Talk:Characters in The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages

Ricky = her?

The article currently refers to Ricky as female. I find this somewhat unusual as Ricky sounds like a male name, though none of the games specifically refer to Ricky's sex. What to do here? Bhamv 16:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this too...though you can't really tell in the game . in the manga Ricky is obviously a guy . The reason i think why the writer refer to Ricky as "her" is i think because of the fact that male Kangaroos don't have pouches... silver777 22:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Double Redirects

There's several double redirects for this article. Someone needs to edit them. Legedevin 22:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Onox.gif

Image:Onox.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Moblin the Great Moblin.jpg

Image:Moblin the Great Moblin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Oos.JPG

The image Image:Oos.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Usefulness?

This list doesn't seem to add much beyond what the plot of the Oracle games provides. There are no references, and I doubt any secondary sources will be turned up to provide out-of-universe information. Unless someone can address these problems, I propose to redirect this list to The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages. Pagrashtak 19:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There are secondary sources.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

A Google search is not a secondary source. I took a look at the top link of that search—it's two paragraphs, with nothing of use for this article. The second link is a repeat of the first. The only thing about the characters in the third link is "Here, you must learn to interact with many non-playable characters and obtain clues..." Again, nothing useful for this article. The fourth link is a two-paragraph long preview of the game. It mentions the three animal characters, but only their names and animal type. That sparse information would be better sourced to the game itself. If you have actual sources, great, but it's going to take more than a five-second Google search to turn up material for this article. Pagrashtak 14:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Ricky is a kangaroo that can jump tall obstacles and punch with his strong arms. Dimitri the dodongo can swim through deep water and munch on enemies. Finally, Moosh the flying bear can, pardoning the pun, bear you across large holes in the ground."

"The Zelda universe is also fleshed out a bit by the addition of Subrosia, the subterranean world into which the Temple of Seasons has been cast. Link will have to deal with the quirky, hooded Subrosians to fully complete his quest. It's nice to see a few new faces mixed in with the classic Zelda milieu."

"You also meet varied characters in each, many of them with royal positions. Each game also has a Maku tree, which can serve as a valuable guide, but one is a girl with eyelashes and the other a boy."

On just a GoogleNews search, much more limited for sources than we usually do, we got three paragraphs about the characters in the games. I'd say that's enough to continue pursuing the subject, and not write it off as "Secondary sources don't exist". They almost always do.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between hugely useful secondary sources, and secondary sources themselves. As far as the Notability guidelines explain it, if there's secondary sources at all, it can be considered notable. Especially since the only actual policies are that the info be verifiable and reliable (which first party sources can even do, in this situation). I think we're fine.

I never said "Secondary sources don't exist". This isn't going to be a very productive conversation if you're going to misrepresent my position. I never even said that this article doesn't meet notability. I did put a tag saying that the article may not meet the notability guideline, and explained in my edit summary that this article needs to have sources added to demonstrate notability. That much can't be argued. On a tangent, you seem to be under the impression that first-party sources alone are all that are required to meet policy, since notability is a guideline. That's not true. It's policy that "[i]f no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." But that's a separate issue, as I never claimed that no third-party sources could be found for this article.

Anyways, regarding your three paragraphs— 1: Does not provide anything useful that the games do not. 2: Barely any substance, better suited to fit in the "Reception" section of the game (or games, I guess) article than a character article. 3: Does not provide anything useful that the games do not. Pagrashtak 20:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"and I doubt any secondary sources will be turned up to provide out-of-universe information."

If you didn't intend for this to mean that you don't think there are secondary sources, what did you mean? It's kind of odd to claim I'm misinterpreting you when your claim and its context seem to be so clear.

...I never said that first party sources will meet notability. That's specifically the opposite of what I said - that it needs finite secondary sources to provide notability, but that first-party sources can do the fact-checking - which is obvious. Who else but the first party is going to be able to give information on the designing of the characters? You even seem to agree with this later in your reply - that the second-party sources provide no more info than the first can.

I submit that, regardless if the references duplicate first-party information (which is, let me be frank, a ridiculous reason to say they're useless - what the hell are they supposed to be reporting on?), there are clearly reliable (as in, they're info is clearly accurate to what the game presents), third-party (these surely aren't written by Nintendo) sources. So, the V policy doesn't seem to have a problem with this. AT ALL.

As said earlier - who the hell cares if it duplicates first-party info? I'm pretty sure notability is about whether it's been deemed notable enough to report on, not whether or not journalists have discovered secret info that the creators were hiding from the audience.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be taking a defensive tone, and I'm not sure why. First of all, you said above, "and not write it off as 'Secondary sources don't exist'". When you use quotation marks, you indicate that you are giving a quotation (hence the name!), which you were not. If you're going to paraphrase someone, don't make it look like you're giving their words verbatim. The main problem is that you left out the last half of what I was saying: "I doubt any secondary sources will be turned up to provide out-of-universe information". Yes, if a third-party ref only gives you information that is easily sourced to a first-party ref (e.g., this game has a character named Link) then it is of no use for developing this article. Please tell me what use they are, because I don't see any.

Again, you misrepresent, or misunderstand me when you reply "I never said that first party sources will meet notability." I never claimed that you did. Pagrashtak 14:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

...if I was directly quoting you, I would have used the quote box, or a ref. Using quotation marks without separateing them from the text rarely implies that you are quoting someone verbatim in written text, and is used quite frequently to seperate ideas, like I did.

....and I replied to that claim - how the heck are secondary sources going to provide development info? Reception info, yes, they provide, as they cast judgments on them. Development info, only the first party can provide.

Then virtually all fiction articles should be reduced to reception info, because we're not supposed to have unsourced info, and there would be "too much first party sources" if we used those only for synopsis, development info, etc.

As I mentioned earlier, I fail to see anywhere in the notability guidelines where it specifically says that secondary sources can't be used to summarize the material, which is what you seem to be asking.

"On a tangent, you seem to be under the impression that first-party sources alone are all that are required to meet policy, since notability is a guideline. That's not true. It's policy that "[i]f no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.""

This is exactly what I was replying too - that you explicitly claimed that I was saying that first-party sources alone could meet notability, and I was saying, no, my claim was that first-party sources can be used to fact-check most of the article, as you can see here:

"Especially since the only actual policies are that the info be verifiable and reliable (which first party sources can even do, in this situation)".

In this situation, as you seem to have admitted, the first-party sources can be used to verify the factuality of the material in the article, but not necessarily whether it is notable (i.e., whether it has been deemed important enough to cover in secondary sources). This is what I've said from near the beginning - and I've reiterated it each time you try to interpret it differently.

I think it's quite clear why I could possibly be taking a defensive tone - you constantly misstate my position and imply that I am being dishonest, though I constantly re-clarify it.

To summarize my claims, so that you can't do this again:

1. Reliable, verifiable secondary coverage for the subject of this article exists, thus verifying that it is possible to assert notability for this article.
2. These sources do not necessarily have to be about "real-world info" to satisfy notability, even if they do in fact have real-world info.
3. Primary coverage (Nintendo, the games, and guides) can be used to fact-check synopsis info that can't be sourced to secondary sources, and nothing in the notability guideline says that this is unacceptable.

Yes, development and reception info probably need to be included for this article to be considered worthy of inclusion. I never argued against that. However, there are some secondary sources, and they are acceptable for use in this article.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I misunderstood what you were saying. When you said, "the only actual policies are that the info be verifiable and reliable (which first party sources can even do, in this situation)", I took that to mean that, in your opinion, first-party sources alone were sufficient for satisfying the policies of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If that's not what you meant, then sorry. Pagrashtak 20:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

In return, sorry for getting so high-strung.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 11:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it—let's start over. I think my putting the notability tag on the article may have confused things—it was meant to be more of a indication that the article doesn't assert notability in its current form. I want to leave the notability issue on the side for now, if we could. My main concerns with this article are that it consists of plot points and has very little out-of-universe information. I would like to see this improved. If it turns out that there isn't enough material to supply the improvement, then I think redirecting the article would be the appropriate choice. Pagrashtak 13:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

So, do you think there is enough material to create development and reception information, or should we consider redirecting? Pagrashtak 18:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Any more thoughts about this? Pagrashtak 15:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there's enough for something, and if it had to be merged somewhere, I'd rather there be some kind of "Notable characters in TLoZ series".Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Like Recurring characters in The Legend of Zelda series? Pagrashtak 16:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, except that not all important characters are recurring, and not all recurring characters are important.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as not all important characters are notable. So—are there any characters that are important, notable, but not recurring? If not, we should be able to merge within existing articles. If there are, we'll need to consider other options. Pagrashtak 21:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Bosses ≠ Insignificant

How can we have this page without covering the main plot-driving characters Onox and Veran? Doesn't seem much point without that. Pictures of them would be nice too. Why not just take whatever we want to use from http://www.zeldawiki.org/Onox and http://www.zeldawiki.org/Veran ? D.I. (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)