This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Satellaview games from The Legend of Zelda series article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Satellaview games from The Legend of Zelda series" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Hi! The BS Zelda no Densetsu section is very long and meets all the criteria for a standalone article. It should be moved into BS Zelda no Densetsu. Megata Sanshiro ( talk) 11:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Well it's been a month now and I haven't heard any more on the suggestion to spilt. I am still open to the idea in a general sense but the argument to keep the Satellaview titles merged for consistency with the CD-i titles and the LCD titles seems like it might be the best move for now. So at this point it seems best to remove the "split" tag with the understanding that this issue could be revisited in the future should consensus change. - Thibbs ( talk) 22:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Recently there have been a number of alterations to this portion of the article and I would like to explain why I believe the wording that is currently in place is misleading. The original version of the line that keeps being altered was:
This was altered to:
Under the rationale that the term "all 4 weeks" was misleading (as it implied that the game only had 4 different weeks in total when in fact each series of 4-week broadcasts were different due to the position of the mole) the statement was then altered to:
And later:
Under the rationale that the 4 separate weeks have not been combined into one large ROM file, this was finally altered to the current:
The problem with this statement is that it implies that the 4 separate weeks that are currently used to play through the game via emulation are known to be from the same run. I am unable to locate any reliable sources that back this idea up, and due to the nature of the dumping process the claim is somewhat dubious. I have now tagged this line (i.e. "from one of the runs") as needing sources for reference on this point. If no sources can be found then I would suggest the following compromise:
This way there can be no confusion about the fact that the 4-week version that is currently played does not take the form of one giant combined ROM and at the same time we avoid making the dubious claim that the 4 weeks all come originally from the same run. Does this sound reasonable? - Thibbs ( talk) 02:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Satellaview games from The Legend of Zelda series article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Satellaview games from The Legend of Zelda series" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Hi! The BS Zelda no Densetsu section is very long and meets all the criteria for a standalone article. It should be moved into BS Zelda no Densetsu. Megata Sanshiro ( talk) 11:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Well it's been a month now and I haven't heard any more on the suggestion to spilt. I am still open to the idea in a general sense but the argument to keep the Satellaview titles merged for consistency with the CD-i titles and the LCD titles seems like it might be the best move for now. So at this point it seems best to remove the "split" tag with the understanding that this issue could be revisited in the future should consensus change. - Thibbs ( talk) 22:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Recently there have been a number of alterations to this portion of the article and I would like to explain why I believe the wording that is currently in place is misleading. The original version of the line that keeps being altered was:
This was altered to:
Under the rationale that the term "all 4 weeks" was misleading (as it implied that the game only had 4 different weeks in total when in fact each series of 4-week broadcasts were different due to the position of the mole) the statement was then altered to:
And later:
Under the rationale that the 4 separate weeks have not been combined into one large ROM file, this was finally altered to the current:
The problem with this statement is that it implies that the 4 separate weeks that are currently used to play through the game via emulation are known to be from the same run. I am unable to locate any reliable sources that back this idea up, and due to the nature of the dumping process the claim is somewhat dubious. I have now tagged this line (i.e. "from one of the runs") as needing sources for reference on this point. If no sources can be found then I would suggest the following compromise:
This way there can be no confusion about the fact that the 4-week version that is currently played does not take the form of one giant combined ROM and at the same time we avoid making the dubious claim that the 4 weeks all come originally from the same run. Does this sound reasonable? - Thibbs ( talk) 02:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)