August 12th, 2019 🚌 Wiki Weekly #21! 📚

It's the back to school period! Let's contribute on pages related to that! Take a look!

Latest Announcements

Hello there! We are conducting a survey to better understand the user experience in making a first edit. If you have ever made an edit on Gamepedia, please fill out the survey. Thank you!

Talk:Hyrule Warriors

From Zelda Wiki, the Zelda encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Zwlogo2dlarge.png
  Archives:

Okay um

Medli is supposed to be out for free on Wii U today, right? That's what the Wiki says and that's what I remember the Direct saying, but I can't seem to get her. The internet doesn't seem to care, but is this page just misleading? Or is this actually something going on that she's out late or my copy of HW isn't updating right? Peanutjon (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Official website says that Medli is late spring 2016 and the DLC won't be released on Wii U only until summer 2016. Seems like something we should add. (I would, but idk how references work D:) Peanutjon (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I checked and apparently, yeah, I was wrong. I cannot remember where I read "March 25", but according to Nintendo Everything, she won't be released until alongside the Master Wind Waker Pack. - Midoro (T C) 21:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I remember 25th being the initial announcement too, so at the very least we're crazy together. Peanutjon (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Rank 5 Elements

So. Rank 5 weapons were added with the LA DLC pack for Legends (and only for legends). These weapons have two elements attached. EX: Young Link gets the Inflamed Deity's mask, which gives him heartburn... I mean It gives him the ability to deal Fire Damage in addition to dark. The game points out element shift is done automatically based on whatever element will deal more damage to the foe (And subsequently confirming elemental weaknesses and resistances are in fact a thing the game has). This brings me to my point: How do we add this to the character table without making a mess of it? And other tables on other pages as well?--Lego3400 (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

This new rank has already been added to some pages, like the Harp one. Personally, don't think it's necessary to add those in the characters table, as it only shows the main element of each weapon. - Chuck * (Talk) 17:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

We don't need the Hero and Villain Characters sections

I understand that I'm likely to get some flack for this suggestion, but I really feel that we do not need the Hero Characters and Villain Characters sections that are currently on this page. Of course, I am not suggesting we remove 'Playable Characters' -- that can stay, and it is necessary. But I am specifically talking about the Hero and Villain Characters sections.

Zelda Wiki has its own style of formatting pages. We are not intended to be like Wikipedia, which lists a topic's characters in a bullet list. We already have a dedicated listing for this game, Characters in Hyrule Warriors. Plus with the way we have the Playable Characters section, it's like the character listings are being repeated twice. It is redundant. The Hero Characters and Villain Characters section are really not necessary to have. - Midoro (T C) 14:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed, it's mostly a remnant of pre-release material, before everyone was established as playable (though some were doubtful the villains would be playable, for some reason). My only concern would be the placing of the character "titles". Where would those go? — Zero-ELEC (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The character infobox template has a Title field where the titles can go. They would just need a footnote to indicate the title is from HW. - Midoro (T C) 15:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree that we don't need the Hero and Villain sections. I think the titles are already on the character's page for the most part and I'm not sure we really need to use them on this page. Link Lab (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hyrule Warrior's status as a non-spin-off

In the Encyclopedia, as sourced in my most recent edit which is getting reverted, Nintendo's most reliably official source of Zelda information, the "other games" (games that are not part of the "main seventeen"; pre-Breath of the Wild, which make up the canon chronology) into three distinst sections of "spin-offs", "appearences in other games", and "other" and gives definitive definitions for each one.

  • Spin-offs are games that are set outside the canon Zelda chronology, but are still considered to be set in the canon world (e.g. Link's Crossbow Training)
  • Games in "appearences in other games" are not set in the canon world. They are games that simply feature generic aspects from the Zelda world along with it's related lore, and it's characters. They are basically considered games where Zelda guest stars.
  • The "other" section lists a bunch of other video games in which Zelda content has bee included in passing, but not with regards to any lore or story content. Stuff akin to the Switch port of Skyrim having Zelda Amiibo support.
    • There is also a third seperate section which is reserved for Tingle's own mini-series of games.

Hyrule Warriors is placed in the "appearences in other games". This is the same category as games like all Super Smash Bros titles, Soul Calibur II (Link guest stared in the Gamecube version) and Sonic Lost World's Zelda Zone. In actual fact, that is the order in which the examples appear in that section and Hyrule Warriors is placed AFTER all three of those other examples, which in itself basically signifies that Nintendo does not consider the game to even by as big on the "appearences in other games" as those three things. Although this last part would be pure original research interpretation on my part. That being said, everything else about this is just factual information. The edit is hardly confusing if you ask me. It is important information about the official status of the game, sourced via Nintendo's own words and definitions. If you can think of a less confusing way to word the information, then be my guest and change it. If you have any issues with the actual core information contained within my edits, please discuss them here. Thanks. --Catcure (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


Hey there, thank you for taking the time to write this up. Though I must warn you about edit warring. When one of the staff member undo one of your edit, it is generally not a mistake. Not saying that we are always right, but let's just say we know a thing or two about how this wiki is structured. You really shouldn't have added back your edit that many times, in the future, please write about it on the discussion page (here) or come and discuss it with us on the Discord server.
As for your edit itself, I find it very interesting that Nintendo has put Hyrule Warriors games in this "section" of the book. Hyrule Warriors definitely checks all the marks as a spin-off. Encyclopedia defines a spin-off as being Zelda releases that do not necessarily have a place on the core timeline but are still set in the same world. Let's review those points together:
  • Hyrule Warriors is not part of the core timeline. Hyrule Warriors is not canon, and never will be. Because it exists as a separate dimension, so it doesn't exist as part of the main canon, those are Eiji Aonuma's words, which are basically the Words of God as far as the Zelda series / Hyrule Warriors games are concerned.
  • Hyrule Warriors plays within the Zelda world. Encyclopedia itself states that Hyrule Warriors takes place within the worlds of Ocarina of Time, Twilight Princess, and Skyward Sword. Although it is another dimension, it is still the world of Zelda.
  • Hyrule Warriors is a Zelda release. You seem to imply that games like Smash and Soulcalibur are comparable to the Hyrule Warriors games; they're not. While Smash and the likes borrow some Zelda elements, such as Characters and Items, Hyrule Warriors doesn't. Everything you see in Hyrule Warriors is Zelda. It's not Zelda content in another game. The game is Zelda.
I hope I was able to make clear of the situation. I will now be reverting your edit. I am not telling you I am 100% right. There is still room for debate, but no matter if you're right or not. A change such as this is not something we are going to change overnight without discussing it thoroughly. So please refrain from reverting my edit again, your contributions are very appreciated, but things needs to be discussed first. Don't hesitate to reply with any arguments or questions, but whatever you do, do not revert my edit until a consensus is met. Thank you and keep being dedicated! :) MannedTooth (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Does my more recent edit make the ambigity a little less so? Just to say, I made that edit before I saw this. I appreciate that there is a level of confusion and ambiguity. However this is a certain level of cast-iron distinction, if you ask me. I think the main issue here is the problem in my edit, and that was my made. My edit put empathise on the distinction resting on whether the game is set in the canon world or not, whereas it is more so whether or not it is considered a "Zelda game" or not. The two sections of "spin-off" and "other games with Zelda guest stars" is more so definied around this. The former are Zelda games, the latter are other games which simply use Zelda elements. Even if they are using the canon world. You touch on this, but the issue with what you say here is that this is not something that's up for debate (at least not on an official level). The book DOES lump in Hyrule Warriors with Smash Bros and the like. I'm not saying that's how it should be, or that I consider it true, but it is what it is from Nintendo's point of view so it is official that Hyrule Warriors is NOT a Zelda game. It's true that the definitions in the Encyclopedia are a little wishy-washy. However, I think this is a definitive distinction given in the book, at the very least. --Catcure (talk) 05:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion is being brought to Discord. MannedTooth (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)