November 4th, 2019

🕒 Wiki Weekly #25! 🕑

It's November!
We've listed pages that need some love. Take a look!

Latest Announcements

Talk:Unused Content

From Zelda Wiki, the Zelda encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Why is Hyrule Castle and Navi here? -- կրակ (խոսել) -- 07:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Adult Link Mask"

The MM section talks about that one mask which looks like Link's face, seen in beta screenshots. Can anyone cite a source on all that info about it transforming Link into an adult and being replaced by the FD mask?--Fierce Deku 01:05, 5 March 2012 (EST)

I was doing a bit of research and couldn't find anything helpful. The only site that mentions it is Zelda Chaos:
Link has the adult Link mask equipped to c-v, it was replaced with the FD mask in the final version. Also, the area around the clocktower seems laid out differently. [1]:
...which I can only assume that's where most of the speculation started. However, I found another site where it says:
But one of the screenshots we've previously posted reveals something very interesting. The picture linked above shows what appears to be a mask of the adult Link in the Bottom C item slot. This would make sense and fit with the theme of the game, which has Link collects magical masks that can alter his appearance and give him new powers. Shigeru Miyamoto, who is overseeing the title, commented that he is not sure whether adult Link is in the game [2]
But we can't take Miyamoto's word since technically adult Link is sort of in the game, just as a fierce deity. :P And lastly:
Also too if you examine some of the masks and screenshots you will notice that at one point Link gets the Kokiri sword "tempered" and he gets a mask that kind of looks like himself, according to [3]
Again, all speculation but no definite answer. I guess we'll never really know. :c -Dany36 11:43, 5 March 2012 (EST)
Also! I was looking through the MM section of the Hyrule Historia concept art, and there seem to be at least three designs of adult Link: [4] --Dany36 12:50, 5 March 2012 (EST)


Is "beta" really an accurate term for what is covered by this page? Aside from a lot of things potentially being in the "alpha" stage and whatnot, there's plenty of things that are just concepts that may never of got programmed at all. I think "Unused Content" would be a much better name. "Beta" is a relic of the days when people thought "beta" referred to all unused content, which isn't the case, beta is the stage of development where bugs are usually ironed out of the code, but everything else is relatively set in stone. Many of the stuff in this section would of been alpha content, and much of it obviously never made it into the game at all and was dropped before even being implemented. User:Fizzle/sig 02:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. "Unused Content" is a good name. — Hylian King [*] 03:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. - TonyT S C 07:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Also agree. Dannyboy601Talk 21:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Did....something go wrong? The page still says "beta" :| PPLToast (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Nope, we just never got around to it. It's done, now.
Some re-writing will be in order. This article and many others still often use the term "beta" inappropriately. — Hylian King [*] 01:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Pages for Individual Games

Considering that this page is likely to undergo some expansion in the future, and there's still a lot of information from Hyrule Historia that has yet to be added, I feel as if it would be a good idea if this page was split into individual pages for each game. For example, there would be a page named "The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks/Unused Content" or "Unused Content in Spirit Tracks". With more detail, and a few images, it shouldn't be too hard to make separate pages. Even A Link to the Past has more to it that isn't mentioned here, such as Zelda's alternate design. Also, there's hardly any information on this page regarding Spirit Tracks (with 22 pages in HH) or Skyward Sword (with 57 pages in HH), which have the largest amount of unused content by far (along with Twilight Princess, with 32 pages in HH), and could definitely do with their own pages. Dannyboy601Talk 21:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

...And add them to the "Listings" sections of the game pages? I like it. But we have to take into consideration that a lot of readers—maybe even most of them—may just be looking for a general read on all beta content in the series. In this case, having everything on one page would be better than having it all spread out. If we go ahead with splitting them I suggest that we keep this page and transclude all the individual pages here, rather than just making it a disambiguation page. — Hylian King [*] 22:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm all for Hylian King's suggestion. Having their own individual pages would be nice, and then having them transclude to this one page makes sense to me. Pixel 21:43, 17 November 2013 (ADT)
Yeah, I think that's a good idea. Keep each page's content on a separate page so they can be expanded more. --SnorlaxMonster 07:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Concept Art

Concept art is not beta. Is complete removal of concept art from this page appropriate, or would it be preferable to move concept art to its own page? Additionally, perhaps this article should be renamed as suggested above. Champion of Nayru (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC) Champion of Nayru

Concept art can be considered unused content, though. I think the latter solves the problem on its own. Went ahead and moved the page. — Hylian King [*] 01:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The Cutting Room Floor

Looking at the page, would it be that a lot of what's on has a place here? e.g.

--KokoroSenshi (talk | contribs) 08:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, the answer is clearly yes. --KokoroSenshi (talk | contribs) 08:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Tri Force Heroes and a "theory"

I've just added a bunch of content to the Tri Force Heroes section. Some of this stuff isn't even on TCRF yet, so I'm rather proud of that (yay me!). But, that's not the point.

Regarding the Great Fairy Outfit: I've got a theory that one of the possible reasons for its exclusion was the graphical glitches it caused; I took a screenshot to demonstrate/support this. Thing is, I'm not sure if: A) the screenshot is evidence enough for the theory, or B) This sort of information, even with evidence, is appropriate for the Unused Content article. It tells more about the Great Fairy Outfit, but doesn't seem as relevant to the subject of "unused content". Htwretched (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Theories are not allowed in the wiki anymore, so it's better to avoid them. However, we have pages for glitches in case that kind of information fits better in them. - Chuck * (Talk) 03:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)