Topic: legend of zelda implications

The bulk update request #4870 is pending approval.

create implication yona_(tloz) (76) -> tears_of_the_kingdom (3526)
create implication mineru (537) -> tears_of_the_kingdom (3526)
create implication purah (296) -> tears_of_the_kingdom (3526)
create implication great_fairy (84) -> the_legend_of_zelda (31409)
create implication zonai (1542) -> the_legend_of_zelda (31409)
create implication korok (148) -> the_legend_of_zelda (31409)
create implication kokiri (123) -> the_legend_of_zelda (31409)
create implication gerudo (1384) -> the_legend_of_zelda (31409)
create implication twili (6664) -> the_legend_of_zelda (31409)

Reason: characters and species added to TOTK, or from previous games which lacked implications

"Great Fairy" seems a bit too generic. Fairies aren't Zelda-specific, so the concept of a "great fairy" could easily pop up elsewhere.

Purah isn't only in TotK. She first appeared in Breath of the Wild, then also in Hyrule Warriors.

watsit said:
"Great Fairy" seems a bit too generic. Fairies aren't Zelda-specific, so the concept of a "great fairy" could easily pop up elsewhere.

Purah isn't only in TotK. She first appeared in Breath of the Wild, then also in Hyrule Warriors.

fairies that are bigger and better than the other fairies exist elsewhere, but "Great Fairies" seem to specifically be a Zelda thing (every currently tagged great fairy is Zelda related, for instance).

You're right about Purah. Should it be a botw implication instead, or a broader tloz implication? If the latter, should the characters with botw implications that also appeared in the new game be changed as well?

plsignore said:
fairies that are bigger and better than the other fairies exist elsewhere, but "Great Fairies" seem to specifically be a Zelda thing (every currently tagged great fairy is Zelda related, for instance).

A Great Fairy is just a fairy that is "great" (big, important, strong, etc). They're not specifically a Zelda thing, Zelda just has its own interpretation of the concept, so it's best to put a suffix on it to avoid potential future confusion and mistags.

plsignore said:
You're right about Purah. Should it be a botw implication instead, or a broader tloz implication? If the latter, should the characters with botw implications that also appeared in the new game be changed as well?

A tloz implication, yes (like teba_(tloz), saki_(tloz), etc). Characters that appear in both games should be changed to implicate the_legend_of_zelda if they haven't been already (and there's an argument to be made that characters shouldn't implicate specific games in a series even if they're only in one game, since there's no telling if or when they'll show up again in a future game in the series, and changing implications can take a while causing many mistags in the meantime).

If a game is part of a franchise I'd say that characters should mostly implicate the franchise rather than the individual games. Otherwise you would have to remove the implications again if they are featured in another game, or an even worse option, implicate every single game the character appears in to the character tag for the sake of consistency.

themasterpotato said:
If a game is part of a franchise I'd say that characters should mostly implicate the franchise rather than the individual games. Otherwise you would have to remove the implications again if they are featured in another game, or an even worse option, implicate every single game the character appears in to the character tag for the sake of consistency.

Agreed. If further confirmation is needed, just look at the list of implications to breath_of_the_wild that needed to be undone when TOTK came out. Let's not make that mistake again.

The bulk update request #9182 is pending approval.

Reason: Characters and species from The Legend of Zelda series. I tried to update character names that were short or sounded generic to give them a _(tloz) suffix but let me know if any of these don't need the suffix.

Wiki links for each character/species:
Tingle
Purah
Great Fairy
Vaati
Gerudo
Kokiri
Like Like
Darknut
Zonai

Some characters/species only appear in one game, so I've implied them to their specific game, but I'd appreciate some input on whether they should just be implied to the_legend_of_zelda instead:
Aryll and Makar are from The Wind Waker
Darbus only appears in Twilight Princess
Darunia has only featured as a character in Ocarina of Time, although he's been mentioned in other games.
Ghirahim is from Skyward Sword
Yona and the Zonai have only appeared in TotK but it's possible they may get featured in future games so I chose to implicate them to TLOZ.
The Twili have only really been seen in Twilight Princess but Midna has been in other games such as Hyrule Warriors so I'm not sure what to do with them.

I wonder if great_fairy_(tloz) should actually be split. The design of the great fairies does differ between the ones in OoT vs the ones in BoTW/TotK. And there are depictions like this that are more generic humanoid with insect wings and not like any of the games.

watsit said:
I wonder if great_fairy_(tloz) should actually be split. The design of the great fairies does differ between the ones in OoT vs the ones in BoTW/TotK. And there are depictions like this that are more generic humanoid with insect wings and not like any of the games.

and the ones in WW/FSA

but ehh... I mean, we're fine tagging all but a few Links and Zeldas as the same character, right?

dba_afish said:
and the ones in WW/FSA

but ehh... I mean, we're fine tagging all but a few Links and Zeldas as the same character, right?

Link and Zelda I feel are somewhat more consistent. They do have some alterations between games, mostly in clothing, but they're still mostly recognizable as the same character. In comparison, I'd be more hard pressed to say these are the same:
post #4106212 post #750218 post #1264881

Worth noting too that toon_link and young_link have their own tags due to their more significant design changes (toon_zelda and young_zelda also seem to exist, but aren't widely used), compared to the others that are more similar with each other (OoT Adult Link, Twilight Princess, BoTW/TotK).

watsit said:
Link and Zelda I feel are somewhat more consistent. They do have some alterations between games, mostly in clothing, but they're still mostly recognizable as the same character.

they're certainly different enough to be considered their own characters, though.
post #1346262 post #4896662
currently the only way to differentiate ~11.5 each of the thirteen or so unique designs (human-form) Links and Zeldas is using the copyright tags.