User talk:Evouga/Zelda Classic

Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.

It's coming

A better version of this page is coming. (And if you would like to know what kind of stir you have created, visit -> [1].) You are not giving any criteria for us to create a new page, you are only deleting it based on a very poor debate. You are not even letting the page exist, as information was being added at the point in time you so hastily deleted it. We have a limited amount of outside sources to use, but they are there. So go ahead, give us some guidelines to recreate the page. Pineconn 1:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please follow WP:CIVIL, if you're going to attack people they're not even going to consider your points. "We have a limited amount of outside sources to use, but they are there." -- Exactly the point, limited sources. Additionally recreating a horrid article is not the way to do things, you were simply asking it to be protected from being recreated. "meh, if you keep trying to bring it back, they're prevent you from editing the page as a whole. Better leave it lie for now." -- Even a person on the forums recommended you leave it alone. To summarise, if you read the forum post you linked to, anyone who actually contributed rather than just spread ad hominem ad nauseum recommended that the article not be recreated and/or rewritten from scratch with better adherence to Wikipedia policies. No offence but the previous article was horrible, it just looked like spam and was an ego-fest for certain ZC players. There was a list of prominent players/contributors; think about it, would Encarta or Britannia include a list of prominent ZC players? Exactly. If you plan to recreate the article in future I heavily recommend you remove such cruft.

Also, FANSITES are in many cases not reliable. Your site needs reporting in independent third-party sources. To finalise: What Wikipedia is not, No original research, Be civil otherwise people won't listen to you at all and Wikipedia requires reliable independent third-party sources. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 09:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for responding. Now that the "steam" is blown off, I can coherently respond to you. We will try to outline a new article, using other websites as citations. The main page isn't really a fansite, but I can see what you mean. Just give us another chance at this, and we'll pull out an encyclopedic article. Pineconn 18:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is worth mentioning that Zelda Classic is the illegal modification of Nintendo's copyrighted work, using intellectual property that does not belong to any of the Zelda Classic players, contributors, or creators which the original Zelda Classic Wikipedia article was solely dedicated to commemorating. I agree with TheSeer that the article served no purpose other than to toot the horn of Zelda Classic contributors/creators and failed to meet even the most basic of Wikipedia standards in any of its reincarnations.

Personally, I do not see any redeeming qualities in an article of this nature. There are already Wikipedia articles dedicated to the official Zelda games. Does Wikipedia have any compelling need for articles dedicated to every illegal modification or work based upon the franchise? This is Wikipedia and not Source Forge, which is why you will not find a Wikipedia article on Open Zelda. "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted," and that is the only explanation you need regarding the article's deletion. Waychel 05:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC) — Waychel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

For the record, Zelda Classic is not a modification. All of the code was built from scratch, or from open source utilities. I'm not saying Zelda Classic does not infringe on any copyright laws: the sounds themselves are exactly the same, and the graphics, while built from the ground up, are still based on the original game. However, according to the Fair Use doctrine, the character of the work is transformative, not derivative. Users may create their own graphics, sounds, interface, etc. The expression of "Zelda games" is copyrighted, but the idea of "a Zelda-like adventure game" is not. As for substantiality, the only IP directly copied from the original is sound. Everything else was built from the ground up. The "heart" of the game is not being copied, as the protagonists and antagonists can be modified by the user. Finally, the effect of Zelda Classic upon the original is small. The original does not contain most of the features of Zelda Classic. The fan base is relatively small/medium. And, most importantly, Zelda Classic is not sold for profit. One could possibly argue that Zelda Classic falls under fair use. Nintendo does not correspond with fan project creators to my understanding, and, in effect, doesn't care what fans do, as long as Nintendo isn't being damaged. Of course, they still hold the rights to their work, and could at any time attempt to cease and desist work on Zelda Classic, but they have not. That being said, the article in question obviously needed work. 68.75.195.7 18:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What other word would you have me use to describe a program that uses the name, characters, artwork, sound effects, concept, and design of a copyrighted game and franchise for itself? Because I could think of less kind words to use than "modification" when describing this kind of blatant copyright infringement.

The code being written from scratch is irrelevant not only to the legal status of the program, but the legal issues relevant to Wikipedia policy regarding this type of article. The fact that many Zelda Classic players have contributed to the code over the years also makes your original list of contributors in the article, and any attribution of exclusive credit or ownership regarding the program, even more dubious.

Zelda Classic is not an example of Fair Use. The name of the program itself is a trademark violation. As you mentioned, works must be transformative and not derivative, but the graphics and sound effects in Zelda Classic are directly ripped and copied from official Zelda games. The gameplay is also not transformative, but reproduced from Zelda, with all weapons and items functioning in the exact same way. I do not believe that one could even describe Zelda Classic as a derivative work, because it more specifically fits the definition of reproduced or copied work.

Simply because Zelda Classic players can create their own story or change the graphics around does not mean that they have created a transformative work either. Most of us call this plagiarism in the real world (or copyright infringement in the legal world). Waychel 23:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC) — Waychel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Sure, you have totally valid points. I wouldn't say that that Zelda Classic upholds Fair Use by a longshot (no pun intended), but there could at least be an argument made for some of the four points, as seen in my opinion above. Some may argue that the most important point is that ZC is not sold for profit, and it's all in good spirit.68.75.195.7 13:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Zelda Classic may be "all in good spirit" from your point of view, but I am sure that the actual copyright holders in this case (Nintendo) would strongly disagree. Even though you are not profiting from Zelda Classic, its distribution still affects Nintendo's ability to market certain Zelda games, and that alone makes it a cause for liability. There is really no room for debate here regarding the "spirit" or "intentions" behind the program when discussing legality, because the only feelings that matter here are those of the copyright holders currently being infringed upon. Waychel 07:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC) — Waychel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Waychel, Wikipedia is not a message board. The legal status of the game itself is not an issue for Wikipedia. In fact, if third-party sources had written any articles about the legal status of the game, that would actually help this article with notability. If you have an issue with this game, take it up in private, or on the games message board, not here. DarkSaber2k 09:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is an issue when claims about the game being on "good standing" with the copyright holder are being made in the article, which is why I said that the legality of the program was worth mentioning.

This Talk Page erupted because the article's contributors continued to insist that Zelda Classic is either legal under "Fair Use" doctrine or endorsed/condoned by Nintendo. Those claims are one of the notability issues that caused the original article to be deleted and I do believe that it was relevant to address them on this Talk Page before they ended up in yet another reincarnation of the article. Wikipedia articles should have a neutral perspective and not contain false claims simply because a legion of fans wishes to believe their own misinterpretations of copyright law. Waychel 00:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC) — Waychel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Since this isn't in article space at the moment, it can say what the hell it wants until it is re-submitted, at which point the article would have to be sourced and verfiable. Wikipedia is also not a battleground to drag up your off-wiki grudge with the makers of this game. DarkSaber2k 08:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Uhm... you guys do realize that at the time of this argument, the article itself no longer even contained this (unverified) claim? Please stop spamming up my user space with this bickering. I would love some help revamping the actual article; otherwise, if you have nothing constructive to contribute, I invite you to leave and come back and renominate for deletion if and when the article is reinstated. Evouga 08:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This page was deleted according to the process, not because it was a poor article, but because those who weighed in on the debate felt that the subject of the article did not meet the guidelines for notability. Please go to Deletion review if you would like to challenge that debate. Andre (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Zelda Classic. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Evouga 21:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to say a few things regarding this debate. First off, Nintendo know about this and has not tried to shut it down for years. Nintendo officially does not care about fan projects, as long as they are not for profit. ZC has been around for years and there are probably plenty of people telling them about it all the time, especially after being recognized on TechTV's The ScreenSavers and EGM magazine. The only thing that is probably illegal is the graphics that are sometimes used in quests, which are created by other users. Unfortunately, she's technically right about the copyright thing (the graphics anway). I also would like to be able to get another shot at having Zelda Classic to have an entry of it's own, but I think it does need some cleanup from the last article that was written. I know that it has been shown on the television show "Screensavers" and on "EGM magazine. Hopefully, if I can find the correct documents on those things, we may have some reliable sources. Stupidpug 18:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Stupidpug

Zelda Classic may not be sold for profit, but it is still a work that uses Nintendo's copyrighted material and trademarks. That makes it ruinous to Nintendo's Zelda franchise by creating brand confusion, and it could hinder future marketability of these games in the same way as emulation. Programs like these may be all in good fun to fans, but they are taken seriously from a legal standpoint by their copyright holders, and it is both disrespectful and dangerous to assume otherwise.

Simply because Nintendo has not communicated to you about Zelda Classic does not mean that you can presume they have granted permission for the use of their copyrighted material or trademarks. There have been numerous claims in the original Wikipedia article and talk pages that Nintendo either condones or endorses Zelda Classic's existence, but no proof has ever been provided for these statements; only conjecture. The program receiving mention on TechTV or in EGM does not substantiate any of these claims either, as neither of this productions are representatives of Nintendo. Waychel 23:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC) — Waychel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Actually, Nintendo Power had a small article and a link to the website in one issue. I think it was October 2005.68.75.195.7 15:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Making statements without providing references, proof, or sources has been a recurring problem for the Zelda Classic article and subsequent talk pages, which is why it was deleted. Even if I were to give your statement the benefit of the doubt, Nintendo Power does not speak for nor represent Nintendo's copyright interests, making such an article irrelevant. Waychel 07:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC) — Waychel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No it wouldn't be irrelevent Waychel. It doesn't matter if Nintendo Power is the 'voice of nintendo' or not. What is important for a wikipedia article is that Nintendo Power is a reliable third-party independent of the people developing this game, so an article (provided it's a non-trivial article) would be perfectly acceptable as a source. DarkSaber2k 10:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said that it would be irrelevant as a source, but that it would be irrelevant as a source for substantiating their claim that "Nintendo officially does not care about [Zelda Classic]" or that "Zelda Classic is on good standing with Nintendo." Please read the entirety of the debate/discussion before you post a comment. Simply because Nintendo Power may have ran an article on Zelda Classic does not make this statement true or the article a reliable source for such claims. Waychel 00:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC) — Waychel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Taken from the first sentence WP:V policy. As long as a source is available that does actually support any given claim in an article, then it has the right to remain there. If you take issue, find a source to back up YOUR claims, or prove that Nintendo Power is unreliable source (which it isn't). I agree that saying 'it's on good standing with Nintendo' when this has not been actually stated is wrong, and so is making that conclusion based off being mentioned in NP, as it is original research. But making no effort to contribute to an article and just harrassing the talk page with your personal grudge is worse. If you want the article to make a point about the legality of this game find a reliable source. If not, kindly stop spamming this talk page so that people are actually trying to see if this article can be improved to inclusion standards can get on with it. Your concern is unfounded since the article no longer makes any claims to that effect anyway, and it certainly wont have any unverifiable claims like that added while I'm keeping an eye on it. Maybe you would be better off finding other articles of a similar nature that are already on Wikipedias article space, instead of harassing people who are trying to privately fix up an article to follow wiki guidelines? DarkSaber2k 08:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

How can the claim that Zelda Classic was included in EGM be legitimate, as it will surely need a scanned image of the actual article and therefore violate Wikipedia's rules on copyright? Also, the claim that Zelda Classic be placed under the Copyleft licence (or any licence, in fact) is somewhat laughable as its developers don't own the rights to the Zelda franchise. Drepple 20:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No "proof" is needed to back up properly cited paper media, which are moreover perfectly acceptable sources. I encourage you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies, and contribute directly to the article itself. Evouga 06:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Can this be used for the TechTV reference? Drepple 14:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ignore the above - I added it myself. Drepple 13:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

About the Actual Content

This page could use some more detail. Perhaps a list of new items, new engine changes, notable quests etc. I would add it myself, but I feel somewhat uncomfortable editing something stored on another user's page. If Evouga has no problem with it, I'd be more than willing to add to the actual content of the article (hopefully that would help to convince people that said article should actually exist on Wikipedia). roc314 02:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)