited, rate it highly

even if multiple websites were to use the bold and agregious statement "greatest video game ever made" that would be preposterous and a direct slap in the face to any semblance of neutrality, which Wikipedia aggressively encourages

in the context of this situation, I have altered the language of two of the statements in this page to state "this game is considered by many critics to be one of the greatest games ever made"

I think the change reaches the goal of elevating the game in the eyes of fans, but also leaves room for people to disagree with regard to taste, and opinion

I believe it is an effective compromise

132.38.190.29 (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC) SinclairTheLightningCount I can be reached at swod211@yahoo.com

Old argument made repeatedly in the talk archives. I have reverted the change, and would ask that you read through them. --Izno (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, heck, see #"One of the greatest games of all time", above. Please read the long arguments, and I have a sneaking suspicion that you may be Haipa Dragoon or a sock of him. This has been argued quite thoroughly. --Izno (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually Hapia Dragoon was actually a sock himself of Dr90s.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledging a work as being viewed as the greatest of its kind is not in violation of neutrality, it simply conveys the general critical consensus. See the article on TV show The Wire for another example. Autonova (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Among other things, Metacritic lists it as the highest rated game of all time. Many critics do consider it the greatest game of all time, misportraying this to the readers would be dishonest.AerobicFox (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If you dislike the phrase "many critics", then why are you using it in what you wrote? It was that specific phrase that you disliked because you felt it was misleading to have such a broad category of unnamed critics. Yet your revised version still has the exact same problem of a broad category of unnamed critics. So this broad generalization is the problem, as you stated, then what does it matter what they said? It should only matter that such broadness is existent in the first place. Ultimahero (talk)

Splitting article in favour of 3DS version

I suggest there should be a separate article for the upcoming Ocarina of Time 3D, as it seems the remake has a significant amount of reception on its own, and despite the fact the game's plot device should be the same as in the original, there are greater differences to warner notability at its own right. I'm pretty sure there are many other video game remakes with their own articles on Wikipedia, and so this discussion should stand ground. Hope(N Forever) (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The standard set by The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past & Four Swords is that the subject must have a non-stub section of Development information. If you think there is enough development to support a split article, it can be split. I have a feeling it will be able to support an article in the future, maybe shortly before release, or maybe even now if more development is pooled together. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Review's for 3ds version?

Oddly can't edit the page, but IGN and nintendo offical magazine have now both posted very positive reviews for the game (9.5 and 9.8 respectively), if someone could add these with sources to the reviews that would be great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.51.196 (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The 3DS version has its own page, so the reviews belong more there. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Genialimbecile, 19 July 2011

I request that in the fourth paragraph the hyphen in "relatively-unchanged" be removed.

Genialimbecile (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done, when I first heard "hyphen" I thought, uh no, the hyphen/dash wars, but it wasn't. ^_^ Thanks for pointing out.AerobicFox (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

_{Marking answered Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)}

"Best game ever made" POV - needs to be removed

Word.--108.193.118.126 (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not our opinion, but the words of many different sources. The title is widely considered by both critics and gamers alike to be the greatest video game ever made. That is not a lie. Sure, some people might not agree with it, but most do. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The text you misquoted was "The title is widely considered by both critics and gamers alike to be the greatest video game ever made", this is all accurate and sourced. Яehevkor ✉ 21:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that this topic was discussed and settled a long time ago, as was the exact wording of the statement in the article. What happened? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay first, if I sounded ornery when I created this topic, I apologize. This isn't about me "hating the game", this is just about a POV issue. Because this would be like saying that Roger Federer is a "better athlete" than Michael Jordan. Even calling it the "best 3D adventure game" would be debatable, but the statement that it is "THE best game ever made" is in itself a falsehood, because there is no way to evaluate whether an adventure game is "better" than a 1st person shooter game, or whether a sports game is "better" than a role-playing game - because the are not even in the same genre. This is definitely a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Take a look at this wording from the Super Mario 64 article, this would be perfectly fine - The title is acclaimed by many critics and fans as one of the greatest and most revolutionary video games of all time.

On the other hand, there is no litmus test for determining a universal consensus for what "the best game", or even "the best 3D adventure game" is, any more than there is for determining whether Tiger Woods (a golfer) is a "better athlete" than Bret Farve (a football player). The statement in itself can't be verified.--108.193.118.126 (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The word here is "considered", the article doesn't claim the game is the best game ever made, claims it is considered (or in one case, voted) to be the best game ever made. There are multiple sources to back this up, so I have no problem with how it is in the article - it's ni better or worse than the wording in the SMG64 article. If you're disputing the claim altogether then you're going against the apparent consensus and the sources, if you have issues with the wording then what specific wording do you have issue with and what would be a viable alternative? Яehevkor ✉ 21:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's a proposal. Rather than make a blanket statement that "Ocarina of Time is considered the best game ever made", It would be better to state it as "Ocarina of Time is considered the best game ever made by (insert the reviewers and sources cited)" - there would be no controversy over this because it's a purely factual statement of what the sources say. However the current wording is too vague and ventures into NPOV territory.--108.193.118.126 (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the difference between that and what is already stated in the article. You continue to assert that the article makes a blanket statement, "Ocarina of Time is considered the best game ever made". However, that's not what the article says. It clearly states, "The title is widely considered by both critics and gamers alike to be the greatest video game ever made". So you are ignoring the part about it being considered the best game by critics and fans, as well as the citations to support this. All you suggestion does is rearrange the order of the words; it doesn't change the meaning.Ultimahero (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a spoiler alert?

Some people who haven't finished the game yet, may be reading this article. But there's no spoiler alert at the Story part. Could somebody add this? (BasRocks (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC))

If you are on the internet researching a game, expect to see spoilers. It's just common sense. See WP:SPOILERS. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the general policy is that Wikipedia doesn't allow the "spoiler alert" tag. If a person is reading the story section they should expect to see info on the story. It's just common knowledge.Ultimahero (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please fix the story section

The section has recently been rewritten and is now over 2000 words from the old version which was over 900. I tried to fix it myself but the system would not let me due to large scale removal of content. Can someone else please fix this.--70.24.209.180 (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. If it happens again, you may want to inform the Project, especially if it's the same guy.Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Major Rereleases?

Should the Collecter's Edition and Master Quest rereleases of Ocarina of Time really count as "major"? Neither of them were available at retail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volcan22 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Screenshot OcarinaOfTimeBattle.JPG is broken

The screenshot OcarinaOfTimeBattle.JPG is different from the actual game. The Action Button is missing (probably because of the use of GameShark) and the shadows are buggy (probably because of inaccurate emulation).

I could take a better screenshot of that part, but I don't know how to replace the actual image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.92.22.107 (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The current image does its job of illustrating the combat in Ocarina of Time, so I say let it stay, at least for now. If you have your heart set on replacing it though, WP:IMAGE has all the information you need to have it accepted. Good luck. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Alt text

The use of alt text for images here is perfectly legitimate. They're meant as a textual replacement for visual images. If you can't see the images you can't even see the text under normal circumstances. It's doing no harm at all. If anyone has any problem with the text itself: edit it - don't remove it. I can't see how removing this can be in good faith at this point. Яehevkor ✉ 09:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No, no it's not. The text you have put in there is, quite frankly, insulting and childish, especially when aimed at someone with visual impairments. "A boy wearing green clothes"? "A man in green?" You're shoving stuff in there that sounds like it came from a two year old's popup book, and it's insulting to those with visual impairments. Clean it up and remove the not-so-subtle digs at those affected with VI, or don't put it in there at all. Oh, and stop shoving "warnings" on my page, too- you're the one who is "vandalizing" a page, if anyone, not me. I don't think that the VI community appreciates being patronized. 67.139.40.166 (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Which specific phrases in the alt text do you think are "not-too-subtle digs" - does the mere mention of a colour constitute a "dig" at visually impaired people? As Rehevkor says, if you think the alt text is patronising, improve it instead of deleting it entirely. What sort of phrasing of the alt text would you prefer? --Nick R^Talk 12:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Please re-read the notice I issues you. I issued no vandalism warnings - I warned for blanking (nothing about "vandalizing"). Please read WP:VANDTYPES - nothing here is vandalism, calling it as such is detrimental to the project. If you have issues with the text just deleting is is counter productive. I'll happily help change it, but if you feel the wording is in some way insulting then the onus is on you to replace it. Яehevkor ✉ 14:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's go through these one by one, what is wrong with "A sword and a shield - bearing both the three triangles of the Triforce and the bird-like Hyrule crest - stand behind the game's title."? Seems perfectly adequate to me. Яehevkor ✉ 14:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• These descriptions are perfectly fine. If the IP wishes to propose what they consider to be better wording then he or she may do so and we will listen. The tone that IP has adopted however is highly accusatory and an inappropriate way to voice a complaint here. Writing descriptions of graphics for the VI is much different than writing for people who don't have visual impairments because it has to be simplified to its most basic points so that they can visualize it, where as for someone who can see fine the caption is meant only to add to their understanding of the picture.AerobicFox (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering the lack of a response, I guess that's fine. I have no issues with it either. Яehevkor ✉ 00:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The way they have been changed is all right NOW. I have to reiterate- I am not against "alt" text, the text just should be something that doesn't sound like it's intentionally trying to insult the reader. Text like "The child version of the game's protagonist, Link, stands in Hyrule field wearing his distinctive green tunic and pointed cap" is descriptive and informative without making sound patronizing and cloying, like "A boy wearing green clothes stands in a field" does. 67.139.40.166 (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Image

I feel that the first image isn't very good at showing a lot of unique stuff. The second image shows most of what the first image does. I think that we should either remove the first one, or try and find a new screenshot to replace it that shows something else such as horseback riding or the first-person view. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 17:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"Widely considered" line

"The title is widely considered by critics and gamers alike to be the greatest video game ever made."

User:Noctis1436 seems to be on a crusade against this line, removing is several times. Never without explanation. Any thoughts? I've invited Noctis1436 to contribute here. Яehevkor ✉ 11:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably a WP:SPA and possibly a WP:LTA; have a look at the editor's other edits... --Izno (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't support the total removal, but I was under the impression that according to consensus, this as it stands is non-neutral; the correct phrasing is something along the lines of "The title is widely considered by critics and gamers alike to be one of the greatest video games ever made." I could be wrong, but that's what memory says. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Not familiar with the consensus on that aspect, but you'd have no objections here. Яehevkor ✉ 10:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Dead Links

Using the Checklinks tool, I've gone through and updated the dead links. However, as I was editing I noticed at least one inline citation where the URL had been commented out (instead of updated) because the link was dead (and it wasn't tagged). I updated it and removed the comment tags, but there may be more I didn't catch, and if a URL is commented out the Checklinks tool won't catch it. Anyway, some notes:

• Ref 50 (fixed) the URL was commented out. Updated with Wayback and removed commenting.
• Ref 53 (fixed) updated with Wayback archive.
• Ref 56 (fixed*) updated with Wayback archive. However, I'm not 100% sure that this reference actually supports a claim in the article. I can't read Japanese, but it looks like this article is about Metroid Prime.
• Ref 80 (fixed*) the Wayback machine is being really finicky with gamespot articles right now, I think because gamespot recently updated their Robots.txt. Updated with archive.today snapshot of Wayback's archive.
• Ref 104 (fixed) updated with Wayback archive.
• Ref 105 (fixed) updated with Wayback archive.
• Ref 111 (fixed) updated with Wayback archive.

--chrisFjordson (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Glitches and Speed running

This game is one of the most glitched gamed in history and is therefore incredibly popular in the speed running community. I believe this merits at least a mention in the article. Opinions? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 05:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have sources to support it? "One of the most glitched gamed in history" is certainly a grand claim that requires grand sources.. Яehevkor ✉ 09:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

speedruns A page listing WR's and exploits, may not be WP:RS but it is a start. Retartist (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. I'd say there are enough sources to at least mention it in the article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Broken link

Hello, I would like to report a broken link. Where it says the Guinness Book of World Record in 2008 and 2010 stated that The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is the highest rated game of all time, I followed the super-script link, but it takes me to the Nintendo page of the Guinness Book of World Records site, but no mention of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.189.49.146 (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I just went there, and after a period of Wayback's downtime, the archived page showed up to say "Zelda: Ocarina of Time is the highest rated game of all time at 97.7% according to website gamerankings.com.". I don't know if that Wayback outage is what you're referring to. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 09:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Plot trims

This will be a misc. place for comments on the plot trimming, since I've just been reverted on a bit:

@Zziccardi: Moat reversion - I think we can actually strike any mention regarding the moat, since what's important is that the Ocarina ends up 'retrieved' and subsequently used. Thoughts? --Izno (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

And I actually disagree regarding who had original possession of the ocarina. That Zelda had it is of no consequence, only that it can be used in certain ways to certain plot-ends. --Izno (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Izno. I agree that the moat need not be mentioned, but as I said in my edit summary, I do believe it's worth stating Zelda was initially in possession of the ocarina. Seeing as the instrument plays a significant role in both the gameplay and the plot—not to mention the game is titled after it—I think it couldn't hurt to provide a single-sentence description of its origin and how Link goes about retrieving it. I'm all for trimming excessive plots, but this doesn't seem like an appropriate place to do so. If I were a reader with no prior knowledge of the game, "After Ganondorf rides off, Link retrieves the Ocarina of Time" would probably leave me wondering whether I'd missed something. —zziccardi (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

To elaborate, the moat itself doesn't matter, but "Spotting Link, Zelda throws the Ocarina of Time into the castle moat" succinctly covers what is noteworthy. —zziccardi (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to get down to that 700 word-plot description that WP:FILM suggests for films (and which has been alluded to in discussion at WT:VG in the past). We're still sitting in the 850 range or so, and the original owner of the ocarina is not a particularly plot-relevant point... --Izno (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Got it down to 710 or so this evening. --Izno (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

IP edits without explanation

These are starting to look like a sockpuppet given the tendency to revert without explanation to wordier summaries (here and on other articles). I wouldn't know which master though, with general knowledge of wiki-editing... --Izno (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Izno: Regardless of whether the IP address is a sock puppet, the editor is clearly uninterested in discussing his or her changes and reaching consensus (or even in acknowledging others disagree). A few warning templates were placed on the editor's talk page by another user, ScrapIronIV, over the last two days... I think we may have to ask an administrator to step in. —zziccardi (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

This editor has been an issue for quite some time, and does not respond to comments on talk pages. Apparently edits from multiple shared PC's from a hospital, and focuses on plot and character expansion of kids' shows and movies. User has been blocked across multiple IP's resolving to the same hospital, and has been discussed on AN/I. I'm not sure what else can be done. Range blocks were considered, and rejected. Scr★pIron^IV 15:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: The editor returned today and still is not discussing. (Reference previous AN3 discussion, today's changes which are much the same as last week's.) I don't know whether a longer block or if page protection is better, but the IP seems to be static, so a longer block may be valid here. --Izno (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for two months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Semantic HTML

@Zziccardi: I'm not sure that the case for semantic HTML is made here, since we a) have said-semantic HTML (and citation metadata) present due to the inclusion of the "video game as a whole" citation, and b) this is a common citation style and is already used in this page in fact in the many references to the instruction manual. --Izno (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If you take a look at the HTML that's generated with the {{cite video game}} template, the quotes, for example, are placed inside the <q>...</q> tags. Sure, those tags could be placed around the quoted text within the bare <ref>...</ref> markup, but the rest of the reference information (in a machine-readable format) would still only appear under the "Literature" section, apart from the quotations. In other words, there would be no way for computers to know that the quotes are related to the citation at the bottom of the page. —zziccardi (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

"Considered by many critics and gamers to be the greatest videogame of all time"

This statement is currently supported by 10 reliable videogame sources. Equivalent statements also appear in the Roger Federer, Lionel Messi and Citizen Kane articles. It is not NPOV to state the fact that "many critics and gamers regard it to be the greatest of all time", it's just stating a fact. Stating that "it's the greatest ever" would be NPOV, because that is not a fact. But we're not doing that. If anyone feels like ten reliable sources, and several Good Articles, are wrong, please state reasons here. Autonova (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Please use the original talk section above at #Changed to "considered by many to be greatest ever" -- ferret (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Game Informer review":

• From BioShock: Reiner, Andrew (August 2007). "BioShock review". Game Informer. Archived from the original on August 22, 2007. Retrieved August 16, 2007.
• From Fallout 4: Reiner, Andrew (November 9, 2015). "A Familiar Wasteland – Fallout 4 – Xbox One". Game Informer. Retrieved November 9, 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ferret: You "fixed" the problem, which caused this one. Take a second look? --Izno (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Izno: Another editor, KyleMHilliard, added the review and reference to the template. All I did was correct the template parameter name. Since there's no reference defined and its not used in prose, I have simply removed it again. -- ferret (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Changed to "considered by many to be greatest ever"

August 2014

I have changed the lead statement to this because I see it to be a happy medium of its previous two versions - "Widely considered to be greatest ever" and "Widely considered to be one of the greatest ever". "By many" just seems a more measured statement than "widely considered". I have adopted the note formate to accomodate the many sources, like in the lead for the Roger Federer article (where a similar statement is used. See also Citizen Kane). As we've previously discussed, and as the sources show, the statement is neutral in its point of view and verifiable. I hope you guys like it! Autonova (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Autonova: Hi. So if you read the previous discussions, perhaps you can explain to new arrivals such as myself, why that was specifically refuted and disincluded and why you personally suddenly overrode that. I'm still studying the elaborate discussions. Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Smuckola: The impetus of the previous discussions was due to one particular user harbouring a problem with any statement in the lead section which referenced the game's reputation as "one of the greatest" or "the greatest". This user was judged to have been using multiple sock puppet accounts to revert edits and prolong the debate. Rest assured, I was involved in those discussions and have monitored and edited this article over several years so I'm familiar with the consensus regarding the sentence. The sentence has consistently alternated between various phrasings, including, as I've alluded to, "considered by critics and gamers alike to be the best game ever made". However it has never been supported by as many sources as it is now. Autonova (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Autonova: Oh, so it wasn't sudden. Ok. I was confused because the bulk of those discussions were collapsed up in a statement about a sockpuppet...but nevertheless, that's where the greatest bulk of the discussion took place on this topic, much of which is very elaborate. So I wasn't sure whether to dismiss it or what, but it was too impenetrably verbose for me to interpret it within a few minutes' time. It seems like a good review on the theory of such scenarios though, so I'll try again to read it. And yes my understanding is that we can't cite the general public ("gamers") as a reception source. I'm glad that someone with apparently a longstanding and neutrally benevolent position, has tracked an issue and undone the damage. But you're sure that the current phrase is according to non-abusers' consensus? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 00:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Smuckola: No worries man. The inclusion of "gamers" as a source actually occured after we had settled on phrasing previously so I wasn't involved in that part, however this was accepted by other editors. Since it is a poll from a reputable source rather than gamers directly I would tentatively consider it a varifiable statement, however I'd be interested to hear your take on it. And yes the current phrasing is the product of a legitimate consensus (previous abuse was directed at its omission altogether). Autonova (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Autonova: Yeah like you said though, the statement can't source "gamers" but rather "gamer polls", "reader polls", or "a poll of gamers", depending on the exact source. It's like the difference between "he thinks XYZ" vs. "he reportedly said that he thinks XYZ" or "according to X, he thinks Y". So I would tweak that one little thing. I'm not sure where in Wikipedia policy and procedure this is defined exactly, whether it's Wikipedia:Quotations or MOS:QUOTE or something about WP:RS, etc. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 00:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Smuckola: Ah I see. How about "considered by many to be the greatest video game of all time"? This would seem a more appropriate statement in that case. Autonova (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem we ran into there was that many on its own was considered too vague a word. That being said, you seem to have researched the case history more than I have, so you may be able to tell me if/why I'm wrong. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 04:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2016

I'm not disagreeing with the fact the game is considered to be the greatest ever (it is), but simply stating stating it as a non-debatable fact isn't something we should do. Other games have been listed higher in lists or polls, so do we also get to make the same statement there? The previous way states exactly the same thing, while remaining more neutral, but I'd like to hear what other editors have to think before you continue to change it. And just because Citizen Kane does it like that, does not mean we should automatically follow the same writing. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Following up, you adding more sources to something that isn't even debated (the claim) is just WP:OVERCITE. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 11:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Reply to #"Considered by many critics and gamers to be the greatest videogame of all time" below: "One of" the greatest is future proof, without losing any real impact. When tomorrow it turns out that Zelda is bumped to #2 at List of video games considered the best, we don't have to make any further edits. This is such a subjective phrase there's no reason to insist on noting it as specifically "the greatest" while linking to a list that can change at any time. All it takes is a new publication or two to be brought into scope of that list's criteria. You've spent two years trying to make this change in the face of opposition, not sure why you keep trying to make it when its clearly contested. -- ferret (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI, to clarify, no that is not what would happen. In the unthinkable case that this status could ever be said to change, then no, it would not be worded like that. There is no reason to degrade something like that even if countless RSes all said "Until the release of Game X, OoT was said to be the greatest game of all time but now there is another" . It would be worded as "For X decades, the game was considered by gamers and critics to have been the greatest game of all time" and perhaps "... and remains on the list of the greatest games of all time". FYI. In any case, that's a particularly outlandish idea, and thus the statement "is considered to be the greatest game of all time" as per RSes, remains an uncontestably empirical and essential fact and not relevant to future-proofing. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 12:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

First of all apologies for not seeing this reply earlier. It hasn't been clearly opposed in the past - it was only opposed by one editor who was deemed to be using sock puppet accounts, then we agreed on the "considered to be the greatest of all time" statement. This is the first time more than one editor has opposed this statement. "Other games have been listed higher in lists or polls, so do we also get to make the same statement there?" - yes that's true, however you won't be able to find anywhere near as many reliable sources which state that it's considered by many to be the greatest. It's an opinion held by a significant portion of the videogame community. In terms of Top 100 or similar lists, see the bottom of [12], where Ocarina of Time is number one in terms of list placement. The "Other stuff exists" argument is two-way. As it says on the guidance page, "In Wikipedia discussions, editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes [...] Non-fiction literature, such as encyclopedias, is expected to be internally consistent. As such, arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred. Only when the precedent is itself in conflict with policy, guidelines or common sense is it wrong to argue that it should be followed elsewhere." So the "Other stuff exists" argument is valid when comparing to other Good Articles which have "greatest of all time" statements, such as Roger Federer, Lionel Messi and Citizen Kane. The "overcite" argument is stated on the guidance page as "While adding footnotes is helpful, adding too many can cause citation clutter, which can make articles look untidy in read mode, and unreadable in edit mode. If a page features citations that are mirror pages of others, or which simply parrot the other sources, they contribute nothing to the article's reliability and are detrimental to its readability." This is solved in the note format which I just added - only one citation appears, which lists the ten sources. In terms of future proofing, as soon as there are anywhere near as many reliable sources which state another game is the greatest or considered the greatest, I'll be the first to cede a matching game and that this game no longer is remarkable in that respect. But this simply isn't the case at present. To say that Ocarina of Time is considered by many to be one of the greatest is like saying that Lionel Messi is one of the greatest, or Citizen Kane is one of the greatest, or Usain Bolt is one of the greatest. There are so many games considered one of the greatest. Ocarina is remarkable in that it is considered by many the greatest, based on reliable sources. Autonova (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

But that's basically just based on polling reliable sources until we find a count we like. List of video games considered the best has Tetris only 2 "greatest ever" lists behind Ocarina as "the" greatest. All it would take is to include 2 older lists from pre-Ocarina release, and Tetris would become the best. The subjectiveness of this, and how easily it can change simply by including a few other reliable sources, is why I lean towards "one of". Simply put, it's not inaccurate, and doesn't diminish whats being claimed. In regards to the other articles like Messi or Federer, they use concrete awards and statistics to frame the statement, based around standardized awards etc that everyone recognizes. "Best video game ever" lists are so wide and varied, with no real sort of "industry standard" or other metrics to apply, that I do not believe the comparison to be valid. -- ferret (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that conclusion doesn't make any sense. It *won't* ever change, unless all those sources explicitly renounce their original statements. Nothing anybody else can say, and nothing those sources will additionally say about anything else, will change it. Autonova is absolutely correct, saying that "considered by XYZ to be the greatest" and "one of the greatest" are logically equivalent except the former is accurate. — Smuckola(talk) 12:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It's more than just that. The article is simply not harmed by "one of", and it can't be concretely called "THE" greatest. Using our own WP:VG/RS search for "greatest video game" or top lists, etc, the first ten I reviewed (all reliable sources), none of them have Ocarina as #1. That's why it's so subjective to try to claim this is "THE" greatest. -- ferret (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm truly sorry to contradict or reiterate, but I'll clarify again because no it literally is not more than just that. We are *not* concretely saying "the greatest", so just delete that from your mind. I don't know where that idea even came from, as nobody here is saying that as far as I know. We're saying "considered by many gamers and critics to be the greatest". It's that simple!  :) I mean that's literally it, there literally is no valid argument as far as I know. That's what what is said by a preponderance of RSes, that's what an encyclopedia exists to say, and there is no reason to contradict or undermine them. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 12:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This is an important point - there are no statistics or absolute metric you can use to judge objectively if a game is the greatest. Number of instances listed number one is probably the best (although how can I say that objectively?), and Ocarina is at the top of that list, but more reliable sources exist now, and way more top 10 or 100 lists are made, the technology has changed, etc, so this isn't perfect. This is why we are directly quoting reliable sources, and their utterences of "considered (widely/by many) to be the greatest of all time". In the Federer article, the statement isn't referenced with statistics (which have changed over time along with the sport of Tennis itself) but with quotes from reliable sources, including renowned former players, whose knowledge of the game can take into account these changes, as well as represent the opinions of other players and fans. So including ten reliable sources which say this sentence is I believe valid for comparison. Also it should be noted that Federer or Messi or Citizen Kane won't always be the greatest, just like Ocarina won't always be - we aren't saying it's the greatest that will ever be, only it's considered by many critics and gamers to be the greatest. Autonova (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I've got to leave for a bit so won't reply again for a while, but I wanted to quickly note that List of video games considered the best is not sorted by "number of times it was #1 on a list", but simply "number of times it was on a list.", irregardless of ranking. By the current reasoning being expressed here though, there's at least a dozen video game articles that can make this exact same claim "There are many critics and gamers that consider it the best." If we're ok with that... -- ferret (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks I misunderstood that ranking - I maintain my point though, there are no set statistics, so we can quote them if reliably sourced, but we can also directly quote statements from reliable sources. It takes quite a groundswell of opinion for the idea to be crystallised enough of a game being "considered by many to be the greatest" that a reliable source explicitly says so. I've just had a quick search of reliable sources and I can't find any which describe any other game like this, but you may be right. After all, "many" doesn't mean "all" or "nearly all" or even "most" - many critics and gamers could consider another game the greatest also, so if another reliable source says so, the article for that game could include that sentence. Incidentally, the articles for Citizen Kane and Vertigo both reference opinion regarding each as the best ever, and even reference the other film's performance in critics' lists. Autonova (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Considered by many critics, filmmakers, and fans to be the greatest film of all time, Citizen Kane was voted as such in five consecutive Sight & Sound polls of critics, until it was displaced by Vertigo in the 2012 poll. It topped the American Film Institute's 100 Years ... 100 Movies list in 1998, as well as AFI's 2007 update.

  I suggest following the model in Citizen Kane. "one of the greatest" is flaccid language when many describe it as "the greatest". Future-proofing isn't the issue—let our coverage follow the sources. If the sources in the article support the statement of "the greatest", source it as such, and add qualification for why it is the greatest (topping listings at X, Y, Z, Metacritic, GameRankings, IGN whatever, etc.)  czar 14:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • This format would be fine for me, as it adds context. Also missing in a general is what Citizen Kane has, in the sense of "until displaced by". Is Ocarina still regularly appearing at the #1 spot on lists? It is no longer #1 on GameRankings, though it still holds it on Metacritic. -- ferret (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with this too. Autonova (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I'd take its appearance on the highest number of lists to be the truer reflection of its reputation, since in GameRankings it is only reviewed 28 times compared to first place Mario Galaxy's 78 times, which makes its average score more susceptible to 9.5 or 9 scores - this is what we alluded to earlier with stats not being uniform across the decades. The most recent top 100 I could find is from one day ago, albeit from an unreliable VG source Time, which has Ocarina in third, behind Mario and Tetris, which shows these games are still regularly held at number 1 despite their age. Ocarina of Time occurs at number one in reliable lists from 2014 - this is the latest year for reliable sources I can find at the moment. Autonova (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I know what you mean, but Metacritic's lists are the closest thing we (and the video game industry at large) have to a widely accepted standard, whereas Wikipedia's aggregated list of the best games based on the number of times they've appeared in "best" lists is constantly in flux and dependent on us constantly keeping up with newly published lists. My big problem with our listicle is that it comes a bit too close for comfort to defying WP:OR (emphasis mine): This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. We basically synthesize a bunch of sources that aren't necessarily comparable in a way that the original publishers never intended, which I think is something to be wary of. —zziccardi (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • @Autonova: Forgot to mention this earlier: We consider Time reliable. See WP:VG/S#Checklist. —zziccardi (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Fine with this as well, as it gives context instead of just claiming it as 100% fact, as the previous wording alluded to. Now we should remove all sources in the lead and put them into the subsections below, as featured articles such as this should really follow WP:CITELEAD. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I see much of a difference between the text Czar recommended and the previous wording, which you say claimed Ocarina is the greatest game as fact. Do you mind clarifying? As others have said, the sources clearly state that many critics and players consider it the greatest game… I believe this context is represented in both wordings, but maybe I'm missing something. —zziccardi (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes I don't see the syntactic difference either. Autonova (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Dissident93: Pinging. —zziccardi (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm also fine with this. —zziccardi (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

zzicardi has made a point I was similarly going to make - around five years ago I suggested backing up the statement with references to top 100 lists, but this was argued against because even if a game appears at the top of a list, that isn't an explicit statement that it is considered the greatest of all time. We agreed that referencing reliable sources which explicitly express the sentence are more appropriate and preferable. Now we seem to be going the other way (although I appreciate they were different editors). As zzicardi says above, referencing a collection of top 100 lists "comes a bit too close for comfort to defying WP:OR (emphasis mine): This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." The difference with this and the Citizen Kane article is that it references a poll of many critics, which Roger Ebert described it as "by far the most respected of the countless polls of great movies—the only one most serious movie people take seriously." So it references a top 10 list which seems to be unique - whereas we're referencing either an arbitrary selection of top 100 lists, or a collection of top 100 lists which aims to be exhaustive but is always battling flux, and since it's on Wikipedia and nowhere else, probably can't be considered a reliable source. That's just me, though, what do you guys think?
As a happy medium I propose the following edit:
Lead section:
The title is considered by many critics and gamers to be the greatest video game of all time - it has appeared in at least 45 lists of games considered the best, appearing at the top of many, including three consecutive Edge lists which polled critics and gamers.

Reception and legacy section:
The title is considered by many critics and gamers to be the greatest video game of all time.

Does this suit?Autonova (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I would go ahead and include the fact that it still (At this time) holds the top Metacritic ranking. We consider Metacritic a reliable source for aggregating critic reviews, so unlike the list article, there's no OR involved in the statement. -- ferret (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I was going to say that too. Also, Autonova's suggestion is a bit too wordy for the lead: If anything, we should mention its standing on Metacritic in the lead—which is already done—and save more detail for the reception section. That said, I don't think we should or need to mention the "arbitrary" (as Autonova called it) number of lists the game has appeared in there either. —zziccardi (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that Metacritic is reliable, but does it support the statement? The reviews were made in 1998, someone could argue, so do not support the statement at the time of writing (and none of them I don't think actually say the statement, which may not matter, but I think it might). I was actually referring to the inclusion of the three Edge polls in my above example as arbitrary - why include Edge's polls ahead of any other? There are two questions I'm still confused about:

• Dissident refers to CITELEAD as a reason to avoid putting citations in the lead section where we include the statement. As it says on the guidance page, "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." The statement we're including is challengeable. Also, there are other citatons in the lead. There aren't citations after the statement in the lead of the Citizen Kane article, because the Sight and Sound poll is directly referenced. So we need citations after the lead statement.
• Forgive me but I still don't know why we are avoiding referencing explicit statements by reliable, recent sources, for which I was convinced in a similar discussion years previously. As I see it there are 5 options: 1) reference Metacritic which lists reviews from 1998 which, I don't think, ever make the statement; 2) directly reference a selection of top 100 lists where Ocarina is number one, which would take up quite a lot of space (top 100 lists don't explicitly say the statement, but it's implied); 3) include an inline citation of top 100 lists where Ocarina is number one; 4) reference List_of_video_games_considered_the_best, which may be Original Research; or 5) reference reliable sources which explicitly include the statement, as well as top 100 lists, in note format so it doesn't take up space. Does anyone have any suggestions on edits? Autonova (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Autonova: Sorry for a bit of a delay. Regarding Metacritic, as I said above, Ocarina's standing on the site is already mentioned in the lead as follows: As of 2016, it is the highest-rated game on review-aggregating site Metacritic, with a score of 99/100. This is unrelated to whether the game is considered the greatest of all time. As for the citations to Edge, that's probably only a matter of wikihistory: whoever initially wrote and cited the claim in the lead probably had a subscription to the magazine (and likely copies of the issues that call the game the best, which we sadly can't double-check). If you're not familiar, take a look at WP:OVERCITE. Basically, if we already have one or a few good references that cover everything we state, we don't need to cite more sources that say the same thing—that's overkill. (It was much worse not too long ago.) In our situation, we probably don't need all five citations to Edge in the lead. If we're going to have multiple citations for the source—which we probably should, since, as you said, it's a challengeable claim—it'd be better to cite a few different major publications. Per the recommendations in WP:LEADCITE, we should keep the citations following the claim about it being the greatest game, although all the other citations in the lead aren't necessarily needed there. I don't think anyone advocated "avoiding referencing explicit statements by reliable, recent sources". How we go about sourcing the statement in the lead shouldn't be a huge concern since we already do reference one of the major publications we consider reliable (see WP:VG/S#List) several times. It couldn't hurt to vary the publications cited or to use sources that more directly back up our claim (moving the reference tags to a footnote would also be fine), but this isn't essential—it's not like we haven't satisfied WP:V. (Also, linking to List of video games considered the best isn't the same as citing it—of course we should never cite another Wikipedia article.) I think I responded to all of your points. —zziccardi (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

So how about the following edit, which cites the Edge readers' top 20, the Edge critics' top 100, and explicit statements of the sentence from videogamer, destructoid, and gameasutra (it will be in a note format as superscript [a] in the article but I can't get that working here in the talk page):

The title is considered by many critics and gamers to be the greatest video game of all time. Autonova (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as everyone seems to have forgotten about this and are editing other things, I'm gonna go ahead and enact this edit at the end of the day, if there are no objections by then. Autonova (talk) 09:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed, but I made several of the changes discussed above a few days ago (including removing one of the citations, so we're at four now). As I stated in the big paragraph above, the citations we already have are fine and we really don't need any more per WP:OVERCITE. —zziccardi (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks zziccardi. Autonova (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I find the statement in the in the intro, saying the game is considered the greatest of all time but being sourced to only the same website a bit unsatisfactory. Perhaps adding lists from other websites would offer a wider amount of sources that would likely agree with this fact. Also, source #97 at http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=7906056&publicUserId=5739595 is no longer available Paigepietras (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I already argued in favor of this, but consensus seemed to disagree me as well. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Director

So why is Miyamoto listed as a director? He is not a director according to the official credit. I checked the source and in the article Aonuma says "he was just on the director level", but this is just his personal opinion. Nintendo's official credit describes Miyamoto as a Producer, not director. In this case, obviously we should trust Nintendo's official credit, rather than Aonuma's personal opinion. I checked the Japanese version of this article and it also lists Miyamoto as a producer and not a director. I think the English version is the only one which lists him as a director.--イケメン大富豪 (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209012019/http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/archives.html to http://gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/archives.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2009/11/16/game-informer-s-top-100-games-of-all-time-circa-issue-100.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141102110727/http://www.gamerzines.com/ds/news-ds/master-quest-included-in-oot3d.html to http://www.gamerzines.com/ds/news-ds/master-quest-included-in-oot3d.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826152411/http://www.zeldadungeon.net/2011/05/ocarina-of-time-3d-uber-master-quest/ to http://www.zeldadungeon.net/2011/05/ocarina-of-time-3d-uber-master-quest/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)