Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages/archive1

TFA blurb

The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages are two 2001 action-adventure games in The Legend of Zelda series, developed by Flagship (a subsidiary of Capcom) and published by Nintendo for the Game Boy Color. The player controls the protagonist Link from an overhead perspective as he collects various items hidden in dungeons and guarded by bosses. After experimenting with porting the original Legend of Zelda to the Game Boy Color, the Flagship team, supervised by Yoshiki Okamoto, began developing three interconnected Zelda games that could be played in any order; they later cancelled one of the games. Both Seasons and Ages were a critical success, and sold 3.96 million units each. Critics complimented the gameplay, colorful designs and graphic quality, but criticized the inconsistent sound quality. Both games were re-released on the Virtual Console of Nintendo 3DS in May 2013, and on the Nintendo Switch Online service in July 2023. (Full article...)

From the 2007 FAC nomination page

I've merged the articles. I apologize, Dwaipayan, your comment had not been written when I started working on the merge and I just noticed it. I do think that the article is better merged. One could argue that each Pokemon game is self-contained, but we have several articles that each cover a pair, and rightfully so. Pagrashtak 06:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I could use some help with the interlanguage links. Almost every other language has separate articles. I've dumped them all into the article, which gives two links on the side for those languages that have two articles; I'm not sure of the proper way to handle this. Pagrashtak 06:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• I like them merged together like this; it's more organized and shows the connections between the two games. I'm giving the article a pass right now. — Deckiller 13:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support THIS is what I'm talking about! We've now got a single, superb article. Great job, Pagrashtak. -- Kicking222 16:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Much appreciated. I probably should have been bolder and merged from the beginning, but I'm happy as long as we have a good end product. Pagrashtak 17:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Nah, you were bold in making this article / these articles so great in the first place, and the merged page is superb. Be proud, my friend. Be proud. -- 14:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support of course. Another great gaming article has been added to our collection. We are really becoming the number one source for succinct overviews of video games (we still need to work on getting rid of the crufty subarticles, but that'll come with time). — Deckiller 18:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support haven't played these Zeldas yet, but the article is great (good job with the merge). igordebraga ≠ 19:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment—spoiler warnings seem unnecessary, since the plot summary is in a section entitled "plot"...— Deckiller 20:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • But it still has some important events some readers wouldn't want to know, like the ending(s). How about renaming the plot section? Legedevin 21:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I also don't like the spoiler warnings. Why would we rename the Plot section? It's about the plot. Pagrashtak 00:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - If you're going to cite EGM (which is good), then could you provide a reference to the issue, as well as the score? EGM do a three-way cross review, so a singular score of 9.5/10 doesn't mean much. - hahnchen 22:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've added an indirect reference to Game Rankings, which lists a single (I would assume composite) score for the two. I'll see if I can find someone with the actual issue for a better reference. I know Thunderbrand had EGM, but he's not active at the moment, unfortunately. Pagrashtak 00:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• The pages were just split by an editor who believes this needs to be disscused more. The Placebo Effect 15:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm. The combined article does a fine job in explaining the games as both seperate and connected. Merging was a smart move; two seperate articles seem to be frowned upon by all the FAC regulars here. In the end, I'm not sure if a solo revert war will sink this nom because of the stability criterion. — Deckiller 16:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Hopefully we will come to consensus soon and stability will not be a concern after that. I wish this matter would have been brought up at peer review, but then peer review is broken and that's a whole other issue... I've pointed this page out to A Link to the Past, the reverting editor. Pagrashtak 18:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't think anyone else agrees with the revert besides him. — Deckiller 18:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm confused. Are you saying that two games which are completely different besides plot connection and gameplay mechanics should be merged? 100% different dungeons, several different equipments, etc. Just because development is the same does NOT mean that Oracle of Ages is less of a game than Final Fantasy VII is. I'll Vehemently oppose GA, A, or FA labelling of this article until it treats the two games as if they were their own separate games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
          • That would be fine, if our articles went into an in-depth discussion of the dungeons. They do not. The merged article makes it very clear that the games are separate and that the Rod of Seasons is in one game while the Harp of Ages is in the other. Do you propose to split Pokémon Red and Blue into two articles as well? Pagrashtak 18:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
            • ...You know, I sort of hoped you were above using the most idiotic, moronic argument ever - "if OoS/A are different games, so are Red and Blue!" Right. If you can show that Red and Blue have completely different worlds, plots, equipments, dungeons, bosses, characters, etc., then I'll concede. But I'll also have invented a crossbreed of a grapefruit and a baboon before then. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
              • I did not use Pokemon as my basis for merging. Having never played any Pokemon game, I wouldn't do that. I asked a legitimate side question and you turned it into an ad hominem attack. If you're going to continue in this manner, I would ask that you allow the articles to be merged and object to the FAC if you wish. Pagrashtak 18:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Watch the personal attacks, ALTTP. — Deckiller 18:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
                • Well, why did you merge? Because of similar gameplay? Well, if there are no objections, I'll go merge Link's Awakening.
                • Also, personal attack? I attacked his argument. An argument which, based on his later comment, was not well thought-out. So Deck, would you be interested in filling me in on why Ages and Seasons are not each as much of a game as Link's Awakening? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• It was in regard to the "you were above" part. I agree that the articles should be presented together. The development sections are the same, the gameplay is almost identical except for dungeons and a few items, the plots are interconnected, and the reception is quite similar for both games. Plus, we must look at the inverse: having two seperate articles would meen several redundant sections, and, as mentioned above, people are prefering the merged article because it shows the similarities and differences together in a neat package. Moreover, many of the differences are too trivial or crufty to mention on a featured-level article (I.E. having lists of equipment and minigames and dungeons). — Deckiller 18:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant. To compare it to Red/Blue is insane. Also, your comment about no one supporting a merge - someone objected to it earlier in the FAC, which you read. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You also forgot to note the different overworld and plot (whose connection is only made apparent late in the game). Regardless, the fact that they are completely different games is a very good reason to keep separate. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The user did not specifically support or object the nomination; s/he just posted a comment. But, as you said in your post, "irrelevant". Let's face the facts: splitting these articles into two slightly smaller ones just because they "deserve" it isn't the best thing to do. We strive to organize information the best way possible, and by combining these two articles, people can clearly see the unity among the two games, as well as their differences. It's about maximizing organization, not whether or not articles "deserve" to stand on their own. Besides, this article provides an encyclopedic treatment for both games, and the combined article is not even 30KB. — Deckiller 18:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) My argument is: in this specific case, the merged article eliminates redundancy and is better for its purpose. Your argument was: separate games should have separate articles. Note how neither of the statements reference Pokemon. I asked, on a side note, if you wished to divide Pokemon Red and Blue, because your argument seemed to indicate it. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have brought it up, but I legitimately wanted to know your feelings on it to gauge your position on the general issue. Pagrashtak 18:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • (ding) (edit conflict) The fact is that Both games have similar mechanics, reviews, game engine and the were released together as the same story. If you look at the separate articles, the flow very similaraly and read almost exactly the same. Since one game happens after the other, in either order, their is a valid reason to merge these. The development section describes the history of both games being made because they were worked on together. If that isn't grounds for combining the articles, then I don't know what is. The Placebo Effect 18:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, true. I mean, who cares that the only difference between Red and Blue are nine exclusive Pokémon for each version, while Ages and Seasons only have trivial details like for instance, if Seasons never existed, the changes made to Ages to conform to that would be minor at best.
      • Link's Awakening is redundant to these articles. Why shouldn't it be merged? No one seems willing to explain why the only non-trivial difference of LA from OoS/A is the plot. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Link's Awakening has a completely different development history, was released years earlier, has no plot connections to Ages and Seasons, and so on. These reasons are big ones, not just a different setting or a few different items. — Deckiller 18:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) Because both Oracle games share plot, characters, the ring system, password system, they were developed together, the fact this is one of the few times we KNOW it's the same Link. Both games together combine to tell a story and each game is just half that story. Link's Awakening has no sequels, their is no proof he is a Link from another game, and many characters are different. The Placebo Effect
          • (edit conflict, of course) This article consists of: Lead, Plot, Gameplay, Development, and Reception (not counting see also, refs, etc.) Of these five sections, four are the same across the articles. Development practically word-for-word, and in the others you just replace "Rod of Seasons" with "Harp of Ages" and so forth. The one section that is different, Plot, even contains shared text in the linked ending subsection. Heck, even the basic plot structure is the same: The Triforce transports Link to [Holodrum/Subrosia], where he witnesses the capture of the Oracle of [Seasons/Ages] in a dark forest. He goes to the Maku Tree and gathers the eight Essences of [Nature/Time] to create a huge maku seed. He uses the seed to enter [Onox/Veran]'s fortress and defeats [him/her]. These games were developed together, released together, and in many cases reviewed together. Why do we need two articles that read nearly identically when we have one unified (in my biased opinion, well-written) article that several editors feel is of featured status? Pagrashtak 19:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
            • The only argument against that would be if we started to list all the dungeons, items, bosses, etc (I.E. cruft that doesn't belong on Wikipedia). Or just that they "deserve" their own articles :) — Deckiller 19:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) based on your arguments, ALTTP, would you split this article? The Placebo Effect 19:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I think you typoed - see, Ages is a different game. Having an interconnected plot does not make it the same game. Ages doesn't delve into the plot of Seasons, it only delves into a part of its plot which Seasons shares. Ages has a very, very different plot, and just because it leads to the same result - a result which you do not even need to complete Ages - does not mean they're the same. So the plot section would be different, the gameplay section would be different (the game mechanics are the same, but the Harp of Ages and various other features are certainly different).
          • Oracle shares a handful of characters, and are interconnected. The characters include Link, Zelda, Impa, Ganon, Twinrova, Vire, Ring guy, Great Moblin, Farore, Din, Nayru, and the parents w/ their child. Both games were extremely successful, even by themselves, and to group them together degrades both of them as games.
          • Ages' plot has far more depth than Seasons'. Queen Ambi? There's also the fact that Ages is far more puzzle adventure-oriented, and the underwater area, and the Harp of Ages (which is NOT the exact same mechanic as the Rod of Seasons).
          • And no, I would not separate them because it would create two small articles. What you fail to note is that the list keeps them as separate combined lists, while this merge proposal combines the two games. In the case of equipment, new equipments added is notable because the mechanics are taken from another game. The Switch Hook, Magnetic Gloves, Mermaid Suit, etc. offer new puzzles and gameplay mechanics. Also, if I may add, even merged the article's gameplay isn't indepth enough for me to know enough about it if I hadn't already played it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Let's see... Holy Hello, no offense, but you didn't even mention the item equipping mechanics of this game? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Nope—I don't write cruft. Wikipedia describes games, not the mechanics of playing them. Pagrashtak 19:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Then the solution is to add a paragraph or two in the gameplay section highlighting your points. Although, as Pagra says, some of them may be too crufty. Also, WRT "degrading both of them as games", Wikipedia isn't supposed to act as a shrine to games. Consolidating the information isn't degrading it; it is providing it in a more organized manner. Heck, if anything, that's giving the games a better overall treatment. — Deckiller 19:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Since you think the primary game mechanic is cruft, should I remove any mention of how Elite Beat Agents is played? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
                • For the purposes of this discussion, let's talk about the Zelda Oracle games and leave Elite Beat Agents and Pokemon out of it. Pagrashtak 19:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • We are. I'm confused why the primary gameplay mechanic doesn't warrant even being mentioned when the primary game mechanic is always mentioned in other decent articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
                    • By cruft, I primarily meant mentioning what each item did and how it contributed to solving puzzles. — Deckiller 19:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
                      • I was referring to the mechanic of assigning equipment to A and B. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(deindent)That's only of use to the player. Wikipedia articles should in general avoid referencing specific buttons. You may want to read Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. Pagrashtak 19:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• So I presume you're aiming at making the first FA to not explain how it plays? Fun. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Fron the above guideline: "While saying that a character can jump, punch, and pound the ground is OK, explaining how to execute them using the controller is not." Thus, I explain what the Rod of Seasons does, but not how to equip it to the A button. Pagrashtak 19:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You use the "A-button" for the Rod of Seasons? I always used B. The Placebo Effect 19:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • What? So telling that all equipment can be equipped on A or B and that the sword and shield are on the same level as lower equipment, unlike the majority of Zelda games? Detailing that the Sword is unlike in most other Zelda games in that it is not above all other equipment is cruft now? Link's Awakening has the same mechanics and mentions this. Merge or no merge, I oppose because the gameplay section is not detailed enough. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Is Link's Awakening a FA? You can only use that as a comparison if it is as good quality or better. Oh, and by the way, Support. The Placebo Effect 19:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
      • If anyone bothers to explain the absolutely trivial inventory management functions in the game, I'm going to oppose, for needless game guide material. Some other editors have their priorities in the right place. - hahnchen 20:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Right, it's not essential to have any idea whatsoever of how the game plays, but we NEED to tell people about its history. We don't need to know the GAMEPLAY of the game, only the ideas of the game. Oppose until the absurd notion of "no one cares about bare bones basic game mechanics" is dropped, I'm not about to say that this is "an excellent example of a Wikipedia article". Will any of you explain why the most important gameplay mechanic in the game besides movement isn't even hinted at? We HAVE to know what the Rod of Seasons does, but we don't have to know the most important gameplay mechanic. If you're going to refuse its inclusion, can you do me a favor and tell me if Elite Beat Agents having an explanation of how it works is okay? Should we just up and eliminate the entire section describing the gameplay? Seriously, eventually, you'll all be telling everyone that you can't say that Mario jumps because that's guide content. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
          • At the risk of repeating myself, you can say Mario jumps. You can't say that the A button makes him jump. This is an issue you need to take up with WikiProject Video games if you disagree. (De-bolded your oppose for clarity, as you have a bolded oppose earlier.) Pagrashtak 20:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Wow, thanks! I needed a point completely irrelevant to this discussion. You mention that it uses the gameplay mechanics of Link's Awakening. What does the reader say? "Okay, so what the Hell are the mechanics like? I have no idea what that means because I have no idea what Link's Awakening is like!" In its current form, if the reader visited the article, they would get an idea. But apparently, if LA were featured, they would never understand what Link's Awakening's mechanics are. Apparently, it's good enough to mention that it uses LA's mechanics, but knowing what that even begins to mean is unnecessary, and the reader will figure it out on his or her own. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
              • here it clearly states the functions of both the Rod of Seasons, the Harp of Ages, and the link part of the game. if you bothered to read it before you reverted it, you might have seen that. The Placebo Effect 20:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
                • Please, before you tell anyone to read, learn to do so yourself. Can you explain to me where I said "Rod of Seasons and Harp of Ages and the linking aren't described"? No, I said the GAME MECHANICS AREN'T. Read, please. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • Please, don't raise your voice, I assumed that also qualified as "game mechanics". Just because we disagree doesn't mean we have to yell. The Placebo Effect 20:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
                    • What have I been talking about? I have not been talking about the Rod of Seasons, or the Harp of Ages, or linking, I've been talking about the mechanic that ALL of this has been built upon! Hell, the article is even factually incorrect, as it states that the sword is the "primary weapon", when this is only stated because it is so in many other games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
                      • I can provide a citation for that. I didn't think it was controversial enough to warrant one, or I would have done so already. Pagrashtak 20:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support as separate they are two distinct games with large differences in plot and dungeons- not clones, like Pokemon. David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 20:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • But we don't go into detail about the dungeons. Pagrashtak 20:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This is turning into a catch 22. Break out the steamroller; there is no way I'm watching another article get shot because of a tug-of-war match between the voters. — Deckiller 20:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • David, please read the above arguments. — Deckiller 20:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • We'll just have to leave the merged article at Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages, and we'll also have the separate articles at Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages, and that way I'll have turned out three featured articles, and we can make a featured topic out of it, to boot!</sarcasm> Pagrashtak 20:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Heh. Well, one side is going to have to get steamrolled. We had this situation with plot summaries last year, and we ended up steamrolling over a few of the opposers. Whichever side gets the least amount of support will have to get steamrolled. — Deckiller 20:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
        • For what it's worth, A Link to the Past told me on my user page that he has lost interest due to the non-inclusion of the mechanics of the game. Pagrashtak 20:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
          • David, is there anything you'd like to add? You're the only one who has recently brought up a disagreement to the merge that is still participating. — Deckiller 20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Just to clarify, I lost interest due to the non-inclusion of any reference to the core game mechanic that supports the entire game. And the fact that no one will explain why confusing the Hell out of everyone reading the article is the objective of Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Well? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
            • How is merging two nearly identical articles together "confusing the Hell out of Wikipedia"? Or do you mean not providing adequete coverage of the gameplay? If it's the latter, could you perform a rewrite of the gameplay to what you think it should be? It might help more in this situation if you participate in the editing of the article. — Deckiller 21:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support as separate for the same reasons David Fuchs listed above. I also have two recommendations.
  1. Discussion over the split should be moved back to one of the Oracle talk pages. Not only is it cluttering up this page, but it is unclear whether "Oppose" means that the article nomination is opposed or if the split is opposed.
  2. Stop badgering people after they've voted. They've already made a decision, and more likely than not, they are not going to change it. --Powerlord 20:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • 1. There is a difference between badgering and asking for the person to clarify, or responding that something they mentioned was already addressed above. FACs are a discussion, not a vote. Granted, the word "vote" is often used as a succinct way to describe someone's opinion. — Deckiller 20:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)