When did the "in-universe" style of writing cease to be a policy on Zeldapedia?--Herbsewell 23:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It never was a policy on Zeldapedia, someone just took it upon themself to add it to this page without discussing it. Happyjoe5 09:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
It was actually the creator of this wiki who added it, also the writer of the Manual of Style, so he had the right to make it a policy without discussing it first (there also wasn't anyone at the time to discuss it with).--Herbsewell 16:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Bah, I've majorly ****ed this up, you're right about some of it. I've gotten jumbled in the history page, some of what I deleted was randomly added recently, but some bits were what the founder of the wiki had originally said. Looking at his last edit it says:
"articles are articles are reffering to developers or real people on a fictional subject, this should be allowed by making a "Behind the Game" section. The game itself cannot be Zeldified."
Before I put this back in, can anyone decipher exactly what it means? It almost seems to be saying that articles about real people should not contain references to real people except in a 'Behind the Game' section, but that makes no sense. Happyjoe5 13:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why is this protected? Anybody should be able to edit it. If something is added and not good, just remove it. There's no need for it to be protected.
- This isn't a help page. It should be in the Zelda Wiki: namespace.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 04:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hi I'm Canadian and I'm wondering whether we're using Canadian/British English or American English. Fused Shadow 15:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
To answer your questions.
1. Yes you are right. I didn’t realize this page was protected. I’ll go ahead and take care of that right now.
2. I would change this as well, but it looks like some one already has.
3. As of right now we aren’t using any particular dialect of English over the other ones. The only rule we have about this right now is we don’t mix any two dialect together in a single page (eg. A page can be written in British English, American English, but not both). So to answer your question, write in what ever dialect of English you want.--ShutUpNavi 19:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
A discussion from in Hell...
Problems with the point of view policy, regarding gameplay information.
I've seem some oddities in how the point of view requirements are being applied, with regards to gameplay. Gameplay descriptions and instructions (such as guides to glitches) by necessity break the fourth wall, referring to player-initiated actions like saving. However, the point of view policy (as it has been applied) mandates that we explicitly refer to "Link", not to the player. In other words, an in-universe view is being forcibly applied to situations that, by their very nature, contradict an in-universe view.
Here are several examples I've collected from the Ocarina glitch documentation demonstrating the fallacy(s).
- As a result of obtaining the Gerudo Membership Card early, Link will not need to worry about the broken bridge later on in the game.
- Link doesn't worry about anything. The player, on the other hand, would be the person "worry[ing] about the broken bridge". "You" should be used here.
- If Link chooses to obtain the mushroom, the chest will remain open even if Link becomes an adult [...]
- Link isn't making the choice. The player is in full control over Link, and therefore the player is the person who "chooses to obtain the mushroom". The first instance of "Link" in this sentence should instead be "you".
- If Link chooses to go to the castle, then he must use Ganon's Barrier Skip to [...]
- What? I wasn't aware that Link was the person performing the glitches. I thought it was the player who was performing the glitches.
- Now Link can choose which side of the Spirit Temple to go through with the Longshot and Link has the option of working backwards or he can completely skip the left side of the Spirit Temple.
- Again, Link isn't choosing anything. Yes, he is traversing through the temple, but he is doing so at the direction and mercy of the player. Ultimately, the player is choosing a side of the Temple and the player is the one working backwards or skipping the left side of the Temple.
- After this, if Link's progress is saved and the game is restarted in the Temple of Time, Link will meet up with Sheik even though he hasn't completed the Forest Temple.
- Uh, what? You can't use an in-universe point of view and completely break the fourth wall at the same time. The concept of "saving" doesn't exist in the Zelda universe or story. Link's progress isn't being saved; the player's progress is being saved. It should be "if you save the game and continue from the Temple of Time". And on a similar note, Link isn't "completing Temples", he's "freeing Sages". The act of "completing a temple" is a concept that does not exist in the story. The player is "completing Temples".
- Link will be able to complete the game with only 5 medallions and without awakening Saria.
- Again, a conflict: an in-universe point of view mixed with the destruction of the fourth wall. In the story, there is no game to complete. Link is not completing the game. The player is completing a game, a game in which Link's trials are the sole focus. It should be "You'll be able to complete the game".
There is also the sheer awkwardness of referring to explicitly-player-directed actions as actions initiated and decided upon by Link.
It would make much more sense to use the following point of view rules with regards to gameplay descriptions and instructions:
- Changes in Link's physical state shall be attributed to Link, as will actions that Link takes that are not explicitly initiated by the player.
- If you obtain Din's Fire after leaving the forest early and cast it on the cobwebs on the floors inside the Deku Tree, Link will fall while casting Din's Fire.
- Epona will gallop towards Link, and Link will stand with his hands in the air, unable to move.
- Link will be carrying half of the Deku Stick [...]
- If done correctly, Link will pull the Master Sword while the message alerting that the item has spoiled pops up [...]
- While Link is being taught, he will be holding the Ocarina of Time.
- Actions that have directly been initiated by the player will be attributed to the player, to "you", or some similar pronoun.
- If you obtain Din's Fire after leaving the forest early and cast it on the cobwebs on the floors inside the Deku Tree, Link will fall while casting Din's Fire.
- If you enter an area earlier than you are supposed to, you will see Kaepora Gaebora perched near that area's entrance.
- Make sure you have the Ocarina of Time equipped.
- (This one is less clear, but equipping the Ocarina of Time is a player-initiated action. The player is the one navigating through the pause menu and item screen, not Link. In the game, there is no difference between an equipped item and a non-equipped item; anything Link isn't holding in his hands, be it equipped or not, is effectively stored in hammerspace. As such, the concept of "equipping" something is a concept that exists outside of the game. That said, this is a much more minor example of the fallacy imposed by forced in-universe descriptions, and as such, this particular situation is more of a technicality.)
- If the glitch is done correctly, you will have replaced the item with an extra Bottle, holding the thing you just captured.
- You can safely replace the Magic Beans after buying and planting all of them.
These two rules can be more simply stated as:
- Things that happen to Link will be described as happening to "Link".
- Things that Link does on behalf of the player will be described as being done by "the player", "you", or some similar pronoun.
@Isdrakthül: Consider an example where the player needs to run to a ladder and grab it. There are several ways that that statement can be phrased, two of which are conformant to the MoS and both of which are flawed in some way.
- Link should run to the ladder and grab it.
- This implies that Link is, or will, perform(ing) the action on his own, without the player's prompting. (Because yes, glitches and cutscenes can cause Link to act on his own.) It is also generally awkward; instructions for gameplay and glitches serve as resources to be provided for, read by, and directed at, the reader.
- Run to the ladder and grab it.
- This type of phrasing, which runs rampant in the glitch documentation and is effectively the de facto standard, is a very subtle violation of the forced all-encompassing in-universe point of view. We are giving a command to the reader, and referring to them as though they are Link. (Again, this is what is used in practice, such that most glitch documentation -- and likely a significant portion of gameplay documentation -- is in violation of the MoS.)
- The player should run to the ladder and grab it.
- You should run to the ladder and grab it.
- These are the exact same type of violation as the direct command above, but more blatant. In combination with the subtle violation, however, these forms are notably less awkward than the forced in-universe view.
- Have Link run to the ladder and grab it.
- An argument could be made for this wording, but it is cumbersome and difficult both to read and to write entire sets of instructions in this style. "Have Link swing his sword vertically." "Make Link open the door." "Get link to backflip into the hole." "Prompt Link to swim forward for seven seconds." Ew.
Effectively, the MoS is recommending that we write instructions for players while trying, to the fullest extent possible, to ignore said players and completely deny their involvement in and initiation of the events and actions being instructed. It may be the more "formal" and "encyclopedic" way of doing things, but from an ease-of-comprehension and lack-of-disjointed-awkwardness point of view, it is only a hindrance.
@Ccber: My apologies. Basically, always referring to Link in things like gameplay and glitch instructions is sort of like a logical paradox, because it means we're trying to maintain an in-universe point of view while breaking the fourth wall at the same time. I've seen phrases like "Link may choose to" and "If Link saves the game", which are completely ridiculous. So I'm basically proposing an alteration to the "point of view" rules; I'm recommending that for gameplay, we change them to:
- Things that happen to Link, and things that Link does "on his own", will be described as happening to "Link". So if Link gets knocked off a platform, we say "Link got knocked off the platform".
- Things that Link does on behalf of the player will be described as being done by "the player", "you", or some similar pronoun. So if I attack an Octorok, we're saying just that: "the player should attack the Octorok".
@Drak: Even in that respect, one could still think of it as a listing of things that "the player" should be doing, in which case my point still stands: it is awkward and bizarre to write in a manner that completely denies the involvement of the player, when it is the actions of that player (and the in-game results) that we are trying to describe. DavidJCobb (talk) 19:49, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
I have given you a reason. Clearly, that reason is so entirely composed of fail that you can't even identify it as a reason. (No, that's not sarcasm. Come to think of it, this really was just a nitpicky suggestion to begin with.) Further discussion on this is unnecessary; this really is a minor point. ('S odd... the way I word my posts, it makes it sound as though everything's a big deal. I need to chill a bit.) DavidJCobb (talk) 02:15, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
I hate to agree with someone who initiated a discussion by calling other users work "woefully inadequete", but I would have brought this topic up myself had it not been here already. The fact is, these pages are about an out of universe topic, and it just doesn't make sense (at least to me) to write from an in-universe perspective. The first glitch in the Ocarina of Time glitches page seems to be directed towards the reader, so it seems obvious that merely omitting the word "you" from glitch articles will not stop them from sounding like walkthroughs, however I do agree that it should be omitted. I also dislike mention of the mysterious character known only as "The player" (if there is an occurence when it is necessary to refer to a singular case of gameplay I would use "a player". For an example see the superscript below the second example below); instead I prefer to refer to players (if it is necessary to mention them at all). If I was to rewrite the first glitch of the Ocarina of Time Glitches page (which, on an unrelated topic would seem better placed on a page with the "Glitches" part uncapitilised), it would go:
"To activate the "Bomb hover" glitch, players must first activate the "Infinite Sword" glitch, then move Link to a..."
Or even better:
"The "Bomb hover" glitch
is activated occurs [this is a glitch, remember] during the "Infinite Sword" glitch if Link is moved by a player* to a..."
*If I had to mention players here, this is how I would do it.
My points in a nutshell: Glitch pages should be written as an out of universe report on glitches in the software.
I am now going to walk my dog, so I will not be back for a while.--
17:40, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure this has been asked before, but I don't see an answer here, so...do we capitalize the first letter of words with their own pages? In a lot of cases this goes without saying, as many of the pages here are proper nouns (ex. Master Sword), but things get iffy when dealing w/ things that are normally common nouns (ex. arrows, bombs, bottle), but that seem to be considered proper nouns in the context of the game. If we capitalize those, do we take it all the way and capitalize...dog? sword? What about using the word milk to refer to Lon Lon Milk, or castle to refer to Hyrule Castle? I've been running into this more & more, & am just wondering how I should be handling it. Thanks! Knives182 (talk) 05:12, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
- I can't answer you for sure. I can think of many examples of both capitalizing and not capitalizing things like rupee, arrow, fairy, etc.. I think it might be best to just follow regular capitalization rules, seeing as people won't always realize if there's a page for things like dog, ladder, etc.. Also, some things will have new pages created for them later, and then we'd have to change all the capitalization on the rest of the pages to remain consistent. For example, there's been talk of a "Door" page, which would cover various kinds of doors and related mechanics. If that got made and we wanted to use caps for page names, suddenly we'd have a bunch of pages that need door to be capitalized. Also I think it just looks weird to capitalize things like that mid-sentence against normal language rules. If there is an existing standard though I don't know what it is.--FierceDeku 04:23, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
Can't say what should be the proper way to do it according to the games, but the way things are now, the prevailing standard seems to be that article subjects that have real-life counterparts of the exact same name which are not nouns are typically linked and written as such here, i.e. arrow, bomb. Typically, this does not apply to names with more than one syllable. --AuronKaizer! 06:41, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
- AK, did you mean "counterparts of the exact same name which are not [proper] nouns"? Basically, don't capitalize things like arrows or bombs, correct? As for names with more than one syllable...I don't think I understand. Arrow itself has two syllables, and I don't see why syllable count would matter...are you talking about compound nouns, ex. Fire Arrow, Magic Bean, empty bottle? Knives182 (talk) 07:04, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
Linking Weapons Pages
Should we be linking to the pages for sword, bow, etc. when referring to their use by an enemy? Looking through the pages for these weapons, it seems that they pretty clearly only cover weapons wielded by Link (with a few very high profile exceptions, like the Execution Sword), not generic weapons wielded by common enemies. As such, I would think we'd only want to link to these pages when talking about Link using them, but I wanted to check before I started changing it in bunch of pages. Knives182 (talk) 01:20, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
- So far as I know you are right; unless a page actually talks about the enemy using the weapon, we would not link to that page. It would give them no further information on that enemy.--FierceDeku 02:43, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
Theories Aren't Mentioned
Dontcha think there should be a section on not adding theories if they are not properly supported? I have gotten in trouble for that kinda stuff ALOT as of late, and i recieved adequate annoyance from it.Zeldas ganon (talk) 02:28, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- It should be common sense to not add theories with no supporting evidence whatsoever. Like complaining to everybody that disagrees with something you say, or failing to follow wiki standards when editing despite continual reversion of your edits, adding a theory without any support from the games is so fundamentally wrong that we shouldn't have to mention it. That being said, a theory policy might be worth making, but not in the Manual of Style. It would have to go under discussion in a forum. Which is here, since I know you're going to ask. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 02:40, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
Actually xykeb, i wasn't going to ask. if this was in the manual, i would not have gotten in trouble. besides that, i simply like to share my opinions. of course, it WAS wrong for me to put them on the wiki so many times, but it was hard for me to let go. now, i keep 'em to myself, but it should still be up there that : " Do not attempt to add random theories to mainspace. They will get deleted, and will usually harm your local reputation if you repeatedly repost." Just Sayin'.Zeldas ganon (talk) 03:00, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Like I said, it should be common sense. What got you in trouble was your own inability to grasp the fundamental concept of what a wiki is and should be. The Manual of Style is meant to educate people on the general style we adhere to when making articles. It's not a guide on everything you can or can't do. As I said, a theory policy is not a bad idea, but this is not the place for it. End of story. If you want to continue this conversation, start a forum, because it does not belong on this talk page. Xykeb Yvolix Zraliv 03:25, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
If you really want to post your theories and have them go under review still, Zelda Ganon, feel free to post them on the community on G+ called Zelda Theory. If you want a hyperlink, go to my profile and click on the hyperlink in my "About Me" section. Just remember that we might be a bit tough on you if the theory/theories aren't... backed by decent proof. Would that be worth suggesting as a general policy, Xykeb? ZeldaTheory (talk) 02:20, November 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Ah... I don't know how to tell you this, but Zeldas ganon left a while ago. And XYZ hasn't contributed since January. —Ceiling Master 03:01, November 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for telling me. Perhaps you can answer my question about making a general policy? ZeldaTheory (talk) 03:13, November 18, 2014 (UTC)
Separate articles for recurring characters
The current style does not seem to correspond with the idea of having different articles for the same recurring characters. Talon, for example, has all his appearances mentioned in each game.
But the style guide insists that they should each have separate articles per game. The example given seems to be the only one that actually follows that rule, while every other one just puts the different enemies/characters in different sections.
The excuse given in the page proper is that the way he is defeated is different, but that's true quite often of the same enemy in different games.
It seems that this is out of date and should be updated, and that the examples given here should be merged into one article.
trlkly 20:57, April 28, 2017 (UTC)
- The only thing wrong here is that the wording isn't clear. What it means is that two subjects with the same name but different functions (for example, a character and a mini-boss) should have seperate articles. Although, you are right that this hasn't seen an update in a while. Green Rupee 21:35, April 28, 2017 (UTC)