Talk:Satellaview games from The Legend of Zelda series

Split BS Zelda no Densetsu

Hi! The BS Zelda no Densetsu section is very long and meets all the criteria for a standalone article. It should be moved into BS Zelda no Densetsu. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't relative length a subjective determination? The article is longer than some pages certainly, but it is comparable in length to several Zelda-related articles Twilight Princess is currently 50839 bytes and Ocarina of Time is currently 58213 bytes long. This article obviously isn't one of the longest pages and it seems strange to declare it too long for Wikipedia. I know that there was a bit of discussion about the concept of merging them in a manner similar to the LCD games (currently 13,503 bytes) and the CD-i games (currently 36,012 bytes), and the two standalone articles that used to exist for the Satellaview games were recently both deleted (see deletion of BSZ and deletion of BSZ:InS). In general I'd be OK with a split, but I'd like to see a little discussion on the matter first. As far as I can see there are positives and negatives. On the plus side, we would have distinct articles on each distinct topic just like the rest of the articles at Wikipedia. On the negative side, it would reduce the potential to make comparisons and contrasts between the similar games and it would run against the convention established by the other spin-off titles (CD-i and LCD titles). -Thibbs (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Perhaps a good compromise would be to create new articles for BS Zelda no Densetsu and for BS Zelda no Densetsu: Inishie no Sekiban and to leave this article as a parent article that would discuss the two as a whole in summary fashion (i.e. we would reduce the subsections on the games to 1-2 paragraph blurbs and use {{main}} markup to direct readers to the main articles on the individual games). This would allow the retention of information covering the Kamigami no Triforce broadcasts and would help to keep things like the Zelda series template simple and easy to navigate. Even though I agree that there is enough detail to split the articles, as long as these titles are considered spin-off titles I can see a strong argument for keeping a merged article on them as well. -Thibbs (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it's been a month now and I haven't heard any more on the suggestion to spilt. I am still open to the idea in a general sense but the argument to keep the Satellaview titles merged for consistency with the CD-i titles and the LCD titles seems like it might be the best move for now. So at this point it seems best to remove the "split" tag with the understanding that this issue could be revisited in the future should consensus change. -Thibbs (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm revisiting this idea of a split more and more recently (especially in light of the often doubled interlanguage links), however there are a few problems that I keep running into.

1 - I can see the two games, BS Zelda (and MAP2) and Inishie no Sekiban working as standalone articles, but I notice that Inishie no Sekiban still doesn't have its "Development" subsection filled in. I'm not familiar enough with WP:VG's rules on the requirements of a standalone video game article to be certain that it would qualify in this state. So that leaves us with splitting out only BS Zelda (and MAP2) which would then give the article a greatly lopsided look and feel. I would argue that if we were to split out BS Zelda then we should only do so if Inishie no Sekiban were also split out.

2 - The best way I can see to do such a thing would be to keep the subsection ledes currently in use for the individual games' subsections and to use {{main}} templates in place of the rest of the information and then to insert the rest of the info (i.e. Plot, Gameplay, Development, Broadcast dates, Reception and legacy, and Emulation) into here and here respectively. The second one just linked (improperly titled as "Kodai no Sekiban") should have its name changed for obvious reasons. The problem with this is that the individual games' ledes would be identical to those remaining in this article and thus a little repetitive. Perhaps they could simply be reworded.

3 - If we were to split the article, I still think that a shorter merged version would be appropriate since the games are widely understood (incorrectly) in fan sites online as a single game called "BS Zelda." This would also be the most appropriate place to retain the subsection on the Kamigami no Triforce port which is topically relevant and which is also often mis-titled as "BS Zelda: Triforce of the Gods" on fan sites. My worry with this, however, is that some well-meaning editor would try to simply reduce the merged article to a dab page and shift the material on the ''Kamigami no Triforce port to the ALttP article. I think that such a move would have the effect of scattering the information on these games which, like the CD-i titles, are really only properly understood as a whole.

On the other hand, I'm not sure what the downside is for keeping the article merged anyway. It's true that it's a little lengthy but nothing too ridiculous (e.g. it's currently still within 2000 bytes of OoT). Anyway please let me know if anyone has any thoughts on this matter. -Thibbs (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Emulation section for Inishie no Sekiban

Recently there have been a number of alterations to this portion of the article and I would like to explain why I believe the wording that is currently in place is misleading. The original version of the line that keeps being altered was:

• 1)"A full 4-week version currently exists, however..."

This was altered to:

• 2)"All 4 weeks are curently dumped and playable, however..."

Under the rationale that the term "all 4 weeks" was misleading (as it implied that the game only had 4 different weeks in total when in fact each series of 4-week broadcasts were different due to the position of the mole) the statement was then altered to:

• 3)"A completed 4-week version is currently dumped and playable, however..."

And later:

• 4)"A 4-week version has been completed from dumped material and is currently playable, however..."

Under the rationale that the 4 separate weeks have not been combined into one large ROM file, this was finally altered to the current:

• 5)"All four weeks from one of the runs has been dumped and is currently playable, however..."

The problem with this statement is that it implies that the 4 separate weeks that are currently used to play through the game via emulation are known to be from the same run. I am unable to locate any reliable sources that back this idea up, and due to the nature of the dumping process the claim is somewhat dubious. I have now tagged this line (i.e. "from one of the runs") as needing sources for reference on this point. If no sources can be found then I would suggest the following compromise:

• 6)"A 4-week version has been completed from dumped material and is currently playable as four separate ROMs, however..."

This way there can be no confusion about the fact that the 4-week version that is currently played does not take the form of one giant combined ROM and at the same time we avoid making the dubious claim that the 4 weeks all come originally from the same run. Does this sound reasonable? -Thibbs (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it's been a week now and I haven't seen any citation emerge in support of the idea that the 4 episodes all actually came from the same week. As such I have altered the article to the compromise version mentioned above as #6. -Thibbs (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)