Talk: Hero of Time

Fate of this page

I personally don't think it's worth having pages for all the different names given to the different incarnations of Link (Hero of Time, Hero of Winds, Hero of Pasta </joke>). But in all seriousness, there's not much to say about them that isn't already said in the Link article. As such, I'd think this would be better served as a redirect.User:Justin/sig 00:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason I did this page is because T Hero of Time has such a large history and legacy that you can't fit in the normal Link page. If everything was put in the Link page then half of it would be about the Hero of Time. User:GeneralTarken/sig 01:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Although I agree that the Hero of Time is an important historical character, I have to admit that making a page for him when some of the other heroes simply don't have enough story to support their own pages does seem a bit biased. After thinking about it, another concern I see is furthering possible bias: Since most of the information is, like Justin said, already stated in the main Link article, providing enough text for a whole sub page may end up including too much opinion around the base facts. Conclusion? Sticking with the original redirect would be less trouble in the end. _~  S a r i n i l l i 07:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's not forget that we also have a Young Link article. That already covers just about everything that's unique about the Hero of Time (and then some) in comparison to other Links. — Hylian King ^[*] 12:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Merging a page with this one

I propose that we add the Young Link page to this one because they are the same Link and this one will also include his adult hood and life as the Hero's Shade instead of just his youth. User:GeneralTarken/sig 19:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I've thought of that as well, but after a bit of deliberation I'm beginning to think our current setup is fine. Every other Link's story is covered on the Link article, so it only makes sense for the Hero of Time's story to be covered there as well. If you take plot away, what is there left to say about the Hero of Time that would require its own page? The only thing I can think of is the "Young Link-Adult Link" dynamic, which is covered perfectly fine as is on the Young Link article. Briefly what I'm saying here is, as far as our coverage of Link goes, there's nothing wrong with the way things are right now and in my opinion, no new articles are needed at this point.

On a side note, the MM section of the Young Link article is merely a repetition of Link#Majora's Mask. It should be reduced to a short summary with a link to the main Link article. — Hylian King ^[*] 20:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

True, but this page could be a great place to explain Link's whole life, from his time as a "kokiri" to his adult hood then his journey to Termina then to his life and legacy as the Hero's Shade. Along with all this, this page can help explain Link's life and journey in Detail instead of a brief paragraph. User:GeneralTarken/sig 21:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not totally convinced, but if you feel like our coverage of the Hero of Time can be much better than it is at the moment, I personally have no problem with giving you the benefit of the doubt. Although, I'd rather have this page return to being a redirect for the time being until a decent-sized article is written (like in the Zelda Wiki:Sandbox or something), because right now it's a nuisance, frankly. — Hylian King ^[*] 21:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it ok to copy and paste stuff from other pages to create this??? Template:Nosig

Well that kinda depends on what you're copy-pasting. If the article is mostly copy-paste with words changed around then that kinda proves Justin's and my point about redundancy... — Hylian King ^[*] 21:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Going Great!!!

So far my work on this page has been pretty good. I plan on Making this page 2 times bigger at least though. User:GeneralTarken/sig 22:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Right on. But before you go any further I hope you know that if most people disagree with the article then it'll have to come down. You seem to be making good progress, but again, it doesn't matter what I think even though I'm an admin; it's what everyone thinks that counts.

Not saying that to discourage you or anything. Just wanted to make sure you were aware of the possibility going forward, and I don't want you to feel cheated in case it happens. — Hylian King ^[*] 22:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry. I know that if people don't like this page then it has to go down, and personally I do believe in the good of the group. If it goes down I won't rage and spam anyone, you have my word. User:GeneralTarken/sig 22:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't expecting you to. You don't seem like the type haha. Thanks for understanding. — Hylian King ^[*] 22:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries. User:GeneralTarken/sig 22:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Little help from my end and something to think about

Seeing as how we're all still rather undecided as to the fate of this page, for the time being, I'm going to at least assist in making sure it's all in order. I changed some wording and information that wasn't entirely correct, and did some spelling and grammar fixes. Nothing too major really, but I'll keep an eye on things as as we go.

Also, I need to be honest. I'm not totally sold on this working out. It looks like quantity over quality and a whole lot of filler. For example, I don't see what including the dungeons, child and adult weaponry, or SSBM statues have to do with the character himself really. When I think about a page for one hero in particular, I think of a personal biography sort of appeal. A life story, so to speak. Not necessarily which part of his arsenal he could use in which era. _~  S a r i n i l l i 00:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, the Dungeons section is completely unneeded. I'd delete it, but I decided to put it up here first. As pointed above, the Equippable Items section isn't really necessary. This page focuses on gameplay rather than story and character, and that's something we really needs to work on. User:Darkness/sig 01:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The fate of this page

Alright, so it seems like this page was abandoned when it was half done, so we're kind of worse off than before this page was made. In my opinion, a Hero of Time article is not a bad idea. However, since all of our Link content is pretty solid right now, this article has to at least match that standard if we're to move information onto this page. Until such a time as a proper article can be written, I went ahead and changed this back to a redirect to the Link page. Any objections? — Hylian King ^[*] 14:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope. If anyone wants to give it a try, I'd recommend viewing the old revision of the page to find the content and then working off a sandbox with it.User:Justin/sig 18:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think there really wasn't anything else to add. I'd put all the non-canon appearances of the Hero of Time. I saw the idea of this page to combine the articles of the multiple articles about the same character (parts of Link, Young Link, and Ancient Hero), meaning that it was supposed to be copy/pasted. I don't see how the page was "half done" or substandard. --SnorlaxMonster 07:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The article said next to nothing of adult Link, compared to all the young Link information. About the copy-pasting, fair enough, but what's the point of getting rid of a perfectly fine article in favor of an incomplete one, if the latter is still basically a page on Young Link anyway? That doesn't feel like progress to me.

My problem with the Hero of Time article is that it lacked a complete OOT section, which is really the first thing that should've been done. If a proper OOT section was written up I'd be all for getting rid of Young Link in favor of this.

Also, might I suggest that we leave the Young Link article for the SSBM character, and simply link to that page and Link/Other Appearances instead of covering all the non-canon stuff on the Hero of Time page. — Hylian King ^[*] 11:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the issue with linking to Link/Other Appearances is that only some non-canon appearances are actually the Hero of Time; SSBB Link isn't, whereas SSB Link and both SSBM Links are. Leaving Young Link as a page for the SSBM character could work, but he's the same character as the Hero of Time and the info seemed to fit on the page fairly nicely.

OoT did need a bit of expansion on Adult Link (although being a redirect now makes it hard to fix that). However, the page had more content than the Young Link page does (mainly due to being on a broader topic). The other issue with the Young Link article is that HoT Link is not the only Link who is ever young—Hero of Winds Link is either 9 or 12 years old depending on what sources you believe (at the start of TWW at least). --SnorlaxMonster 15:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but I still don't think it's sufficient reason to be covering SSB and SSBM on one page and SSBB on another.

And yes, perhaps removing the entire article was a bit hasty on my part. I just really think that a proper OoT section should be written out first, in say, a sandbox, and then we should merge everything else, instead of doing the latter first and having a relatively complete article (Young Link) turned over to an incomplete page, leaving the content in a bit of an awkward in-between phase until someone comes in and expands the OoT section. Am I making sense here? — Hylian King ^[*] 21:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I feel like having an article rather than a redirect didn't really take anything away from the wiki, and that an incomplete article is better than no article. If Young Link had been moved to Hero of Time I would agree that it shouldn't be done until the Adult OoT section was done, but that wasn't the case. As for the SSB info, my point was it was acceptable to have the information in both places; for the same reason, Toon Link's spin-off info is not on the HoT article while HoT Link's spin-off info is, TP Link's spin-off info should not be on HoT Link's article, and HoT link should not just link to a page with spin-off info for all Links as it is not clear which are and aren't relevant. --SnorlaxMonster 08:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Having a brief section that says something along the lines of "the HoT also appears in SSB and SSBM, as well as SCII. See Link/Other Appearances for more information" seems clear enough to me.

I'm just really hung up on covering the same content on two different pages. It's redundant, and to my knowledge, it's not intentionally done anywhere else on the wiki. That's why I was so eager to scrap the HoT article while Young Link was still up. The overlap would only be temporary, though, so maybe the article should be put back up. You've convinced me there. But what you're suggesting for the non-canon appearances would make Hero of Time and Link/Other Appearances have overlapping content permanently. I'm still not convinced that overlap should exist.

By the way, if anyone else cared to weigh in, outside input would be much appreciated. This whole thing's been a back-and-forth between myself and Snorlax. :P — Hylian King ^[*] 22:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

So I've been working on this page on my sandbox, and it seems I kind of took a different direction than what was being discussed here. The way I wrote it mostly just focuses on the legend of the Hero of Time and how he is important in the creation of the split timeline, and the effect his legend has in the Adult Timeline. I didn't want to focus too much on gameplay and stuff like the Young Link article does because...well, this isn't an Adult Link article, but rather a Hero of Time article that speaks of the hero of legend. So any input would be appreciated. :P Just disregard that Character template warning at the top. --Dany36 15:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I really like the direction you were heading with the sandbox, and I guess one of the solutions would be to just merge the two pages and hope for the best. Unfortunately, I think that would kinda make this page awkward because both parts were written with very different intentions. There's also the option of rewriting one of them, but I like the focus on the role of the Hero of Time. Perhaps keeping the pages distinct, but removing the plot-relevant info from the Young Link article? - Tony^{T S C} 16:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Dany, I love this, this is exactly what the page should be. Of course, if this page were to exist in such a manner, we'd also need similar ones for the other "Hero of" titles in the games.

Personally I see no use of the original page, given that the Link article should cover everything involved as it is. I know lots of people started the series with Orarina of Time, but Ocarina of Time Link is NOT special, he's just another Link, and if he gets an article of his own so should the rest of them. And I can already think of a million reasons why that would probably be a bad idea. User:Fizzle8094/sig 18:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't say I agree that every "Hero of" should be given his own article. I might be biased, but right now, the Hero of Time is the only Hero of that I think merits his own article. He's involved in the split of the timeline, and is pretty much a legend in TWW. Sure, the other Hero ofs are also important, but let's take this one by one instead of applying one thing to every single case. I don't think there are that many other Hero ofs that are referenced in other games as much as the Hero of Time AND also have their own legend. :P --Dany36 03:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It's "Downfall Timeline" dude. "Decline" is just an era in which the latest incarnation of the hero exists in the timeline. Downfall Timeline is mostly about how Hyrule had been after the hero failed his quest in his "alternate adventure of Ocarina of Time" in my opinion. It has been in its downfall state 3 or 6 times with the hero being absent. That timeline features distant relatives of the Hero of Time (the Hero of Time being descended from the Knights of Hyrule is undeniable), in this case, A Link to the Past Link and his successor from The Legend of Zelda. In the Child Timeline, it's confirmed that the Hero of Time's successors we know (Twilight Princess and Four Swords Adventures Links) are indeed his descendants. In the Adult Timeline, we could confirm that Toon Link has spiritual connections with the Legendary Hero, just as Ganon pointed out the he is the Hero of Time reincarnated. You can write some of them in the Legacy section.

In The Wind Waker, legends told that the Triforce of Courage had been severed into eight shards by the Hero of Time, it occured after Ocarina of Time's "adult" ending so his successor would combine them once again if I remember correctly.--Prince Ludwig 19:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

age

was young Link's age ever confirmed? Like, i know some sources say he was 10 as a kid, and 17 as an 'adult'. but from what I've read on this site, it seems he is 9/16.

Miyamoto
"Yes. When we decided to handle Link growing up from a 9-year-old child to a more mature 16-year-old, I wanted lots of characters to fulfill various roles. For example, Kaepora Gaebora is a grandfather figure who gives Link all kinds of advice and looks out for him. And since Link is a boy, I wanted girls besides Princess Zelda to show up."

Is this something we should bring up on the wiki or is it not relevant?
Ixbran (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Link page already includes that info in the age section. - Chuck * ^(Talk) 21:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)