Template talk:The Legend of Zelda

Does anyone else think that TMC should be moved down into the subgames list? It is part of the Four Swords series, after all and conflicts a little with the main "standards" of Hyrule e.g. the Master Sword, the Triforce. Ian Moody 12:29, 13 April 2005 (UTC)Reply

Good point. While it does refer off-hand to the Triforce ("Light Force" ingame) and is a single-player adventure, it does not have Ganon or the Master Sword, and it's still very much in the FS series. Many Zelda sites put it on their main lists (unlike FS/FSA which they demote) but even so I am confident it has no part in the core timeline of the series, so I'm moving it. If anyone complains they can always give a reason here, and if it's valid enough I'd agree with it. Otherwise I think I'll mercilessly revert any change to put it back in the top list. Master Thief Garrett 23:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree; The Minish Cap picks up concepts introduced in Four Swords games just like other Zelda games have done with their precedessors. The Minish Cap is in no way a sub-game: you'll note that all the other games in small caps are either bonus games, or rehashs/repackagings of full Zelda titles. This is not the case with Minish Cap. According to the rationale presented by the users above, I could make a case for Link's Awakening and the Oracle series to be put down as well. Phils 14:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

True, very true. You make a good point. However I wasn't moving it because I thought of it as a subgame or inferior title, but merely because it goes better alongside its FS "brothers". But as I said below, I think that the Four Swords line of games need their own subline, maybe with a larger font than currently, and MC is definitely part of the FS series. Master Thief Garrett 03:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for putting in the change before noting the discussion here, but I must insist that Minish Cap belongs in the primary listing. The defining nature of 'Four Swords' is multiplayer, not presentation or storyline. 'Minish Cap' is no less a part of the main Zelda series than 'Link's Awakening' or any other game where the characters and situations vary wildly. Rhindle The Red 12:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Except that the Four Swords games share things in common that none of the other games do. Link's Awakening has unique villains. Majora's Mask has unique villains. However, all the Four Swords games share Vashti as the main villain. It's a definite series in terms of story. Fieari 23:31, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

But story is not the only thing that links (pardon the pun) the Legend of Zelda games. I think if you checked around, most people would not agree with this idea. I will leave it alone for now, but it just seems silly to single out 'Minish' for the reasons you state. The Legend of Zelda is defined more by its gaming sytle than by its storyline. The drastically *different* style of the 'Four Swords' games is what sets them apart, not the specifics of the storyline. Rhindle The Red 12:02, July 25, 2005

From the timeline section of http://www.zeldauniverse.net, one of the biggest Zelda fansites out there:

The Four Swords Series
Due to the nature of the Four Swords games as well as The Minish Cap, and how they for many various reasons do not seem to relate directly with the rest of the games more or less makes placing them in a timeline related to the rest of the games a guessing game, and therefore we have decided to not try to place them in the main timeline theory, but rather treat the Four Swords games as a "sub-series" of its own within the Zelda franchise. The fact that yet another Four Swords game has been confirmed to be on its way to the Nintendo DS strengthens this decision.

Ian Moody 08:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

That relates only to their proposed timeline and has nothing to do with the way the games should be treated otherwise. Even so, that is only the opinion of the author of the timeline and the people of that (admittedly popular) Web Site. I don't think most players would make the connection (no Ganon), instead seeing 'Minish' as the latest 'proper' Zelda title.Rhindle The Red 18:09, 31 July 2005

...there's already at least one more FS game on the horizon, so I think when that is released the FS games should have their own entire subline, separate from the BS and CD-i Zeldas. Master Thief Garrett 23:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, any thoughts on the matter? The problem is how to format it. The FS line would need to look like it was intended to be separate from the rest, rather than the result of an accidental bumping of the <Enter> key; however it must not be a size that makes it look less important than the main series, or makes it look like it is a preceding line of the subgames at the very bottom. What are your thoughts on this? Master Thief Garrett 03:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the end I decided to make a new subseries line. Do others agree with this? I think with the release of Four Swords DS (and the rumour of future games featuring Vaati and the Four Sword) that there may well be a whole new subseries. And after all, I'd say four games constitute a subseries. But what are your thoughts on this? Master Thief Garrett 03:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you think this needs to be moved? After all Master Quest is just a remix of OOT. It's not really a separate game, and is often classed alongside the original, much like Link's Awakening DX is. Does anyone else agree, and if now what are your thoughts on this? Master Thief Garrett 23:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds the new colors to be quite garish? ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:28, 2005 July 17 (UTC)

New colors are nicer, but I think it should use the same colors as the other TOC / navigation boxes. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:14, 2005 July 18 (UTC)

Maybe use a very, very dark green, like Zelda.com has. Rather than just go with the generic lilac (or whatever it's technically called). Garrett^Talk 09:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

From the header image, the dark green is "#36592D", and the light green is "#446824". Or should we go with the background/text combo they have at the bottom? ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:12, 2005 July 18 (UTC)

I hate to cause trouble or anything, but I can't for the life of me understand some of the changes that have gone on recently here. I had barely come to tolerate the notion of slagging 'The Minish Cap' off as a separate entity, when the subsection gets re-named "spinoff titles". How in the world can you justify calling TMC a "spinoff"? It is a valid Zelda game, not like the proposed "Tingle" title, which is a proper spinoff. This nonsensical attitude towards TMC has to stop. It was one thing when it was being grouped in with the 'Four Swords' titles on purely stylistic grounds, but calling it a "spinoff" is, frankly, an insult to the title.Rhindle The Red 13:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

While I do think TMC should definitely be in the same section as the other FS games, I agree with you on this, and have moved Tingle RPG down into its own section. This makes the template slightly bigger, but there are larger ones out there, and unless someone can think of a better solution I don't see what else to do. - Ian Moody 19:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I really don't see why TMC would be part of the Four Swords-series. Yes, the game was drawn in the same style..but does that justify a move to the section of the FS-titles? If we're gonna keep TMC in there, we might as well make a "Ocarina of Time"-subseries paragraph and move Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask there, since they're also in the same style. -- SoothingR^(pour) 14:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

This is an old argument that I don't feel like fighting right now. We'll see how closely 'Twilight Princess' adheres to the classic Zelda story. If it strays significantly, I'm going to once again fight for putting 'Minish Cap' into the main listing. I've always advocated separating out the 'Four Swords' titles because their multiplayer aspect is the thing that distinguishes them from the other titles. TMC is closer to the other Zelda games than, say, 'Majora's Mask'. I'm just not in the mood to go on too much about it right now.Rhindle The Red 16:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

During the be-bold edit I also removed the italics from each games title-- this was an effort to keep this series box consistent with most other series boxes I've come across. Is there a particular reason we should keep it italicized? Thanks! --Locke Cole 11:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

The Manual of Style says so. I see your good intentions, but in this case, you should really just keep 'em. --Shadow Hog 15:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

The manual of style is, of course, only a guideline, not policy. I've taken the discussion there however, so we shall see. In the meantime, it'd be nice to see some opinions as to which looks better so I can tell if I'm wasting my time or not. :P --Locke Cole 16:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

The nbsp (non-breaking space) keep the titles from wrapping in mid-name (and also keep dashes from starting a line). Please don't remove them. —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 10:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to reinstate the non-breaking spaces if you like, however, please do not remove the italics and other formatting. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Why should I be tasked with reinstating something you removed? —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 11:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Because YOU should not have removed the italics in the first place. Now I have italicised all the titles again, left the &nbsp;s and replaced "–" with "&ndash;". Problem over. Ian Moody 12:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Who died and made you God? —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 12:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

What made you so hostile? The fact is YOU came along and removed formatting with your first edit. Others reverted your changes to restore the formatting. What you then should have done is realised that the italicised formatting for the titles is wanted in this template and then added all the &nbsp;s again without removing the formatting. What you instead did was start a rv. war, and then had the gall to warn CyberSkull about the 3RR in your edit summary. Now I have had to spend my time adding all the formatting back, while keeping the &nbsp;, because your idea and logic were good, and also because I don't want to see this template ruined by petty bickering. Ian Moody 12:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think the centered version was much better. Is everyone really attached to this format? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think I preferred it centered as well, but I'm still not in the mood to fight anyone over it.Rhindle The Red 17:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't like the centered templates myself. --Pagrashtak 23:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I believe the main characters should stay in the template since they are an important part of the series, which the template is part of. Jedi6-(need help?) 00:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

It adds to the size of the template, and the content would lead to Goombas, Lakitus, Moblins, Heart Containers, etc. being elligible. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thats why we would only add the major characters. For example, the Zelda template would have Link, Ganon and Zelda only. As for controversy happening, well, controversy happens everywhere in Wikipedia there is no avoiding it. Jedi6-(need help?) 01:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Leave them out, then. Just like how a hot dog vendor doesn't, say, give a free hot dog, so as to avoid people asking for free hot dogs. People will argue that this or that character is deserving of being on. Vaati? Majora? Impa? Tingle? Epona? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

But Link, Zelda and Ganon are important parts of the Zelda franchise for almost everygame. There should be a link to them from the template. As for people trying to expand it just put a note on the page saying us the talk page before adding anything then stop them there. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

And why are you the one who gets to decide that Tingle, Impa, Navi, Epona, Twinrova, etc. don't warrant mention? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not its just some characters deserve to be in because people are looking for them and they are fundemental parts of the series. I was using Link, Ganon and Zelda as examples. What ever goes in the character sections would be determined by consensus on the talk page. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

And people would defy consensus to get what they want. Impa, Tingle, Epona, Twinrova, etc. all play a part in multiple Zeldas, and someone would argue that it's unfair to count only some main characters. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure characters like Link and Zelda really need to be in the templates: they're linked to prominently from pretty much every Zelda page anyway. jacoplane 07:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Many people have no idea who Link is, they have no idea who stars in the games, so they'd have no idea that Link existed if they didn't happen to find the link within a page. Scepia 23:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's a hoax, not a real game. If somebody finds concrete information on "Zelda III" for NES, a new article may be added to this template. Please leave it off as the article is about a fan-hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSA (talk • contribs)

You can't say for sure that it's a fan hoax, though. It should be mentioned though, somewhere in the template, since the TS article is worthwhile. Scepia 18:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I actually have some interesting info, though it may not be concrete. It comes from Prima's The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past Unauthorized Game Secrets, by Zach Meston. In the introduction, page 3, it says, and I quote... "The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past is a 16-bit continuation of the Zelda game series. Most players refer to it as Zelda III, but that's not the game's official title, and Nintendo of America Inc. states that they may yet release a true Zelda III video game for the 8-bit NES. (After the 16-bit intensity of LTP, however, it's doubtful that many players would care much about another 8-bit Zelda game.)" Now, this doesn't necessarily say that the Triforce Saga is a real game, but it does say that a 'true' Zelda III was considered at one point, even after A Link to the Past was made. He says that Nintendo of America stated that it was a possibility, so this may be where the GBC remake trilogy came about: using ideas for the conclusion as the third game. Again, I'm not saying that the Triforce Saga is real, but I am saying that there may indeed have been an NES Zelda III at one point. I do find it a bit weird, however, that Mr. Meston references Nintendo of America as a source, and the cart for Triforce Saga is an American one.

Why is it that some people feel that The Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time independent film does not belong in this template? Sure, it has not yet been released and is not officially endorsed by Nintendo, but it is still part of the series. The CD-i games are on there, even if they are not officially endorsed by Nintendo. Given, it may not need its own "Independent film" category, but I feel that it should be on there. Even if you want to say that it is not an official part of the series, for people who are reading about The Legend of Zelda series, they should know that it is out there and is still Zelda, even if Nintendo had nothing to do with it. -Platypus Man | Talk 18:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I know it is important to know about, but it doesn't belong in a games tempate. Now, I'm not sure where it would go, perhaps in a general Zelda template, but the rest on the template that was changed are games, including the CD-i ones. Scepia 18:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

not officially endorsed by Nintendo

Bingo.

but it is still part of the series

What?

The CD-i games are on there, even if they are not officially endorsed by Nintendo.

They were, how else do you think they even got made without Philips being sued to hell?

is still Zelda

Zelda related, sure, but actual "Zelda"?

And as Scepia correctly pointed out it's not a game, which puts it even further out of the scope of this template. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 20:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Who said that this was a "Games" template? It says "The Legend of Zelda series," not "The Legend of Zelda games." Just because the rest of the things on it are games should not mean that non-games are unwelcome. What about the cartoon show? It was endorsed by Nintendo. We could put the two of these in an "Other media" (or something) section. In regard to my comments about the CD-i games, even though Nintendo did allow them to be made, they never again say anything about them. They are not part of the official series, as far as Nintendo is concerned. When they mention Zelda games, they only rarely refer to these, almost always as a form of sidenote. But they exist, which is what is important in an encyclopedic point of view. The movie exists; someone reading about the series should be able to know that easily. -Platypus Man | Talk 21:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The template is rather assumed to be just for games - it's long enough as is, perhaps more could be incorporated, including the movie, cartooon, etc. but maybe in another template. The other media should be in a template somewhere though, I agree. Scepia 23:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have been going through the Zelda articles and only found the movie article through here and t.v articles through the LoZ series article. I have seen larger templates than this and creating such a minor template for just a movie and a couple of shows is even worse. Actually, isn't that only two articles? I believe that "Other media" should be added to this for easy and instant access.FullMetal Falcon 23:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I made this [TOTALLY AWESOME] picture of Link... I think it should be added to the template. 71.244.180.131 03:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Now this template IS only for the video games of the series, as is shown by its current state and name. I have created {{Zelda}}, but haven't added the movie information to it because those articles are currently stubs and the movies may not be considered canon -- at least I don't think they're worthy enough to appear on the main template yet. --Tryforceful 05:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I like how that huge section was split into "remakes" and "unreleased" sections, but where should the Zelda Collector's Edition bit go? There's only been one collection - I don't think it merits its own "Collections" section. I propose that the "spinoffs" section be renamed "other" and to put the Zelda Collector's Edition with that section. Hbdragon88 18:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn't remakes be a better place for it to go? — Ian Moody ^(talk) 19:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

But it's not a remake...it's a straight out port. A crappy, straight, direct one, it seems, judging by what I have read - how OoT and MM have sound and graphic problems. Hbdragon88 20:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

They are indeed. Everything is run under emulation as far as I am aware. Unfortunately the emulators are incomplete/buggy, which is what leads to the sound problems (which I have experienced myself, particularly in MM) as well as the crashing (which a friend experienced with MM, to his considerable annoyance, on account of the save system). — Ian Moody ^(talk) 00:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK. To combine the last two topics (the first of which I started), I say we rename "Spinoffs" to "Other," place it at the bottom (or maybe right above "Unreleased"), move the Collecter's Edition to it, remove the "Collections" section, and add The Hero of Time movie and the cartoon series to the same "Other" section. True, they may not all fit together, but that's what an "Other" section is designed to have. Also -- the existing "Spinoffs" aren't really spinoffs in a traditional sense, in my opinion. How do you like that idea? -Platypus Man | Talk 20:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why are these used in the template? Jaxad0127 17:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

En spaces provide the small margins on the left and right of the category titles like "Main Series" and "Collections." Their size is relative to the font size, so it scales easily, and they are easy to maintain. It makes the cells on the left look better. --Tryforceful 19:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

But they don't work in all browsers. If you're goinf for a centered look, CSS is a much better way to do it. Jaxad0127 19:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I originally intended them to work in conjunction with the line breaks and lack of width definition that User:Ian Moody has since discussed and removed. Now they don't seem to function as they did then, so feel free to remove or alter them with CSS as you see fit; what I was going for was to expand the cell width to a point where each title is on a single line (non-broken) and that the longest-width'd phrase has a small margin on its left and right. I tried to use CSS before with "left-margin" or something of that sort, and it did not work in all browsers as well. --Tryforceful 20:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Have you tried padding instead? — Ian Moody ^(talk) 10:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I removed the "Unofficial" part in the table of the CD-i games. First, it makes the table look awkward and second, like 'em or hate 'em, they are lisenced by Nintendo and thus official - even if Nintendo doesn't acknowledge them. 71.244.180.131 01:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Listen to yourself! If nintendo DON'T acknowledge them them they aren't really official --Zeldamaster3 15:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Geez, someone doesn't know how this stuff works. Okay, it is I L L E G A L if they went ahead and did a Zelda game without licensing. And they did get approval and licensing by Nintendo, who owns the copyright. Like it or not, if something is licensed, it is O F F I C I A L. So what if they don't acknowledge it? That doesn't change the fact that they did it, and obviously the only reason they're ignoring it is because the CD-i games got bad press. Whatever, let Miyamoto and the gang worry about their flowing storyline, the fact is that it happened just like Super Mario's edutainment misadventures, and it passed. No, the real point is that Nintendo apparently doesn't consider it part of the timeline. That's it! That doesn't make it any more or less official. It makes it less mainstream is all, really. Like the LCD games and perhaps also the Capcom-made games (but you don't see anyone labelling them unofficial).

Firstly, we have a category of "Unreleased / Cancelled" - seems a little redundant since a game that is cancelled is, usually, unreleased. A name change seems to be in order for that one.

Secondly, although the Zelda Collection disc is generally considered "ports", there has been some changes made in the files themselves - enough, I'd say, that the Zelda Collection could easily fit into the "Remakes" cagatory. If everyone is totally against that idea, how about changing the "Remakes" category into "Remakes and Compilations", since the LttP/FS GBA game is a compilation as well?

Thirdly, I want to do something about the "Spinoffs/Other Games" category name, but I'm not quite sure... Any ideas?

Any comments/suggestions? 71.244.180.131 01:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

My suggestions: Prototypes, Remakes, Miscellanea. Note that the Zelda Collection is also a remake because it sports improved graphics. --DavidHOzAu 10:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Another suggestion: there is a lot of whitespace in this template; suggest compression or using another shade of green. --DavidHOzAu 11:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yet another suggestion: Find a place for Zelda Classic. --DavidHOzAu 11:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

While Zelda Classic is frickin' awesome, it's still a fan game and doesn't really belong in a listing of official titles (IMHO) - any other opinions on that? 71.244.180.131 03:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

While I agree that Zelda Classic is not an official game, it is related to the Zelda universe and therefore deserves the title "frickin' awesome", to quote. I know I can't speak for anyone else, but if there was a template such as {{Zelda features}} for navigating subarticles of the unmade article, Features of The Legend of Zelda series, like this one, you could put it under "Fan-related". However, with the way templates are formatted at the moment (such as {{Zelda places}}— over one line or two?), it would be a difficult undertaking to put all universe-related articles into one navigational template. --DavidHOzAu 05:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

There's now a parent article for all three Zelda CD-i games (CD-i games based on The Legend of Zelda series), so if we wanted to condense things a little (and not give so much space to these "lesser" titles) we could eliminate the row called "CD-i" and add a link called "CD-i games" (just like "LCD games") in the "Other Games" row. How about it? Sraan 19:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Am I alone in thinking that having the systems being listed in this template is not only unnecessary, but it makes the template look very cluttered? Besides, The Legend of Zelda has been released on two other systems outside of the NES. Same with Zelda II... Would anyone object to taking them out? Perhaps - if necessary - a section with "Systems with Legend of Zelda Games" with the NES, SNES, N64, GCN, Wii, GB, GBC, GBA, DS, and CD-i. But I don't really like that idea much either... but it's better than what's there now, IMHO... 71.244.168.172 02:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Bly1993 22:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I like taking out the systems. I'm not so sure we want to divide the games into Main, Four Swords, and Handheld... I think that's been tried and there was endless debate as to what constituted a "main game". Plus, now we've duplicated Minish Cap. I am a little confused as to what makes BS Zelda a remake, and Stone tablets a spinoff, but I've never played the games, so what do I know. I wouldn't think that the LCD games are a spinoff, since they are based on the original two games, and not really spinoff adventures. Sraan 22:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have to say, I'm not a fan of using abbreviations for the game titles in the template. It's possible that this template will be the first exposure some people will have to these games and starting them off with a bunch of unknowns probably isn't the best plan. Not to mention, you open the entire can of worms on things like the fact that it's "The Wind Waker" and not just "Wind Waker", even though TWW or tWW looks odd. 71.244.168.172 00:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I removed the console abbreviations, moved Remakes above Other games, and changed "Other" to "Related". I don't know that the BS titles are truly remakes, but I've never played them. Someone who has may be able to suggest a more appropriate placement.Sraan 04:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Pretty. 71.244.168.172 13:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I like it. RememberMe? 00:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's my understanding based on WP:BOLD that consensus should be reached before making radical changes to templates. As I see it, there's nothing close to a consensus on how to format video game templates at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games#Navboxes yet again. Until then, I would recommend we leave this template as it was, before the major cut-down, until a consensus is reached, or at the very least, discuss changes to the template on this page before making them. Sraan 21:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I really prefer the smaller template, to be honest. --Tristam 05:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, it doesn't look like anyone's opinion matters anyhow. Somebody reeeeeeeally wants this way badly. Sraan 03:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Maybe we should have a discussion? I think the new one is seriously lacking, I mean the LCD games and CD-i games just plain need to be in the template. No lame excuses for this. Scepia 07:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agre the new is hard to use (and for some strang reson deprsing to look at)!JosephK19 07:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

There is a discussion, at length, at WT:CVG#Navboxes yet again. The reason the LCD games and the CDi games were removed is because they're minor games on minor platforms that are of little relevance to the other articles in the template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

In what way? Those games were actual games... Scepia 07:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Doubtless. However, cramming exhaustive lists into templates leads to the templates becoming so cluttered that the main links are obscured. In this version, half of the template is links to games that weren't widely distributed, were developed by developers entirely unrelated to the bulk of the series, and on obscure platforms. They were clutter,as the vast majority of readers reading The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past will not benefit from links to an unrelated fighting game, an unreleased RPG featuring a minor character from a later game, or a series of games only ever released for a now-defunct download service that wasn't terribly successful in the single nation in which it was released. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Let's remember, they're for easing navigation, not prettiness. Scepia 07:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Exsacly !! JosephK19 07:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

They're for easing navigation, not comprehensiveness. We don't need to cram every single game in here; we have lists and umbrella articles for that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

look one of the resons i like wikipedia so much is that just by looking at the end of a page (a nav box) you can see things you never whould have befor i also rely on them for geting to thows pages, any complanet abut my fun can go on my talk page ( i'm deslecsic and 12 years old so plz forgive the spelling).

We have both categories and lists for comprehensive lists. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

The discussion at WT:CVG#Navboxes yet again is a joke, though. There's been no sort of consensus, and plenty of opposition to the changes (and suggestions for compromise), yet the templates have all been changed without regard. I really don't care if people like the new templates or the old templates, but if I understand WP:BOLD correctly, consensus should be sought before making major changes to templates. I'd call this a major change. If the consensus at WT:CVG is truly that the navboxes should be cut down to near uselessness, then we'll abide by it, but that is not the case. But what we have here is shooting first and asking questions later. Sraan 19:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. A real template could be made in only a few more lines, and it would actually give power to the user, instead of taking it away, and telling the user to go dig around in a category and find some random page out of context. Scepia 19:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

But the principles argued there are still sound. How is removing a handful of links to extremely obscure games or only tangentially-related articles cutting this down to "near uselessness"? You've asserted that, but not supported it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

My opinion on the template being nearly useless is not important. What is more concerning is the blatant disregard of Wikipedia policy by making major changes to the template without consensus. Like I said, I will accept any such decision if it is made appropriately. Sraan 18:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

There's a reason for categories: Category:The Legend of Zelda series is extremely easy to navigate, and doesn't require any more "digging around" than a single mouse click. Templates should not replace categories. --Tristam 01:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

We are not marketing the "t3h Z31d4 f4nb0y5", we are marketing to everyone. I doubt that most people would browse a category. They're rough and a lot of people don't use them for navigation. That's what a template is for. That category is dizzying, and one should not have to dig through it to find a game. It's way, way more time when one has to find the category, find the games subcat, and search around for the game one wants. I doubt anyone would do that. Tell me, why not include the Tingle RPG? And tell me also, why must we follow this guideline when it isn't agreed upon? Scepia 02:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can you please explain what you mean by we are "marketing"? If I'm interpreting what you say correctly, the statement qualifies for nearly everything Wikipedia is Not. --Tristam 06:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

So marketing's not the best word. The point is, categories are ugly and unrefined. It's like tht HTML of a page. They can be used, but are not nearly as straightforward as seeing "oh, Tingle RPG is a spin-off title" using the template, instead of saying "hmm, Tingle RPG, that's weird" using the category. Scepia 02:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is where I am too. A navbox helps the user understand the relationships between the articles easily. Category lists are hard to use, and give no indication of what games are in the main series, what games are related, and what games are just fangames. I understand the concerns about scope creep in a template, but I think they are overblown. The previous template was not unwieldly (we're not talking Template:Half-Life_series here), and we hopefully could come to a reasonable compromise (cut the unreleased games, for example).

But compromise and consensus have been flung out the window while driving. You'll notice that AMIB's initial post bringing up the changes on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games#Navboxes yet again was October 22. And if you look at the history of this template you'll find it was cut down on... October 22! 11 hours later.Sraan 15:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have just made an edit adding a new row with several of the previously deleted articles, though I left off both Super Smash Bros. as it is not an actual Zelda game and Collector's Edition because none of the included games are substantially different to their originals. This adds back most of the previously deleted information, however still keeps the template rather small. A possible change which I left off because I wasn't sure if it looked that nice would be a border to further separate the new row from the main game like this:

— Ian Moody ^(talk) 18:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

And I've removed them. Yet again, the reason the LCD games and the CDi games were removed is because they're minor games on minor platforms that are of little relevance to the other articles in the template. They are of no greater relevance to the series as a whole than plush Links or licensed posters; they're licensed goods that happen to be in game form. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, you mean "the reason that I decided to remove the LCD games and the CDi games is that in my personal opinion they're minor games on minor platforms that I perceive to have little relevance to the other articles in the template. To me, they don't seem to have greater relevance to the series as a whole than plush Links or licensed posters; I believe they're licensed goods that happen to be in game form." Sraan 19:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh boy, this smells familiar. :D My suggestion is to do what we did over at {{Sonic games}}^(discussion) and create a new template called Zelda games (spin off) that'll have the other games:

The new template would only appear on the series page and games in the template and would not pollute the article series of the main games. --DavidHOzAu 12:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

So we have an umbrella article about a variety of more or less unrelated LCD games, some Zelda games made by a partyentirely unrelated to any other games, two actually-related Sattelliview games, a compilation of games, and a far-off game featuring a minor character. How is this a tightly-linked series of articles? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

What is the poit in that? 2 templats are harder to manage and the page looks mesy. but to tell you the truth all that is hapening is peopel are geting tyerd, put of the game part of wikipedia and realy realy anouied. all i can is most whould not have even known that the "lenthy discssion" exsited and a lot of the peopel how dont like it dont know were to complan,but even if thay could whould it do any good?

Oh, didn't read discussion here first. Feel free to remove or keep BS games if you want. Sorry! --Con^structor 19:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

there has been intense reverting over inclusion of The Legend of Zelda (Wii) in the template. considering we know that the game is under development (it was from a major games magazine and the mag got it from Nintendo directly), there is no reason people should not know. I don't care that we held off in including Twilight Princess for a while, that was in the past. there is no speculation on the template or the game's page. Scepia 06:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't have a name. It doesn't have a release date. It doesn't even have a single picture. It exists in hypothetical form only. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would note that the game is not a tech demo like The Wind Waker 2. it is confirmed. if you think it is really so useless of a game, put the page up for deletion, but in truth it is an important game. if you're not going to include the page on a navigation template, why is there a page at all? people would certainly like to know a true Zelda Wii is being made. Scepia 08:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's nice. The game still exists in hypothetical form only. Its article is a paragraph long. It is not an aid to navigation to add a link to that stub on this navigation template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's not hypothetical if the game has been in production for a year. It's real. It is an aid to people that may not know that a Wii Zelda is in production. Shadow El 20:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nintendo has had games in production for extended periods without ever releasing them; Mother 3 for Nintendo 64, Mario 128, Star Fox 2, etc. Besides, information released at this time is usually speculative. They claimed Wind Waker would have voice acting and that the second GameCube game would use cel-shading. Phantom Hourglass has screenshots, playable demos, and official title, and official artwork. All the LoZ Wii game is a acknowledgement that it's in development. El Cid 20:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Mother 3 was eventually released on GBA, I believe. And WW did have (limited) voice acting, and TP did use cel-shading in certain parts. And people should know it's in development. Shadow El 22:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Mother 3 was released on the GBA, but the point was it wasn't released on the initial system it was announced for and is most likely far different the original conception of the game considering the drastic differences in the hardware. As for the voice acting and cel-shading examples, that seems to be splitting hairs a bit, don't you think? We're not debating whether or not we should have a page on the game, which I think is perfectly fine, but we should probably hold off including an article that only has three sentences of information in a template that includes lengthy, exhaustive articles, some of which are featured articles. If the only information we can offer the reader is that the game is most likely going to be released, I don't think it belongs in a template that otherwise features only fully competent articles. El Cid 03:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps the best benchmark for including a game on the template would be an official announcement from the company, not just a report in a gaming mag. Sraan 23:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

If it doesn't have a final name or a release date, it never, ever, ever belongs in a navbox. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thus sayeth A Man In Black. That's a fairly blurry benchmark since names and release dates are subject to change. Sraan 06:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

When in doubt, don't include. Andre (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Even if we dont have information about it, putting it on the template lets people know that it exists. For a while when i wasnt on the template i was really scared it might have gotten canceled. If its not on the Template it gives the impression that it doesnt exist, and there is no doubt about it, it was announced that it has been under development for over a year now.Widkid85 21:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

AOL is direct sequel of TLOZ. LA is direct sequel of ALTTP. MM is direct sequel of OOT. PH is direct sequel of WW. FS, FSA & MC are part of Four Sword Series.

This is my idea:

I don't know if its nessesary to group games into groups like that. It creates a lot of white space and it's customary to list games by their date of release as opposed to any sort of narrative groupings. Besides that, it's often hard to determine the order of Zelda games. I've heard LA being placed after MM, LttP, and AoL in the chronology.

It may be be appropriate to list the Four Swords games underneigth the rest of the games, since I would consider those games part of a sub-series, but I'd leave the template as it is for now. El Cid 02:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

This template is a mess; it has tons of white space and arbitrary groupings. 151.201.48.175 04:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Alright, so what's the consensus on the CDi games? I'm seeing people for and against the inclusion of the games within the template. If you've got an opinion, add it on one side or another. I'm for the games being in the template, due to the fact that the games are officially licensed and the fact that there were three of them. They're an important part of the Zelda timeline as a game series, as these three games are fairly well known. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Against. They were only licensed due to a mishandled contract and are not usually considered canon. LCD games from The Legend of Zelda series would belong on this template before the CD-i games. Pagrashtak 05:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've been having an argument with MrBubbles, and we can't decide whether this game should or shouldn't be on the template. I thought I'd add it for the sake of adding it. He removed it. A few heated words later, I wrote this. I'm for adding it to the template as it doesn't seem entirely necessary to me for it to be a "full fledge retail game" for it to be there. In fact, so long as it has something to do with Zelda and a Nintendo product, I feel it belongs there. I'll leave this up in the air for now. MrBubbles, let's have a civilised conversation please (preferably without the use of the word "troll"... >_>); I do not feel like arguing any further with you. Quite frankly, I argue with enough people on Wikipedia as it is. Hardcore gamer 48 07:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have no qualms about Tingle RPG and Link Crossbow being there so don't get the wrong idea. If the title itself was an fully fleshed title that was sold to retails and it's availability to fans is remotely easy to obtain (which I believe is not the case for US/Europe), they why add it? If anything make mention of it on the Legend of Zelda series as part of spin offs.--MrBubbles 12:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Because it is by Nintendo, people are just going to keep adding it. Japan only release or no, it's easy to obtain and is a legitimate title. I see no reason not to include it. There should also be a link to the CD-i and LCD games. They are, again, legitimate "Zelda" titles, so should be included. The point of templates is to aid in navigation, so I think there needs to be more, not less, included.Rhindle The Red 04:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

They are not. Not even Nintendo has them listed on their website, either Japanese or American (CDI-Zeldas). Tingle's Balloon game is itself a present to fans from the Nintendo Club in Japan. It's a very simple game which uses Balloon Fight's engine. It is not a full fledged spin off and should not be added.--MrBubbles 12:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was about to add this game in myself, after noticing that the template was on TBF's page, but the game wasn't included. Decided to check the talk page, just to make sure it hadn't been voted on or something - Yes, the game should be added. It's related to the Zelda universe and is an official product. It's not hard to get at all - in fact, I went on eBay two days ago and bought one without effort for about regular retail price ($30). Go find me a copy of Zelda's Adventure - now that's a hard game to find. TheUncleBob 04:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, since the current consensus is 3-1 to add the game, I'm going to BE BOLD and add it for now. If something changes, then we can change the template at that time. TheUncleBob 05:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are you not reading? The game is not related to the Zelda universe and it's not an official product. Nintendo doesn't carry it in it's stores and it is not a full fledge spin off by any means. Look at the Pokemon games template. The balloon game does not fit here unlike the other Zelda spin offs and remakes. --MrBubbles 21:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I read that three people on this talk page and a fourth who's edited the template seem to disagree with you. As the consensus is that this game belongs on the template, I'm adding it unless more people want to come forward otherwise *or* we have an official vote on it. Would you like to call for a vote? TheUncleBob 20:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

On another note, I've edited the Tingle's Balloon Fight article to show how it relates to the other games in the Zelda series. Perhaps this'll address some concerns about the game "not counting" as part of the Zelda Universe. TheUncleBob 22:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

This discussion is drawn from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Legend of Zelda series, talking about combining all three nav templates into one. Berenlazarus (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Recently I created Template:The Legend of Zelda in an effort to make a navigational table that covered the full range of Zelda articles on Wikipedia, effectively depreciating Template:Zelda, Template:Zelda games and Template:Zelda characters. Since then other users have indicated that I may have been too bold and should have gained a consensus before enacting the change. They hve also indicated that I should have either worked on the old template rather than creating the new one from scratch or at least linked the talk pages. The reason I created the new template rather than working on the current ones was that I was tring to incorporate elements I hadn't used before (see this version) and I didn't want to cause any disruption to something in active use (it took me a while to get it right before I had to simplify it). If there is indeed a consensus for the new template I'll link the page histories to the talk page and then see if it would be possible for an admin to merge all of the histories together. I'm sorry to have caused any trouble, I was trying to be bold not reckless and I genuinely think that a single template (the one I created or otherwise) is a better navigational solution that the three that existed previously (and now currently). Sorry about the trouble. Guest9999 (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think combining them into one template is a good idea. --- RockMFR 16:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, consensus has existed to do so for quite a while, so good job getting it done. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm all for the change, provided we can move the talk/edit history somehow. The most important talk/edit history is template:Zelda games, as that was the main template. Not sure how you would keep the other stuff but the Zelda games template history/talk definitely needs to be moved to the new location. Also creating copy of this discussion on the Zelda games template as well. Berenlazarus (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, don't you think before you completely redesign the template you should do post some comments on the talk page to get a consensus? Also, as we have a fully functional template template:Zelda games, you should move the series template to this new location so as not to lose the template talk history or edit history? Berenlazarus (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry about the trouble, I've started a discussion here about the issue in order to try and establish a consensus. Guest9999 (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think the issue has been dealt with (see discussion here). Guest9999 (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why does The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords is cut from the Main series in the template. It's the ninth game in the series and it's the prequel to Four Swords Adventures. Yes, it was released with the remake of A Link to the Past, is a multiplayer game and is short, but it's still a Zelda main game. In the article of Twilight Princess, it says that TP is the thirteenth main game, and in the article of The Wind Waker, it says TWW is the tenth main game. That's because Four Swords is the ninth main game. Since its release, it always was considered as a main game, why it is cut now ? DjinnFighter (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Whether it's a main game or not is not the issue here. Navigational boxes are for aiding the reader in navigating articles, not for creating comprehensive lists. We don't have an article about the game, so we don't need a link to it. Please do not add the link unless you have consensus to do so. Pagrashtak 19:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

There was no consensus before removing the link from the template. Also, if "navigational boxes are for aiding the reader in navigating articles and not for creating comprehensive lists", there are several video games series templates to edit.DjinnFighter (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

By all means, go fix them. Pagrashtak 18:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

This game shouldn't be included in the main series. It's common sense that it isn't a main series Zelda game. Hell, the Wikipedia article for it states: "The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures...is a spin-off of Nintendo's The Legend of Zelda series." —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnAlbinoRhino (talk • contribs) 19:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Saying "it's common sense" means nothing; only a source can be used to confirm that it is a spin-off. As for the article, I have removed that mention, as there is no source to back it up. Haipa Doragon • (contributions) 21:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Read the first paragraph here: http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162248/index.html

"The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess is really the first full-fledged home console entry in Nintendo’s flagship series since Wind Waker won GameSpot’s Game of the Year in 2003." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.164.31 (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Some guy's review on GameSpot (who couldn't even get the title of the game correct) isn't really a good source... TheUncleBob (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't even mention Four Swords Adventures, and it wouldn't matter if it did, because GameSpot doesn't define what is and isn't a spin-off; only Nintendo does. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Four Swords was marketed as a spinoff game by Nintendo, therefore it is one. StevePrutz (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not to break up the conversation below... but the above line interests me. Steveprutz says that Four Swords (I assume he means to imply Four Swords Adventures, the title being discussed) was marketed as a spinoff game by Nintendo. If this is true, then there should be a pretty reliable source for the idea that FSA is a spinoff title. There are sites out there dedicated to Nintendo and Nintendo marketing - should be pretty easy to come up with. TheUncleBob (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

TheUncleBob, it isn't a review. That just shows that you didn't even read the source I provided. Haipa Doragon, you're exactly right in saying that it doesn't mention FSA. That's my point. If FSA was a main game, it would say that TP was the first full-fledged home console Zelda since FSA, not since TWW. And Nintendo isn't the only relevant source. There are several other websites cited in various Zelda-related articles. In conclusion, I'm changing the template back to the way I had it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.164.31 (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2008

Uh, no, it's not "In conclusion", it's "wait until there's a consensus", per Wikipedia policy. GameSpot isn't a reliable source in this case as it doesn't clearly name FSA as a "spin-off", which is what you're claiming it is doing; moreover, GameSpot isn't even the creator of the game, and therefore isn't the one who determines whether it is a spin-off or not. If the game "was marketed as a spinoff game by Nintendo", as StevePrutz claimed, then a first-party source is needed to back it up. Otherwise, it's not one. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

On a completely irrelevant note, make sure you sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

For this whole discussion, I would suggest using WP:RFC to get more comments from videogamers -- (Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Art,_architecture,_literature_and_media). StevePrutz (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn't Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games be more appropriate? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Steveprutz - there's no need for an RFC. You claim the game was marketed as a Spin off by Nintendo themselves. Give us a reliable source to work with on this claim - that's all we need to move it to the Spin Off Category. I assume you have a source for this claim, right? TheUncleBob (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't have a source that triumphantly says, "Four Swords is a spin-off of Minish Cap!", but I bet almost any print magazine review in 2006 (or whenever it was released) will have something concrete. Best of luck. StevePrutz (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I also had a thought that may help. Instead of proving it is a spinoff, why not prove how it is not part of the "main series". I mean, most people do no consider the CD-i games part of the main series. Godspeed. StevePrutz (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The CD-i games are pretty easy to "prove" that they're not considered part of the main series because Nintendo doesn't really even acknowledge their existence - and Nintendo gets to determine what's part of the main series. As far as proving that FSA isn't part of the main series, I'm betting you'll end up having to use a lot of OR to do so. TheUncleBob (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Alright, this article clearly states that Four Swords Adventures is a spinoff. It also fits the description of a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. Eurogamer is reliable, third-party, and published.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=70495&page=2

You don't seem to understand what is meant by "reliable" - sites like GameSpot and Eurogamer are reliable sources for stuff like news and criticism, but they are do not develop or publish games, so they are not the arbitrators in what genre it is classified as. Eurogamer doesn't even cite it as being a spin-off, and only gives a very unreliable claim that FSA was seen by fans as one. These third-party sources are just completely unreliable for this information unless they show somehow that the information was provided by the developer/publisher and not just their own doing. Don't change the template again until there is a consensus that such reliable sources exist. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fine then. Give me proof from Nintendo that it's part of the main series.

Zelda Universe, the official series website, lists it among the other major games of the series, and makes no mention of it being a spin-off. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

But it doesn't specifically say that FSA is part of the main series. It just doesn't classify it as a spinoff. And as Wikipedia policy states, "Sources should directly support the information." So therefore that isn't a valid source to claim that FSA is a main title. Regardless, I feel like I've found a middleground, a compromise, if you will. Check the template. I hope we can all be happy with this.

And do you have a source to prove the existence of this "Four Swords subseries"? Leave the template as it is until there is a change we actually DO agree on, instead of acting rashly with this non-discussed, made-up categorisation. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 04:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

As a matter of fact I do. In this article, it reads, "Aonuma hinted that the series will be among the multiplayer Four Swords series first established on the Game Boy Advance in 2002, followed by the GameCube Four Swords Adventure released just a few months ago." There you go. Straight out of Aonuma's mouth. Now stop messing with the template. Link: http://ds.ign.com/articles/533/533639p1.html

Aonuma's mouth? That's far too ambiguous, and no quote is provided to back that up. Moreover, no definition of such a series is provided. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 04:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

No definition of a series? What are you talking about? It clearly defines the series with FS being the first and FSA being the second. Anyway, how about another source? In Nintendo Power Volume 189 Page 73 there is an interview that confirms Four Swords is a separate series. You can read the interview here:http://www.hiddentriforce.com/index.php?ht=tmc/tmcinterview.htm This confirms once and for all that Four Swords is its own series. So don't change the template.

Those are more or less IGN's words, not Aonuma's, and IGN doesn't define this sort of information. As for the NP source, I really don't think a Capcom employee has any word in what a Nintendo series is defined as. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 05:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well frankly you're wrong there because Capcom developed The Minish Cap. Nitendo is not the only company ever to have any involvement with Zelda.

That's pretty obvious, but they didn't create the Zelda series and therefore are not the ones whodecide what the series consists of. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's like saying Retro has no say in the Metroid series because Nintendo created it. The fact of the matter is that even though Nintendo created the Zelda series, they allowed Capcom to produce sequels to that series, so Capcom is a completely valid source on this kind of information. Nintendo trusted them enough to develop several games in the series; surely they trust them enough with comparatively trivial matters such as this.

That's nothing more than your own original research. Nintendo gave Capcom the rights to develop Zelda games, not the entire rights to the franchise. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

So I guess everything Retro has ever said about Metroid is wrong, right? Since Nintendo gave them the rights to develop Metroid games, not the entire rights to the franchise.

Retro and Metroid are irrelevant. We're discussing the officially-recognised existence of a "Four Swords" sub-series, which is not defined at all on Nintendo's official website, and all you can provide to prove otherwise is a dubious, interview with a third-party developer. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

The main series isn't defined on Nintendo's official web site either, so therefore you can't "officially" prove that FSA is a main game. Anyway, where do you get this idea that anything and everything Zelda-related has to come from Nintendo, or it isn't credible? Other sources besides Nintendo provide credible information.

I told you that already, and I didn't say "everything Zelda-related", I was referring to things that only Nintendo have control over, due to their ownership of the franchise, including classifications such as what is and isn't a spin-off or subseries. Anyway, it has to be part of the main series if isn't a spin-off or part of a subseries. What else, by default, would it be classified as? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

You have no proof that it's NOT a spinoff or a subseries. You see, using your logic, I can claim that since the official Zelda site doesn't explicitly define FSA as a main game, it must be a spinoff.

So, essentially, every game in the series is a spin-off? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

By your logic, yes.

No, I stated that it is part of the main series by default if it isn't a spin-off or part of a subseries. A "main series" isn't a separate entity in itself, it's just what the games of a series fall under if they are not part of the more specific "spin-off", etc. categories. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've taken this to here to try to get more input from others. This conversation is at a standstill. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

The main site lists each four swords game in the same manner as every other official, "main series" game. Ergo, Nintendo considers it a main series game. The quote you provided at the top is not referring to any type of main/side canonicity dispute - merely that Twilight Princess is the first, in-depth, exploration intensive, classic-type Zelda since Wind Waker - Four Swords Adventures, while a main series game, was of a different style of gameplay than the first Zelda or A Link to the Past - as was The Adventure of Link, which is also recognized as "main series". The only game that can claim at all to be side series is Majora's Mask, and that is only confirmed for during development - it's the same kind of gameplay, and it's plot is integral to the series whole.

One more thing - if you have to resort to arguing "you can't prove it's NOT" - then you need to shut up and go home. If that's the best you can come up with, then you don't have an actual argument.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Per the fact that Zelda.com lists FSA, FS, and TMC, but not Link's Crossbow Training, it's a main series title. They do not have a subsection for the FS series, nor do they make any advisory that FS is at all less of a Zelda game than ALttP. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Right 3 things: 1stly If FS and FSA are of a separate series why is FA shiped with Link to the Past when it could have been done on its own because the main bad guy in FA/FSA as far as I remember was only a puppet of Ganon 2ndly when Aonuma "hinted" it could have been his personal view und (this is directed at StevePrutz ) 3rdly if FS and FSA are of a separate series, why is it that they have "The Legend of Zelda" in front of them when MM has it too and that is a part of the main lot rdunn 09:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

also I'm sure many of you would not want this template to be mentioned in Wikipedia:LAMErdunn 09:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was just reviewing WP:NAV, but I can't seem to find anything that prohibits linking to redirects (which is what I assume is meant as the alternative to "whole articles"). In what way is a link for BS Zelda no Densetsu Kamigami no Triforce "unsuitable" on the Legend of Zelda template? It is a re-released version of ALttP just as the Collector's Edition contains re-released versions of The Legend of Zelda, The Adventure of Link, LoZ:OoT, and LoZ:MM. I think they should either both stay or both go, but I'm leaning more toward both stay since the intent of the navbox is to help readers locate games they are interested in that relate to the series and it's pretty clear that the third BS title and the Collector's Edition relate. Thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Eh, I assumed otherwise, I was just basing that on what I've heard before. Probably this, to be exact. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'd be in favor of greater comprehensiveness since the point is to help users navigate. As such I'd also add links for the Oot Master Quest and Link's Awakening DX. I'd put them all under a "Re-makes and re-releases" subsection together with all of the BS games and the collector's edition. Anyway that would be my preferred setup, but I'll just propose it here and see if anybody agrees. I may have a while to wait... -Thibbs (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Granted, WP:NAV is just an essay, but it does cover this: "Navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles". Since BS Zelda no Densetsu Kamigami no Triforce does not have an existing article, it does not have an entry on this navbox. Pagrashtak 15:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Seeing as a new Tingle RPG has been announced, is it about time we should have a seperate section on the template (for Rupeeland, Baloon Fight and RPG2) or seperate his games from this template? DancingCyberman (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think the question is, does such a series exist? We shouldn't be defining some number of games as a series unless sources state that series exists. Anyway, I'd be surprised if there's any need yet for separate articles for either of these games, as there's no more info available for them as there was with "Untitled Zelda Project", which was deleted. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, he has two original games, the DSiWare pack of mini-games, and Tingle's Balloon Fight, all four having little to no relation to the Zelda series. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't know where the cutoff is before we can decide in a non-OR manner that there is a new series here. If a new series exists, I think we should at least have an article on the series before creating a template on it. This would be analogous to the Template:Wario series and associated Wario (series) article. It's true we're inconsistent about it here. Template:Yoshi series, for instance doesn't have an associated series article. Still the Yoshi series consists of 10 games (7 strictly-Yoshi titles) whereas I think the "Tingle series" would be hard-pressed to come up with 5 uncontroversial titles and it currently only has 3 strictly-Tingle titles (only 2 if you discount the Balloon Fighter remake). At a bare minimum, something should be done to rework the article on Tingle considering that these games are all still listed there as Spin offs of the Zelda series per what I assume is the current non-OR understanding of them. -Thibbs (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your example, Wario, once used the character article as its main article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I added Four Swords back in as section links are not prohibited in WP:NAV or the respective guideline. I guess the issue should be brought up and clarified on here before those links are removed again. Prime Blue (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Bread Ninja, I'm curious why you chose those colors. If there isn't some strong justification, I'm inclined to say stick with the default to preserve the unifying style across Wikipedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

It was just something to make it noticeable. i chose those colors because that was the closest i could get to the covers of The original game, Zelda II, Link to the past(& Four Swords), Link's Awakening, and Ocarina of Time yet not have any problems with making it unclear for the links to show up.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

So it's basically just aesthetics? If that's the case, I'm going to put my two cents in and suggest not keeping the colors. Navboxes that deviate from the default are very, very few and they all have some compelling plot/critical reception/development-related reason for doing so, which I don't think Zelda qualifies for as it stands. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

can you give an example? i highly doubt it's a problem at all. the problems i do see in the actual navbox guide is lack of consistency between navboxes which The legend of Zelda doesn't have a lot of navboxes to gmake a big fuss. And there are a significant number that do without it and don't have a major problem with it. The color change was more to give it more notice, the color decision was solely based on the number of covers that they have from what i mentioned before(forgot wind waker and Ocarina of time 3D follow similar color palletes aswell). I think you're reading into it, especially if we're talking about plot/critical reception/development related reasons over "The Legend of Zelda" which one of the games within the series has been considered the best video game of all time (and sourced). However...i guess the color template argument is rather weak/ I did say it was revertable, but since you brought it up in such a manner, if consensus generally just don't like it for whatever reason than it can be removed without question.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I can't think of an example, which goes to show how rarely template colors are used. I'm going to go ahead and revert it but without prejudice to reinstating the colors if other editors can find a compelling reason to include them. Thanks for keeping it civil. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

truth be told the discussion itself was rather iritating. if it were to be "reverted" for something so simple, i do hope to "not" find an excuse for something not-so-practical (and not find any ground). So next time, if something so miniscule bothers you, it's best to revert it without a such a reason. Because it bothersome to look for a reason over it and not provide an example (again for something more miniscule).Bread Ninja (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Isn't the absence of Super Smash Bros. from this template a rather glaring omission? It is referenced on the series nav templates for every other series with a playable character in said crossover. I understand the goal of avoiding excessive bloat on this template, but surely there's a way to work it in..? 76.17.246.248 (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't be against adding Smash Bros., since it has more than a simple cameo/crossover by Link (Zelda themed stages and items, inclusion of Zelda, Sheik, and Gandondorf, etc). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'd added it twice in two different places on the template, both of which were reverted for organizational reasons. I was wondering what would be the best layout option to work it in instead. 76.17.246.248 (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think a good case could be made for including Nintendo Land as well due to its Zelda-themed minigame, The Legend of Zelda: Battle Quest. -Thibbs (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's a one off thing, I wouldn't include that. The SSB series has had many things related to Zelda since the first one on the N64. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I guess I don't see an articulable line being drawn here. Where does cameo/one-off end and "more" begin? My conception of a TLoZ cameo is the sleeping Link in Super Mario RPG or Crazy Tracy in Captain Rainbow. What separates these appearances from those in SSB? Is it because the SSB series Link is a playable character? If so then Soul Caliber II should be included as well. Or is it the combination of a playable Link and at least one stage based on TLoZ (referring here to SSB's single TLoZ-related stage, "Hyrule Castle")? If so then we should include Mario Kart 8, no? Or is the dividing line the presence of a playable TLOZ-related character plus at least one TLOZ-related stage and plus at least two TLoZ-related items (referring here to the bomb and the container heart from SSB)? If so then I think there's a clear argument to be made for Nintendo Land.
It's a slippery slope of course. If TLoZ levels are the minimum inclusion criterion then we have to include games like Picross and Tetris DS which have Zelda-themed boards. If the minimum inclusion criterion is the presence of TLoZ items then even games like Animal Crossing would have to be included. But I don't think using the presence of playable TLoZ characters as the minimum bar (as was used in the 4-game list that was removed in this bold edit) is excessive. At any rate I'm not sure this removal has has sufficient consensus at present. Would you be open to starting a thread at WT:VG? -Thibbs (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

These links crept in across the board in a number of navboxes (due to work by one or two IPs at most) and I'm not sure they ever had consensus. I would personally be happy to see such links to these items removed--it's sufficient to note the character appearances in the articles on the characters, or where not possible, in the articles on the lists of characters or series. --Izno (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

As long as it's done consistently I don't see any real problem either. But I can't understand including the Smash Bros. games on this template while excluding games like Soul Caliber II and Nintendo Land. It seems arbitrary to me and that's bound to cause editing disputes in the future. Kind of a black and white perspective, perhaps but I'd either remove them all or none. -Thibbs (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Also I appreciate 76.17.246.248's point about the inclusion of the SSB games on similar templates (Mario series, DK series, etc.). In the interest of consistency I think a discussion at WT:VG would be helpful to identify consensus if we decide to remove these titles from some but not all templates. -Thibbs (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is why I just think it should be not mentioned at all, unless we can find a better way to include these type of related games without bloating the infobox. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

What limitations would you use to include it without allowing excessive bloat? 76.17.246.248 (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Me, personally? Any game that simply has a cameo appearance by Link or another aspect of the series (Soul Caliber II and Mario Kart 8 for example) should be omitted. But something that has much more (Super Smash Bros. series) could remain. But like I said previously, it might be better to just omit them all to avoid editing disputes, and to simply keep all this info on the main articles only. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Without articulating the limitations, though, the concept of "much more" is unworkably vague in my view. Repeating what I said above, there is more TLoZ in Nintendo Land and Super Smash Bros than in Mario Kart 8 which has more TLoZ content than Soul Calibur which has more TLoZ content than Super Mario RPG which has more TLoZ content than Call of Duty. Where does "much more" start? I agree with cutting them all or leaving them all in. -Thibbs (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it just becomes opinionated at that point. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Izno. I wanted to know what was wrong with my edit to the Zelda template. Even though the Four Swords games are canon events in the Zelda timeline, I still feel they are different enough to be categorized by themselves. -Kingpinn2 (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Kingpinn2: "Different enough" -> What do you mean? Vague feelings of difference are rarely good reasons to split navbox groups. --Izno (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, when I said "feel", I didn't mean the "personal" kind of feel. I just meant that it seemed obvious to me that the titles were different enough in gameplay compared to main series titles to be considered spin-offs of sort. -Kingpinn2 (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Kingpinn2: How do you qualify them as spin-offs though? They fit into the narrative (are 'canon') and their gameplay is still RPG--it's just that you're doing it co-op instead of single-player. That aside, there is apparently discussion above on this, though I haven't reviewed that discussion.

There might be some value in sorting the games in total according to in-game timeline rather than the out-of-game timeline, but that's a separate discussion. --Izno (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Should the HD remasters (currently four of them) be moved to their own group, or simply remain attached to the original game? (current status quo) ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ah, familiar face. @Dissident93:. :) Going off of other templates, the games are referenced if a character is featured prominently. I agree that every single reference to the series should not be included. No Animal Crossing furniture cameos or 1-second Mario RPG sleeping Link cameos, as this would lead to bloating the nav. But if the game features the characters extensively, it is worth a note. There are not that many games meeting this requirement. Bchill53 (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Maybe you are right, but I seem to remember discussions against these sorts of playable appearances in otherwise non-related games. I guess my personal issue with it is having the entire Legend of Zelda navbox in the Soulcalibur article, but I guess that is the entire point of a navbox (assuming its entry in one is valid). Maybe instead of the series navbox being used, we could simply link to Link or Zelda? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Dissident93: That wouldn't be a bad idea. Is there a way to include the game in the navbox without the navbox then appearing on that game's Wikipedia page? Bchill53 (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Of course, but the whole point of a navbox is to crosslink them both. The only issue I see with this is that somebody in the future could use this as justification to bloat up the navbox even more, as they wouldn't have to care about linking on other pages. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't see why we couldn't have all the main series games in the one group; it's not like there's too many of them, and in the age of hybrid consoles such as the Nintendo Switch, and the general acceptance of games like Link's Awakening in the core line of games, it seems additionally unnecessary to split the games into "console" and "handheld" sections. There was nothing wrong with wikilinks to remakes and remasters in parentheses either, which was how it was once done on this template. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 17:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

• While I think the remasters could go back into parentheses, merging the console and handheld games into one group would hurt navigation and therefore should not be done in my opinion. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

It seemed like the easiest thing to agree upon and help with grouping the games somehow to segment the games by console/handheld. Considering 'mainline' games are usually debated which games should be included, the groups would be more subjective than preferred. --Bchill53 (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

The image should not be included in the template, regardless of how it is done in other templates, as it is not free use. Other templates may also use a free use image which makes it okay. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 15:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

• A lot of other game series templates use their respective series logo too, which is almost never free use. Therefore, they should all be removed for the same reason if templates prevent the use of NFI at all. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • But that should not have anything to do with this. Non-free images in other templates should be removed, but they don't have to be removed at the same time. You're welcome to remove the images from the other templates if you like. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 00:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • The image in the template is PD. It can't fall under copyright since it's only simple geometric shapes or text. JOEBRO64 12:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • It should, if the images are all non-free use, then what makes this one the exception? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • Oh dip, I misunderstood and thought that the image was a fair use one, mb. And on that note, that's not how Wikipedia works, @Dissident93:. If there's an issue with multiple articles/templates, a user does not have to fix every instance in order to fix a single instance. It puts an undue amount of pressure on a user for them to fix the issue on a Wiki-wide scale instead of on an individual scale. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Linkle is non-canonical and Urbosa is no more significant than the other Champions or any individual sage. Please provide reasons over the next few days for them to not be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.223.84 (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:The_Legend_of_Zelda&diff=prev&oldid=1198818408

There are many cases where things do not have standalone articles but are separate entities that need to be listed. For example, a lot of NATO codenamed weaponry do not have standalone articles but are different weapons and are listed as they should be.

That section of the Zelda template is for both remakes and remasters. I don't see why remastered games should be omitted, standalone article or not. - Eddmanx (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

User:ArmosNights changed the organization of this template from a console/handheld split to a 2D/3D split with this edit in June 2022, presumably due to the difficulty of placing Switch games in the old format. The template has stuck with this format for the past 1.5 years (a form of WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS), despite no discussion about the change. How do we feel about it now? One thing that bothers me about the current format is that it's imprecise: plenty of the recent "2D" games are modeled fully in 3D (basically from Phantom Hourglass forwards), so it would actually be more accurate to call it, say, "top-down" vs. "behind the back".

More broadly, I'm wondering if a split is even necessary? What if all the games were placed in a single line by release date? The current format makes it hard to see all the games in chronological order and it's not obvious when to swap back and forth between the lines. What if it looked something like this:

Anyway, just a thought. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Yes, it was an attempt to split off from the decreasingly useful “console” versus “handheld” split (which was getting weird with “console” games that got put on handheld systems, and vice versa). I was inspired by what was done on the Super Mario template (which used side-scroller and three-dimensional when I did the edit), which is a series with a similar mental organizational split now - you can easily find articles on 2D Mario vs 3D Mario, similar to the 2D Zelda vs 3D Zelda split.

Putting them all in one section historically has been challenging for navigation since there’s so many games. I agree something more descriptive might work, but I had trouble coming up with something that was intuitive and not made-up sounding. Ultimately I settled on 2D and 3D since it was the main characteristic between styles - Phantom Hourglass still operates using 2D movement even if it’s rendered in 3D, and it’s generally referred to as a “2D Zelda”. “Top-down” and three-dimensional would also work I think. ArmosNights (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I really do not like the "handheld" "home-console" split that was originally there, especially with the existence of the Nintendo Switch. I do not mind the 2D (top-down) and 3D split, but I am not opposed to this idea either. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply