Talk: Hyrule/Archive 3

This page is an archive of an old Talk Page. The contents have been moved from another page to clear space and to preserve history, so this page is locked from editing. If you wish to ask about the corresponding page, or respond to an earlier message, you may direct any comments to the current talk page. If you wish to refer to a message on this page, link to Talk:Hyrule/Archive 3.

Skyward Sword

Lots of info from Skyward Sword needs to be added as that game is basically an origin story for Hyrule. I have unfortunately only completed half of the game as my Wii is broken and I won't get it fixed for another 2 weeks. Anyone who has completed the game want to fill in the relevant sections with SS info? Ganondorfdude11 17:20, 8 December 2011 (EST)

New Hyrule

I'm gonna ask this even thought it has been asked before see "Spirit Tracks" it needs to happen, New Hyrule needs to have its own page its a different entity(land), with a different culture, inhabitants, story, religion, and history. Great Sea has its own article, but its essentialy Hyrule's mountains peaks and in a pool of water. The main aurguement is Hyrule, is Hyrule. Note, the King's words at the end of The Wind Waker "Ah, but child... That land will not be Hyrule. It will be YOUR land!". The name New Hyrule is either the people making Spirit Tracks forgot what the king said, or it was a tribute to Hyrule like New England was a tribute to England. So I plead to you, please make New Hyrule its own page/article. XXSuperXXNintendoXx 18:51, 30 December 2011 (EST)

I would agree with you that the land in Spirit Tracks is different land. However, at no point in the game is this land ever actually named, "Hyrule" or otherwise. "New Hyrule" is a fanon title. It is most likely called "Hyrule" based on certain quotes in the game, but there's no conclusive evidence. For that reason—since we have nothing else to name it—in my opinion, our best option is to just leave it here. Perhaps dedicate a section specifically to it, but not an entire page. I guess you can say I favor a reorganization of part of the article over splitting it. — Hylian King ^[*] 19:37, 30 December 2011 (EST)

I agree that the Hyrule featured in Spirit Tracks should be given a separate article for the soul reason that it is a different land alone. It has its own mythology, history and races. It would be contradictory to say it is in with the article for the ancient Kingdom of Hyrule, as at no point within the series has it ever been stated the Faron, Eldin and Lanayru of Skyward Sword are not the same ones as from Twilight Princess. They are each given separate articles with no confirmation that they are separate characters. Then why do the two different Hyrules share the same article when it is a known fact that they are different kingdoms? If we are to go into the discussion of fan-made names such as "New Hyrule," I argue that several articles on this wiki have fan-made titles: War of the Bound Chest, Hyrulen Civil War and Hyrulean in general and the Great Flood are all fan-made names. The word "Hyrulean" to apply to people living within Hyrule is a popular fan idea from a while back and the word "Hyrulean" doesn't even exist in the Japanese version at all. In regards to giving two different lands called Hyrule the same page when they are different, all three characters named Fado should share the same page by that logic. I pointed this out before, but if we are going by things sharing names sharing articles, what is going on with Faron, Eldin and Lanayru? There are a lot of things that aren't quite right. I personally think a page named "New Hyrule" should be made to distinguish the two kingdoms from one another and not to confuse newer fans of the series who may visit here for information. The beginning of the article could begin as follows: "New Hyrule is the fanon name given to the reestablished Kingdom of Hyrule featured in Spirit Tracks." Her Grace 18:21, 9 January 2012 (EST)

I disagree that the ST Hyrule should be given its own page. If it were called something other than Hyrule, then fine, we split it off. But at no point in the game is it ever said what the name of the new land is. Point is, Hyrule is Hyrule. There are different Links all throughout the series, but we don't give them different articles to each (yet :P). So for now, I say no. Dany36 18:39, 9 January 2012 (EST)

Then why, as I asked before, would the two versions of Faron, Eldin and Lanyaru have separate pages? They have the same names and may very well be the same beings in different forms. If they have separate pages despite there being no confirmation on whether they're the same things or different things with the same name, then the same should apply to two Hyrules. The very point is, having New Hyrule tied into the article of Old Hyrule is ridiculous because, regardless of their names, they are not the same place. Having them together is giving false information by suggesting they're one and the same to people who are not as knowledgeable about the series series defeating the Wiki's purpose by giving false or unclear information. Anyone with lesser knowledge of this series who comes across the Hyrule article is being told that there is only one Hyrule. I also bring up another set of characters sharing the same name: Fado. They all have different pages because they're different people, so this logic should also apply to the two different Hyrules. Her Grace 20:22, 9 January 2012 (EST)

You have a good point, that Old Hyrule and "New Hyrule" are different places, as are the characters that represent the different provinces of Hyrule in different games, though with the same name. However, with characters, it is far easier to split articles if the shared name is the only connection tying the beings together. This is the case with Lanayru, Faron, and Eldin - while they share a name with characters from other titles in the series, their roles and plot significance in each game is wildly different - their similarities are so few and far between that lumping them in the same page would give the impression that all beings named Faron are connected somehow - and we don't know that, given in-game evidence or any other canonical reference source. This wiki does not operate on theory posits - in the absence of a connection, we'd rather split the articles than take an unfounded leap of faith. With Old Hyrule and "New Hyrule", they share many similar characteristics, enough to warrant a combined page! There is a Royal Family, Princess Zelda reigns over the land, Link is a chosen hero once again, there are forest, fire, water, sand, ice dungeons similar to Hyrule, there is an established Castle Town, the list goes on. Thus, it is far easier to lump all the Hyrules together so that the combined information can complement and enrich the descriptions of the Hyrules from individual games, and highlight the reasons that each new Hyrule falls in line with previous Hyrules. And anyone that reads the first paragraph of the Hyrule article will see that though Hyrule is a blanket term for the realm of the Goddesses and the Royal Family, we do see it in different forms and incarnations throughout the series. Hope that clears things up! :) — cipriano^talk 11:02, 10 January 2012 (EST)

EDIT: I'd be fine with seeing a "New Hyrule" disclaimer in the Spirit Tracks section of this page, but I am firmly against moving the information given the stark similarities it shares with previous Hyrules; having it on the page only complements the info already here. — cipriano^talk 11:06, 10 January 2012 (EST)

Given that we don't actually know what this country is called, I don't think it's fair to say that we should "keep them on the same article because they have the same name, as we do with Fire Temple, etc." If anything, all we have as to its name is an explicit claim that it is not Hyrule. Keeping the information on this page is then, basically, the most innacurate possible option. To throw out a hyperbole, claiming that this country could be named "Ganon" or "Volvagia" would be more in line with what the games tell us.

This kind of seems like something the Hyrule Historia would mention somewhere, so we should look there first, but if we can't find a canon name within the game scripts or published info, then we should name it something like "Land of the Spirits of Good". Even if it's a fan-name (like New Hyrule is), at least it doesn't fly in the face of explicit canon.KrytenKoro 13:20, 10 January 2012 (EST)

After looking at a text dump and some video walkthroughs, here are several instances in the game in which Zelda, Link, and her guards are referred to as being "of Hyrule" or "from Hyrule"; I can bring up the quotes if you like. We can go into days of philosophizing about what era they are talking about, but in all reality, the game doesn't make it clear, and it doesn't matter because anyone on the land wouldn't have any recollection of any previous Hyrule. Any reader would make an obvious and clear extrapolation that the new kingdom is a re-established Hyrule, using these refs as a guide - and this would be the simplest conclusion. Splitting out the article denies in-game dialogue in favor of an educated guess as to what the land may have been called, though the new land has serious ties to previous Hyrules. And yes, I understand that it is never explicity called Hyrule, but the quotes lean towards that conclusion. — cipriano^talk 15:13, 10 January 2012 (EST)

Well in that case, it should definitely be covered here, with the same approach as you guys do Fire Temple and stuff like that.

On the similar issue of Faron and them: Given that all Links, Zeldas, Beedles, etc. are merged into one article, even when we know for a fact that they are separate characters, why can't we merge the Light Spirit and Dragon Spirit articles?KrytenKoro 15:46, 10 January 2012 (EST)

The point remains that keeping the two different kingdoms are one is giving false information to less knowledgeable fans that may come here. If you were a fan who was less knowledgeable about the history of the Zelda world and see the land featured in Spirit Tracks as just being regular old Hyrule due to the way the wiki presents it, you would assume there is only one Hyrule, defeating the point of the Thr Wind Wake and confusing people with unclear information. There is another big issue with keeping them one one page: the section about the history of Hyrule. If you keep them as one page, you must place the Spirit War within Hyrule's history along with events such as the Great Flood, otherwise the wiki isn't doing its job right by leaving out information like that. But if you do so, it's corrupted information because the two different Hyrule's do not share a history. A page for New Hyrule needs to be made so the history of that land is not mixed in with the history of Ancient Hyrule. Ancient Hyrule was founded by the descendants of Skyward Sword's Zelda, New Hyrule was founded by Tetra. No similarities give any excuse as the lands have different histories.

Saying the the Light Spirits and Dragons sharing names have separate pages only because their role in the plots of each game are different is bad logic. Each Impa takes on a different role within each game, yet they all share the same page. The same applies to each Link and Zelda. Both the Dragons and the Light Spirits are called the protectors of the Provinces they share names with, making them identical characters in who they are and what they do. As stated, and I know I am not the only one who agrees with this: the information is muddled and corrupted if certain separate things share pages. How is one supposed to list the history of New Hyrule when it would become mixed within the history of Ancient Hyrule? The stories of the two lands are nothing alike, only their roles. Shared pages. The stories of the Dragons and Light Spirits are different within their respective games, but their roles are exactly the same. Separate pages. I would go as far as to say not separating the two kingdoms is selfish because the chances that with lesser knowledge of the series are going to be fed false information (such as Gerudo and Anouki living in the same kingdom) or become confused ("The Hyrule pages says it was flooded, so why does it suddenly reappear in Spirit Tracks?"). It's just going to get very messy to keep them as one. Her Grace 16:19, 10 January 2012 (EST)

If I might, I wholeheartedly disagree that Hyrule and New Hyrule should be kept on the same page. It doesn't matter whether they share the same name, share similar locations, or share similar inhabitants - they are entirely different kingdoms with their own unique histories. In fact lumping them together in the same article and saying something like, "Oh, Hyrule's appearance in Spirit Tracks is called New Hyrule~" sort of disrespects the whole point of the Adult Timeline. It's not a reappearance, it's the FIRST appearance. The whole point of Wind Waker, Phantom Hourglass, and Spirit Tracks was the destruction of Hyrule and the founding of a new one in a completely different location. With the exception of AoL and ST, EVERY Hyrule we've seen has been the original, the one where the Triforce lay hidden. But even with AoL, it's still the same landmass and I'd class it as part of the original Hyrule.

And just as an fyi, I joined this wiki due to this very issue. The way some articles are separated, while others are not, is very inconsistent and inaccurate. One good example is you have the Forest Temple from OoT and the Forest Temple from ST on the same page, despite being COMPLETELY different dungeons in completely different parts of the world, even going so far as to say "Oh, the Forest Temple *returns* in ST~"... yet things like the Desert of Doubt and Desert of Mystery are on separate articles, despite sharing the same dungeon, the same name in Japanese, and the same location on the map. Such things shouldn't be acceptable on a wiki, and if you want an example of what it should be like then look at the actual Wikipedia site. Search for something random like Firefly, and you'll see that they separate all articles called Firefly. They also lump together articles when they're one and the same, despite having different names.Teekay 16:40, 10 January 2012 (EST)

As KrytenKoro is suggesting, things need to be consistent here. He gave a great example of just a few inconsistencies and I too think something should be done about that. If you're going to merge everything based solely on the fact that they share similar features and names, then merge ALL such articles. If you're not going to, then don't.Teekay 16:44, 10 January 2012 (EST)

Teekay brings up a brilliant point: what about the Desert of Doubt and the Desert of Mystery having separate articles? They are very much the same desert with the same dungeon. They and their dungeons even goes as far as to share the same names in Japanese. Yet, they are given different articles. Then there is the two kingdoms that are not the same sharing articles. Where is the reasonable logic behind this? Another example if the desert featured in Ocarina of Time being classed as part of the Gerudo Desert from Twilight Princess. These two locations do not share the same name or exact same geographic location, yet they share articles. Then there is the Desert of Doubt and Desert of Mystery whose names are the same in Japanese and they share the same dungeons and same location, but they are separate from one another and not classed as being part of Gerudo Desert. By this logic alone, the wiki is saying Hyrule has three deserts that all happen to be in the same spot and two of whom have the same name. The desert in Four Swords Adventures, whose location is the same as that of Gerudo Desert, happens to have Gerudo in it. Then let's also take into account what Hyrule Historia says about the Gerudo in Four Swords Adventures: the desert and Hyrule are one again allied following Twilight Princess, in which they were separate. If Ocarina of Time's desert is in the Gerudo Desert Article, then so should all other deserts be. Hyrule only has one desert and it's always in the west. There are several other articles with similar issues, the recurring problem thing: things that are the same have separate article, things that are different have the same article. What needs to be done with "Hyrule" is a redirect page linking to the two different kingdoms and explaining how one has only featured in Spirit Tracks and is the successor of the old kingdom. Her Grace 16:54, 10 January 2012 (EST)

Off-Topic Messages
This series of messages doesn't relate to improving the page that this talk page corresponds to. Zelda Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a forum, so please direct these messages to the Zelda Universe formus or to the #general channel on the Zelda Wiki Discord server.

While it indirectly relates, let's keep this topic to strictly the splitting of ST New Hyrule from the Hyrule page. Thanks!

Let's come back down to earth, guys! We're talking about one section on one page that is looking to split from the rest - both sides have reasonable arguments - if there is a legitimate majority either way, we'll yield to the one with the most backing. You all must understand that the wiki is all of ours, if you see a problem with it, move to change it yourselves as you have done well here - it's a show-don't-tell policy; if you would like to see something done about the widespread inconsistency, lets all work on it together, not just pointing fingers at those who oversee the site! Zelda Wiki, historically, has been edited and staffed by mergists that worked to coalesce similar topics, but the wiki and its staff are not against splitting. Perhaps a re-examination of our current policy is in order. Any further discussion about Zelda Wiki's inconsistence will be carried on in Hyrule Castle, not here - this page is about splitting/keeping the ST "New Hyrule". — cipriano^talk 17:08, 10 January 2012 (EST)

EDIT: If a split is overall favored, the title New Hyrule is the most recognizable in the community. — cipriano^talk 17:11, 10 January 2012 (EST)

I agree that splitting it off into a page titled "New Hyrule" would be the best course of action. If I'm not mistaken, we already have at least a couple pages on the site that use fan names in the absence of official ones. Alternatively, we can call it "Hyrule (Spirit Tracks)" since it's currently only relevant to that game. But keeping it as one page probably isn't the best idea since the two lands are really only similar in name and governance. AXavierB 17:29, 10 January 2012 (EST)

Fair enough, apologies for drifting off topic and finger pointing. As for Hyrule and New Hyrule, I'd like to point out a real world situation. We all know England of course? Well, I'm sure most of you know a New England exists in America. Not unlike the Hyrule situation, people from England sailed across the ocean and settled in various regions, one of which they called New England. Now while I didn't live in that time period, it's safe to say some of those individuals called it "England" as opposed to "New England" for the sake of convenience. Would it then be appropriate, if this were a different wiki, to list England and New England on the same page due to the fact that it's inhabitants call it England every now and then? No, so the same logic should apply to Hyrule and New Hyrule.Teekay 17:35, 10 January 2012 (EST)

"Jersey" would perhaps be a better example here, as it is still common to call the American state "Jersey".KrytenKoro 17:52, 10 January 2012 (EST)

First of all, I'd like to mention that the American advertisement for Spirit Tracks explicitly calls the setting of Spirit Tracks "Hyrule". See for yourselves:

Next stop: Hyrule...

Therefore, naming the land in ST anything but "Hyrule" would be less than accurate. Besides, "New Hyrule" may be the most recognizable title, but I'm sure most people still don't know about it. I know I didn't until I saw it here. The "less knowledgeable fans" mentioned earlier certainly won't. Splitting part of an article from a subject that everyone is aware of (Hyrule) to a title that only certain fans are aware of (New Hyrule) not only compromises accuracy but accessibility of information as well; those are two of the most important aspects of any wiki. — Hylian King ^[*] 17:52, 10 January 2012 (EST)

"Hyrule (Spirit Tracks)" has none of the problems of "New Hyrule", with twice the recommended daily intake of calcium!KrytenKoro 18:06, 10 January 2012 (EST)

In Spirit Tracks, the land is always referred to as Hyrule. We can say yes, it is definitely a different land than what has been in the Zelda series for years, and sure, it has its own origins separates from that same land, but it is referred to as Hyrule and only that. We tend to go with what the games suggest. If the Zelda games called it New Hyrule, this argument would probably be over whether we should merge Hyrule with New Hyrule, but it is not. When fans search for Hyrule on Zelda Wiki, they will find any and all "Hyrules" in one article, as it should be because that is their only name. Noble Wrot 18:08, 10 January 2012 (EST)

As I said, it doesn't matter whether they hold the same name. It's not a reason to keep them on the same article. As others have suggested, creating a new page titled "Hyrule(Spirit Tracks) resolves the problem. It works wonders on Wikipedia so why not here. Teekay 18:10, 10 January 2012 (EST)

We do not have an article for every "Link" in the series, and there is a good reason for that. They share the same name, and they are very much alike. Sure, they have different lives and experiences, but they are, in spirit, the same person. In this case, that same principle applies for this Hyrule article. It is a matter of convenience that they are all in one article. Noble Wrot 18:18, 10 January 2012 (EST)

Just a couple of things here: the reason why the Desert of Doubt and the Desert of Mystery are on separate pages and not under the same page as the Japanese version would consider them the same is because we, as an American English wiki, take priority in naming our pages to what they are called in the American English Zelda games, as stated in our quality standards page, so the argument that Teekay brought doesn't really count here. Also, the later argument, how "Wikipedia does this" and "Wikipedia does that"...well, that's Wikipedia, and we are Zelda Wiki here. :) I mean, we have to do things differently and not just blindly follow whatever Wikipedia does, right? ;) As for what Her Grace said about "Hyrule Historia said...", the wiki is still rearranging things to cope with the new information flowing from the book, so please be patient with us! We have already accommodated the timeline sections of our games to reflect that, as well as the Kaepora Gaebora page and the Ancient Hero article, so yeah...patience, people! :)

I'll echo what Hylian King and Noble Wrot said. We here have a goal, which is to make the information flow as smooth as possible and for users to find what they want easily. The idea of having all Fire temples in the same page and all Forest temples in the same page helps with that. Why wouldn't merging the Farons and the Lanayrus work? Because there is no connection. We don't know if they are one in the same, so we can't go ahead and merge them. We treat places differently than characters, and items are treated differently too (all Bow instances are merged into one article even though one is a Hero's Bow and one is a Sacred Bow etc.), since for these things, we have to deal with them in a case-by-case basis instead of simply laying down a merge/split rule that will apply for ALL articles at the wiki...that just wouldn't make sense! We have to use common sense sometimes, too. We are pretty lenient here so that's why we don't just lay a rule for everything. We're not saying that's the right way to do things, we are saying that's what the wiki in the long-run has established as being the most efficient.

But I'm getting off-topic here explaining things instead of discussing whether New Hyrule should be split or not. I already mentioned it, but my opinion hasn't changed: unless in a future Zelda game the "new Hyrule" is referred to as something OTHER than Hyrule, then we shouldn't split it. However! If the majority of people prefer it to be split, then of course we'll split it....this is the community's wiki, after all! We have to do what the community deems better. :) Dany36 18:20, 10 January 2012 (EST)

There's no doubt that we should be stating very clearly that the Hyrule of Spirit Tracks is different from the rest. I just don't see why we can't do that in this article, why it's necessary to have it an entirely separate article to do so. But, to echo what Dany said, I'll be happy to bend to whatever the majority thinks is the best decision. I just personally don't see the necessity of a split here. — Hylian King ^[*] 18:26, 10 January 2012 (EST)

Psh, the whole article was a mess even before ST was released, so maybe a bit of reorganization here and there could accommodate to blatantly state that...HEY, ST HYRULE IS A NEW HYRULE, K? Dany36 18:29, 10 January 2012 (EST)

I guess my issue is that priority should be given to accuracy and precision, not convenience. If the two Hyrules are known to be different locations, then placing them in separate articles further emphasizes that fact. Keeping them in the same article for the sake of convenience, in my opinion, implies they are the same. At the very least, as you suggested, it needs to be made clear that they're entirely separate places and that the Hyrule in Spirit Tracks isn't just a reappearance of the original. Teekay 18:33, 10 January 2012 (EST)

Of course there would be a disclaimer, that's what I was alluding to earlier - if we kept them on the same page, it would require one so as to not confuse people! Teensy, splitting the article just to emphasize a difference is a great idea for some articles, but it would be overkill for this one given the difference could be summed up in a sentence. However the distinction is very important, it may warrant a second sentence at the top just for good measure. I'm just glad we all discussed this with civility and assumed good faith of each other. This conversation is by no means over though, I expect more users to add opinions in the coming days so we can reach an overall verdict! :) — cipriano^talk 21:58, 10 January 2012 (EST)

EDIT: autocorrect on my phone corrected Teekay to Teensy! My bad! Haha — cipriano^talk 22:01, 10 January 2012 (EST)

"Sure, they have different lives and experiences, but they are, in spirit, the same person. In this case, that same principle applies for this Hyrule article."

That's demonstrably untrue for "New Hyrule". It has a completely unique founding mythology and mechanics. Holodrum's mythology, at least, still revolves around the Triforce. "New Hyrule" does no such thing. TeeKay's New England/Jersey analogy is very apt, actually.

Although I can see it being workable to organize the article into two halves (old and new), I'm still very confused about what all these similarities are that tie the two Hyrules so closely together that "all the differences could be summed up in one sentence". "New Hyrule" has a completely unique culture, underlying mythology, demographics, level of technology, level of interconnectedness, topography, environment, and basically everything that defines a country, as far as I can see. Surely that warrants more than a sentence?

"Just a couple of things here: the reason why the Desert of Doubt and the Desert of Mystery are on separate pages and not under the same page as the Japanese version would consider them the same is because we, as an American English wiki, take priority in naming our pages to what they are called in the American English Zelda games, as stated in our quality standards page, so the argument that Teekay brought doesn't really count here."

Policies like that should be open to change, especially when they enforce merges like this while keeping separate topics that are clearly the same entity and are even intended to have the same name, such as Desert of Doubt/Desert of Mystery, Eastern Temple/Eastern Palace, and poss. Palace of Darkness/Temple of Darkness. In other places, we've been told that these merge/split decisions should be decided using common sense, not by robotically enforcing a boilerplate policy...so why aren't we doing that for these?

Also: naming a page is not at all the same as what's covered in the page. There is no skin off anyone's back by doing stuff like saying "this page is about the kingdom created by the Spirits of Good, you may have been looking for Hyrule" or "this page is about the kingdom which revolves around the Triforce, you may have been looking for Hyrule (ST)". As for stuff like re-translations, you could easily name the article after the most recent dub name, and introduce it with something like "The Eastern Temple, also known as ...etc". "One name = one article" does a great disservice to actually understanding the cohesive whole of the subject matter, especially when we're taking the definition of "one name" from a secondhand source.

"The idea of having all Fire temples in the same page and all Forest temples in the same page helps with that. Why wouldn't merging the Farons and the Lanayrus work? Because there is no connection. "

Those Fire Temples are explicitly different locations with different purposes whose only uniting aspect is that they are "fiery". In contrast, the Farons and Lanayrus have the same role, habitat, and species, with their only real differences being era and shape. It is known for a fact that those Fire Temples are separate entities; it is an unproven assumption that the Dragons and Light Spirits are as well. This argument makes no sense.KrytenKoro 10:41, 11 January 2012 (EST)

Having read the recent debate regarding this, I do think that the comparison of England and New England having separate pages on Wikipedia because they are different places is a good point. It's the same case for Hyrule. I brought it up the other day, but I do think it should be mentioned again: the old Hyrule has a long and vast known history with a confirmed chronology that will be added to its article soon enough, but we run into a wall when it comes to the history of New Hyrule. How can we put that into the history of old Hyrule? We know it occurs in a different land, yet it must be put in with the history of the old kingdom if they share the same page. Either that, or the history of the new kingdom is ignored so that it doesn't merge with the history of the old kingdom, defeating the point of the wiki to an extent. Her Grace 11:53, 11 January 2012 (EST)

I just want to point out that Hyrule Historia, when detailing the events of Wind Waker and Spirit Tracks, calls Hyrule "the old Kingdom". Therefore it wouldn't be that farfetched to label the Hyrule of Spirit Tracks as New Hyrule. Plus, the book makes it crystal clear that the old kingdom is destroyed, and that all connections with the "holy land", the Triforce, and Ganondorf have been cut off on the Adult Timeline. It just goes to show that they're very serious about creating a new continent with it's own unique history, one containing no connections to the "holy land" of old Hyrule aside from what few Hylians, traditions, races and relics remain. Teekay 12:02, 11 January 2012 (EST)

@KrytenKoro:

Those Fire Temples are explicitly different locations with different purposes whose only uniting aspect is that they are "fiery". In contrast, the Farons and Lanayrus have the same role, habitat, and species, with their only real differences being era and shape. It is known for a fact that those Fire Temples are separate entities; it is an unproven assumption that the Dragons and Light Spirits are as well. This argument makes no sense.

I explained it here: We treat places differently than characters, and items are treated differently too (all Bow instances are merged into one article even though one is a Hero's Bow and one is a Sacred Bow etc.), since for these things, we have to deal with them in a case-by-case basis instead of simply laying down a merge/split rule that will apply for ALL articles at the wiki...that just wouldn't make sense!

Policies like that should be open to change, especially when they enforce merges like this while keeping separate topics that are clearly the same entity and are even intended to have the same name...

Of course they are open to change, but we can discuss that more in the discussion you've recently opened so that we don't derail this topic even further than it already has. :P

As for the discussion at hand, I think we're just going in circles here now. Everyone has already stated their point of view and said why they think/don't think ST Hyrule should get their own page. Instead of keeping this in stalemate with nothing being done, it might be time for a good ol' fashioned vote...! Dany36 12:37, 11 January 2012 (EST)

I do think this argument suffers from two different modes of thinking. There's the point of view that the land becomes a "Hyrule" the moment Zelda establishes a domain, and there is the point of view that the land was and is always something else, even after Zelda establishes a dominion. Krytenkoro makes an interesting point above: "New Hyrule" has a completely unique culture, underlying mythology, demographics, level of technology, level of interconnectedness, topography, environment, and basically everything that defines a country... which is true, but all established Hyrules differ in all of these things, it's obvious to see (Using OOT Hyrule as a base, TP Hyrule has a vastly different topography, vastly more defined culture, much more clustered/spread out civilization, arguably increased technology; to compare with ALTTP Hyrule, we again see differing topography, a vastly smaller NPC population, etc. ) - the basis of argument for a "Hyrule" that remains unchanged throughout the series is that it is a dominion set up and maintained by a Princess Zelda-led Royal Family. If you even want to venture further, all Hyrules have had parallel dimensions/other worlds connected to them, and regardless of mythology (which one could successfuly argue came before the establishment of "Hyrule" on this new land), there has always been a higher power associated with good versus evil.

The difference here is that Hyrule is not just an inherited land passed down through generations, but one that is re-established on a new land with different mythology. This doesn't make it any less of a "Hyrule", for it still has the defining element, the moment and significance of establishment. Evidence has been provided above with quotes (which no one bothered to ask for), and an official commercial - that's enough to convince me. Splitting it out would only cause more confusion.

That being said, I'd agree to make a page that discusses the 'land and mythology that existed before Zelda established a dominion, but afterwards, it is evidentially imprudent to deny the necessity of retaining the information pertaining to Zelda's establishment of a "Hyrule". That's my last word on the matter! ;) — cipriano^talk 14:23, 11 January 2012 (EST)

I would have to disagree on that, Cipriano. While it's true that the versions of Hyrule seen in OoT, TP and ALttP differ from one another, they're not meant to be different places entirely. The only differences can be accounted for by natural changes over time, something which even Hyrule Historia acknowledges. New Hyrule, on the other hand, was never meant to be the same location. Yes, they're both the same thing in spirit-- a land named Hyrule ruled by a princess named Zelda, but that doesn't literally make them the same thing and therefore shouldn't be treated as such.Teekay 09:31, 13 January 2012 (EST)

POLL TIMES!! Deciding if "New Hyrule" should go into its own page

Since we seem to be going in circles now that mostly everyone has voiced their reasoning, it's time to...VOTE! Of course, we need to have a clear majority here. And if you feel that you need to expand on your argument, then please feel free to continue in the section above. So here we go!! Let's leave this poll open for a week, until January 18, 2012, so that everyone that wants to vote can do so. If you did not comment in the discussion above, please use it as a reference in making a decision. Sign (using ~~~) below the option that you prefer.

Do not split ST Hyrule from this article

Absolutely split ST Hyrule from this article

The vote is 9:7 against the split. Our Facebook poll shows a vote of 23:12 against the split. The majority of our readers want to keep the info together. Now we just need to edit the article and make it clear that "Old Hyrule" is not the same land as "New Hyrule". — Abdul ^{[T] [C] [S]} 08:10, 5 February 2012 (EST)

General edits for a more cohesive page.

I'm a new editor, although I've been reading Zelda Wiki for a while. I'd just like to ask, why is there an etymology section that has two sentences and barely even fanon content? Is is truly necessary?

I would also be in favor of either removing the "Appearances by Game" section in favor of mentioning the same info in the intro paragraphs or at least moving it, since the subsequent sections (Governance, Economy) are cohesive with the History & Mythology section.

And one last thing, why not put the one sentence under "Technology in Hyrule" under Economy without a heading? I think it would make a better-looking section for what Hyrule is generally portrayed as and how it runs. User:VarrosAnon/sig 22:56, 1 February 2012 (EST)

Not bad! But really, the whole page probably needs to be reorganized to be up-to-date with the timeline information revealed... :c Such a huge task! --Dany36 23:14, 2 February 2012 (EST)

True, but we might as well clean up what we can while waiting for the huge Hyrule Historia bumps we're going to get. But I agree that it'll be a huge task. I'll keep thinking about it. User:VarrosAnon/sig 23:18, 2 February 2012 (EST)

There seems to have been some good progress made on this so far by some others. Keep up the good work, y'all! --Xizor 08:43, 18 February 2012 (EST)