Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom

Shouldn't this draft (and possibly later article) be called Sequel to The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild or Untitled The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild Sequel? Calling it The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild 2 implies that it's the final title, which hasn't been confirmed. Icedmorning (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Icedmorning: Agreed. I'm in favor of Sequel to The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, as that's the language used by Nintendo. —zziccardi (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine with either title. But "Breath of the Wild 2" is the most commonly used title by the media (and fans) and since this is still a draft, it wouldn't be a big deal to keep the title for now. enjoyer -- talk 00:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

However, if this draft is moved to mainspace, the title should be Untitled The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild sequel following Wikipedia's convention. enjoyer -- talk 01:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

No clue, but IGN reports that there is a title, and it's kept secret. SWinxy (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps we could currently call the article itself "Untitled Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild Sequel", and in the bio/first paragraph refer to it as such: "The untitled sequel to Breath of the Wild (known as Sequel to Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild in early promotion) is an upcoming…”

This may be too verbose, however. Mia Clifford (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Mia Clifford, the current opening paragraph is perfectly fine. "Sequel to" is just how Nintendo call it, don't treat it as an actual name. enjoyer -- talk 03:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

My bad! I was referring to how Nintendo referred to it in its Youtube trailer’s description—with a capital Sequel, effectively treating it as a jagged, strange title. However, in hindsight, it may come off as confusing and unprofessional in a wiki article. Mia Clifford (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

A title will be a same logo as Breath of the Wild 2 or a different logo as official announcement by Nintendo Direct/E3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.143.194 (talk) 05:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

No title has been announced yet. That's why it's at the current title. Sergecross73 msg me 06:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

In regards to this addition:

1. Fans wanting a game despite delays is not noteworthy. That's how fans generally treat all games they're looking forward to.
2. Some Redditor creating fan art is 1) fundamentally not reception and 2) not worth mentioning on this page.

Please stop re-adding this. Sergecross73 msg me 02:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Sergecross73, I don't understand how saying that it is anticipated is not reception, but having a table of awards--all of which are "most anticipated game"--is. If you don't think that it is not worth mentioning, then remove either "despite the delays" or the awards table, because I see those two things as the same. As I've said in this edit, fans of games liking a new one in the franchise is not a given, nor are the reactions to delays. If you still think that anticipation is not noteworthy to mention, then remove the awards. You could also have moved or renamed the section instead of reverting if you thought it didn't belong as reception.

Making a piece of fan art is not the same as making a series of artworks. In this case, a significant amount was created for the sequel, and in a frequent occurrence to have an article written on it. If it's not reception, then move it. Please don't call my addition "questionable" or say that I am "re-adding" when what I did was revert your revert (which is not against policy), and don't say I should follow WP:BRD when a) my revision wasn't bold; and b) BRD isn't policy. SWinxy (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's great that you're using sources. Your additions aren't against policy in that respect. But having a source doesn't guarantee inclusion. It's your judgements calls in adding this content that I call questionable. Adding some redditor doing fan art in the reception section is a bad call no matter how you look at it. It's not reception. Reception is reviews or writers writing retrospectives making judgement calls about the merits of a subject. Not fans making art. And Zelda is a massively popular franchise. Millions upon millions of sales and some of the most positive critical acclaim of all time for video games. So forgive me for thinking that something like "fans are excited for the game (Gamerant source)" is a mundane comment. Sergecross73 msg me 03:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Untitled ''The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild'' sequel and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 27#Untitled ''The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild'' sequel until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Neocorelight (Talk) 02:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Untitled The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild sequel and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 13#Untitled The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild sequel until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ebbedlila (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Popcornfud: Don't want to start an edit war over something silly 😊, but I do want to advocate a bit more to include: It was colloquially referred to as "the Breath of the Wild sequel" or "Breath of the Wild 2" until its official subtitle, Tears of the Kingdom, was announced in September 2022. I don't think this is WP:DUH -- this was effectively the working title in marketing [1][2], online, and in publications for around 2 years (!) so it's important context for the Development and marketing section (though certainly not the lead).

This wasn't marketed as "Untitled Legend of Zelda game" or something, but specifically as a "Breath of the Wild sequel" — subtle but noteworthy difference that's not explicitly communicated in the official title. (Makes me wonder... was Majora's Mask marketed as a "Untitled Ocarina of Time sequel"? That would be interesting, if so...) Also worth noting it's wording based on a quote from the WaPo. Cheers, SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Fully agreed. As I said in my edit summary, it's been referred to as variants of a Breath of the Wild "2" or "sequel" for the last 3+ years, and it got its final name mere hours ago. We write for general audiences - not everyone has their eyes glued to the Nintendo Direct news cycle. It's going to take some time for people to understand the name has changed. Will it be necessary in 2026 when the games has sold 20 million copies under the Tears of the Kingdom name? Probably not. But does it need it for recognizability right now and short-term? Absolutely. Sergecross73 msg me 18:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Is it particularly enclyclopedic to include the fact it was informally referred to as "Breath of the wild sequel"? What does this add, exactly? It was never an official name, or even a working name - it was simply an informal term that's so obvious in what it is, it doesn't really need to be stated. If it had a more distinct name (like how the Wii was originally the Revolution, for example) I could see the point. It's not like Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan says that it was referred to as "Star Trek Sequel", even though it probably was before it was given its name. — Czello 18:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

It received coverage for years under those sorts of names. Nintendo uses variants of it on its official release schedules too. Simple Google searches show it. We're not talking about silly pet names by the fanbase or something. I'm generally opposed to including that sort of stuff. We're talking about what the entire industry, Nintendo included, called it for years. Sergecross73 msg me 18:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

But the name wasn't used as some kind of working title, it was purely descriptive. I'm not surprised Google searches show it - what else would people search for? We don't normally say that a sequel to X was referred to as "X sequel" until its title was actually revealed. — Czello 21:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the inclusion of it. Contrary, I do believe it is encyclopedic to elaborate on as part of its marketing. SWinxy (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter how many sources used this term, because it goes without saying that it was used. The untitled sequel to Breath of the Wild was referred to as "the Breath of the Wild sequel" before its title was announced? I'm sorry, but that has WP:DUH all over it. Popcornfud (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

It may not matter how many sources refer to it, but it should be added if sources talk about how it was "formally known as x" even if x may be intuitive to you (WaPo makes this explicit, I can look around to see if other cites do this). FWIW I don't think this is a discussion around WP:COMMONNAME, but about WP:DUE. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 19:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

And recognizability. They're writing entire articles about it. It doesn't hurt to have a single sentence alluding to it. It's such a basic, minor thing. I can't believe I'm getting pushback on it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

If Nintendo referred to it as "Breath of the Wild 2" earlier in development — because that's an actual working title, not just a descriptive compound noun — then I don't object to mentioning that in the body of the article. In either case it doesn't belong in the lead because it's not very important ("a minor thing" as you say there). Any permutation of the sentiment "the Breath of the Wild sequel was previously known as the Breath of the Wild sequel" is totally surplus to any reader's requirements, though. Popcornfud (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Agree. It doesn't seem particularly notable to state that the Breath of the Wild sequel was in fact referred to as the Breath of the Wild sequel before it had a name. — Czello 21:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I think I feel convinced by this argument at this point, mostly because Nintendo never used the title "Breath of the Wild 2". We already have The first teaser trailer was released in the E3 2019 Nintendo Direct, announcing the game as an untitled sequel to Breath of the Wild which I suppose covers this aspect well enough. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 21:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Exactly — the article already tells the story in its entirety. It's the sequel to Breath of the Wild, it didn't have a title for a while, and then it had the title Tears of the Kingdom. That covers it, doesn't it? Popcornfud (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Okay sorry to bring this back up, but now we have coverage from Kotaku [3], TechRadar [4], ScreenRant [5] and a few others since the title announcement still calling it BoTW 2. I understand it may be "obvious" to some but it's at least WP:DUE to note that some people are still calling the game BoTW 2 despite the new official title. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'd recommend: The game was announced at E3 2019 as a sequel to Breath of the Wild with some outlets using the colloquial title, "Breath of the Wild 2".

Yes, this seems a reasonable compromise. — Czello 18:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I support it as well. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

If it's a commonly used alternative name then you could make an argument to put in the first sentence as a disambiguating element, eg "also known as Breath of the Wild 2". I wouldn't buy that - but it sounds like that isn't the proposal above.

Instead it sounds like we just really want to record that this name is used like it's a notable fact in itself.

Is it? Do we have a secondary source that reports that outlets are using this title (thereby indicating its notability as a fact) or are we just recording the writing choices of these websites for some reason? Popcornfud (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Kotaku source above identifies exactly why I've been pushing for a mention of sorts.

Heck, far more people have discovered Kotaku’s coverage of the sequel by searching Google for “BOTW” than anything mentioning tears or kingdoms. People are going to be so slow to turn on this!

It takes more than an announcement to keep people from recognizing it from the colloquial name that has been used for years prior. Sergecross73 msg me 18:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

OK that Kotaku source scratches the itch for me - worth mentioning in the article. (In fact I'd spell out what Kotaku reports there to indicate to the reader why this name is significant.) Popcornfud (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yeah the Kotaku one is what raised it back for me. I added in my proposed wording [6] as it seems like we have consensus but it's a good point to add more ^[why?]. Popcornfud any thoughts on wording for that? SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 19:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I added it to the article, but didn't spend a great deal of time on it. There's probably a better way of phrasing it so we can iterate from there if anyone has any better ideas. (I'm traveling and not giving Wikipedia my full attention right now...) Popcornfud (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Think it's important to note the difference between "tears", crying, and "tears", rips? There's been some discussion and Nintendo confirmed it's the crying one. Legowerewolf (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I believe it's just meant to be a play on words of both meanings. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 10:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think it's "Tears". — Czello 16:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

If Nintendo isn't particularly concerned about confusion on the name (they came up with it if their own accord) the. I'm not sure it's worth us clarifying it.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I always read it at tears; it never occurred to me that it might also refer to or be pronounced as tears. - Aoidh (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

The katakana ティアーズ (Tiāzu) in the Japanese title and logo[7] makes it pretty unambiguous that it's tears as in crying. TheHumanIntersect (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think it will be tears, as in rips, bcuz the kingdom of hyrule is legit breaking up and tearing itself apart, creating floating islands.

oh, and about the islands, why did the trees up there suddenly turn yellow, if they came off of the ground where all the trees are green? 74.51.31.110 (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Like they said the Katakana makes it very clear that its the liquid tears, not the tears like paper. Also remember this is a place for discussion about the article itself, not the subject matter. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 18:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Per the above. Although the other tears would make sense based on what the IP said if that is a main aspect of the game. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I will put the retail price of tears of the kingdom Senorleroy (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Lightoil (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

See also WP:PRICE. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Per PRICE itself though, it's fair game to include when there's out-of-the-ordinary third party coverage on it, which there almost certain is, since it's their first $70 Switch game. I'm indifferent on adding it, just saying there could be a valid argument for it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

"since it's their first $70 Switch game" whose? Also, I don't really see how that would be enough to warrant including the price. There have been plenty of first $X prices for companies because that's just how these things work. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Nintendo's, and it very obviously elicited a lot of dedicated coverage. This is exactly the type of exception the PRICE you cited yourself is talking about, if I have to break it down for you... Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hm, well I guess its fine if it gets a lot of coverage, so long as the sources don't essentially just say "Nintendo is going to sell TotK for $70, which is more than they usually sell games for.", but that's just me personally. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

And that's totally fine. Like I said, I'm pretty indifferent myself, I was just showing there was a valid path to inclusion. Honestly, at this point, if it is included, it may be better to mention it in the context of reception too, depending on if reviewers address it. (Stuff like "(Publication(s)) felt the game (was/wasn't) worth the higher than usual $70 price tag." or something. Sergecross73 msg me 17:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

How should we talk about the leaks? There seems to be conflicting decisions being made by people reverting edits. Rossilaz (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

There's not much to say other than "(Source) reported that the game leaked." There's plenty of previews available for expanding the gameplay section, and I'm sure reviews will be out soon for the reception section - the game is out in 9 days and games that get positive reviews always have reviews come out in advance of release. Is there a particular conflict you're referring to? Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't we be commenting on the story, now that it's been leaked? MightyWeirdo (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi MightyWeirdo, welcome to Wikipedia! We don't actually comment on anything, it's what reliable sources say about a subject matter. If you mean that it should have a plot description, than we can use the game as a source. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I meant that it should have a plot description. If there's any policy regarding leaks, don't doubt on telling me. However, does the subreddit of the game count as an RS, for the purposes of a plot summary? There have been gameplay and story screenshots posted there. Thanks again. MightyWeirdo (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

We can't use subreddit as a reliable source because it is user generated content. It's only seven days until the game is released so let's just wait until the official release date. Fieryninja (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yup, correct. See the section directly above this too. Sergecross73 msg me 11:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good to me. Thank you for your help. MightyWeirdo (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

The game is now out worldwide. This article is desperately overdue for a Gameplay section, as the core/added gameplay features have been covered in a litany of reliable, third-party sources for several months now. — CR4ZE (T • C) 16:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

You're not wrong...but it's not like that was an oversight or something - it's just that one's written one yet. Go for it! Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'd love to if time allowed. I'm normally up for taking the plunge, but life unfortunately keeps me from here far more than I'd like it to. Happy to swing past and help out where I can, but I'll leave it just for now in the hands of the very capable editors who've already maintained the page so diligently. — CR4ZE (T • C) 17:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I started by moving the new abilities in the dev section over there. I'm sure by this time next week it will be in decent shape. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

There may be incorrect grammar in the articles lead, before the infobox. It states that "Link, the game's protagonist, is joined by Princess Zelda to defeat by a malevolent force seeking to destroy Hyrule." The 'by' in this sentence is not needed, grammatically incorrect and, if others agree, then it should be removed

83.177.155.88 (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Done Popcornfud (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

As this has been contested by one or two users, can we get a consensus on whether we should be referring to the game's reception in the lead as "universal critical acclaim". Firstly, this kind of wording is rarely ever used now in articles, not least because it's overkill when only either "universal" or "critical" is necessary. Some also contest the fact that, despite attributing it to Metacritic directly, the wording of "universal" implies that the game received complete acclaim from all reviews involved, when this might not be the case. Otherwise, the existing wording can just feel like an attempt to make the game's reception sound lofty and noteworthy. I link to a previous talk page discussing the use of this phrasing here [[8]], and ping @Sergecross73:, @Soetermans:, and @Popcornfud:. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Avoid. It's just hyperbolic — just "acclaim" (not even "critical acclaim") covers all we need to say about the critical consensus. Popcornfud (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Avoid. I'm generally opposed to "universal acclaim" unless it's done in the context of direct-quoting Metacritic. Otherwise, we don't need any of these extraneous descriptors like "widespread" or "universal". It's redundant - "acclaim" itself already infers common praise by definition. Sergecross73 msg me 23:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't there be some indication of how much acclaim it received? A positive reception of say, an 88 on Metacritic is also acclaim; TotK has a 96 score, and is considered universal by Metacritic. The lead is a summation of the article, can't we spare a word to give some flavor to it? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't say it's necessary. "Acclaim" means "a lot of critics really liked it" which I think covers it. I don't think the difference between a Metacritic score of 88 and 96 is very important for us — that kind of gets into the realm of hyped-up nerds comparing scores on forums. Popcornfud (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

No, acclaim is already as strong as it really needs to be. Much like "very good" is sufficient, and "really very good" is redundant. MC doesn't differentiate between "acclaim" and "universal acclaim" either, right? Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Even "very" is debatable... "Substitute 'damn' every time you're inclined to write 'very;' your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be." — Mark Twain Popcornfud (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've changed the wording. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is no section for this video game’s story. I think that many people trying to research it will turn to this website and get nothing about the story. 80.95.198.190 (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Not done - You're correct in saying it needs to be done, but you're not doing an "edit request" correctly. Edit requests are for someone to make a specific edit on your request. So, for example, if you wanted a story section, you'd write out your version of a story section here on the talk page, and someone would add that for you. Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

There have been many edits going back and forth about comparing the game to its predecessor. Since it is a direct sequel, I am in favor of it PhummyLW (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

No, the article as well as the game stands on its own. We do not unnecessarily make comparisons to its immediate predecessor, nor to Ocarina of Time, A Link to the Past or any other Zelda game. The lead is the summation of the article, the reception of Tears of the Kingdom in regards to Breath of the Wild is only mentioned a couple of times. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

alright but we shouldn’t be directly opposed to comparing something that for the longest time was called the sequel to breath of the wild PhummyLW (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I mean, I'll have to agree with PhummyLW: the game was referred to as "Sequel to Breath of the Wild" for the longest time, and its gameplay is very similar to BOTW (akin to how Majora's Mask's gameplay is very similar to OoT), so some comparison could fit in (but not to a point where every line refers to BOTW, of course). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Because it's the direct sequel we should compare its reception? I think that's WP:SYNTHy behavior and just unnecessary. Majora's Mask doesn't compare its reception with Ocarina of Time either. Or BioShock 2 against BioShock. Red Dead Redemption 2 against Red Dead Redemption. Grand Theft Auto V against Grand Theft Auto IV. Tomb Raider III against Tomb Raider II. Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain against Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes. Unless there are several reliable sources to go in-depth between the reception of the two games (which I doubt, 'hey look, these two games by a beloved franchise are both critically acclaimed, weird!'), it shouldn't be mentioned in the article at all, let alone in the lead. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I mean, is it not something that reviewers are discussing though? Or even just years of previews mentioning it over the years? It shouldn't be written as a compare/contrast essay or anything, but it feels like it could at least be touched on if done right. Sergecross73 msg me 12:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

From what I see, most reviewers compare the game to Breath of the Wild (favorably). If anything it would be inaccurate to not mention the comparisons. Obviously we would not use Wikipedia's voice, but something like:

John Smith, in his review for Generic Gaming Guide, favorably compared Tears of the Kingdom to Breath of the Wild, citing the map expansion and added gameplay mechanics as features that allowed Tears of the Kingdom to not simply feel like a rehash.

Would certainly be notable. With proper citations, of course. Juxlos (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I specifically mean that in the lead there's no reason to compare the two. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

In the relevant sentence of the lead, if enough reviewers mention it, then it would be fair. Something like "received acclaim and its additions drew favorable comparisons with its predecessor" would be fine. There are no rules against it. Juxlos (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm in favour of having a paragraph (or at least some sentences) in the Reception section on the similarity of the game to BotW. It's obvious to anyone whose's played TotK just how similar the game is to BotW, and there has been large variance among critics about which parts that were similar were good to keep versus bad to keep, but none of these views are currently in the Reception section. It currently just focuses on the additions and the frame rate. Neuroxic (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Change initial release to release; game is out everywhere. Mr51000 (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why don't you use aggregator OpenCritic too in the reception sections? https://opencritic.com/game/14343/the-legend-of-zelda-tears-of-the-kingdom 151.44.58.25 (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

There have been multiple community discussions on OpenCritic, and neither time has resulted in a consensus to include it on Wikipedia video game articles in general. Sergecross73 msg me 20:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn't be time to restart discussing about it? I mean, look even at this article, it's clear OpenCritic has become relevant: https://culturedvultures.com/the-legend-of-zelda-tears-of-the-kingdom-reviews-metacritic-opencritic/ 151.38.77.188 (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

You're free to start one up at the video games Wikiproject, but that source pretty much highlights a lot of people's lack of motivation to include it - it doesn't really offer any additional insight beyond Metacritic. It's pretty rare that one provides a meaningfully different aggregate score from one another. Sergecross73 msg me 02:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do you have newer numbers regarding global sales? The latest information on this article refering to 10 million sold copies within three days of its release is now already three weeks old. 62.226.94.95 (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo only released the numbers monthly. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to add one if you found one, but Nintendo is only guaranteed to release quarterly sales numbers - the next one will probably be sales by June 30, and that’ll come out sometime in July or early August. Assuming they don’t tweet saying they sold 20 million that is. Juxlos (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

When they release updated sales, you'll know. All the video game websites report on it when it's big games with impressive sales. Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't "gloom" be capitalized? It isn't actually gloom, and it's capitalized in both the game and most media relating to it. 104.187.66.104 (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

To the gameplay part: add a part describing the addition of caves and wells, Bubbulfrogs and their gems due to their frequency and importance in certain major quests 193.200.82.62 (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I want to change "action-adventure" to "open world action-adventure" Milovarki (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Not done Open world is mentioned literally in the sentence directly after it already. Sergecross73 msg me 14:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

• https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2023/08/zelda-tears-of-the-kingdom-has-reportedly-helped-boost-japans-gdp Sergecross73 msg me 23:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The source for this: "Development of Tears of the Kingdom started in 2017 after Breath of the Wild was completed. Initially, new ideas were thought of for DLC but eventually it evolved into a new game when too many were gathered.[7][page needed]"

Should be this: "https://kotaku.com/breath-of-the-wild-is-getting-a-sequel-because-the-team-1835624233"

From the article: "Aonuma: Initially we were thinking of just DLC ideas, but then we had a lot of ideas and we said, “This is too many ideas, let’s just make one new game and start from scratch.”" GeminiContractor99 (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi GeminiContractor99, how's that different from the wording currently? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I believe it's a suggestion for a new citation; I'll verify it and make the change. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add to Game of the Year section:

Kinda Funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5jWxxrW2GA Siliconera: https://www.siliconera.com/siliconeras-overall-game-of-the-year-2023/ Shacknews: https://www.shacknews.com/article/138147/shacknews-goty-2023-zelda-totk Glentendo (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

→Change the word "The" (with capitalized T) to "the" in the lead, after "Breath of the Wild (2017)". Marcelo373 (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done thank you! Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Update the awards and nominations for GDCA 2024

| rowspan="8" | 24th Game Developers Choice Awards | Game of the Year | style="background:#FFC7C7; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-no" | Lost | style="text-align:center;" rowspan="8" |^[1] |- | Best Audio | style="background:#FFC7C7; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-no" | Lost |- | Best Design | style="background:#FFC7C7; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-no" | Lost |- | Innovation Award | style="background: #9EFF9E; color: #000; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="yes table-yes2 notheme"|Won |- | Best Narrative | style="background:#FFC7C7; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-no" | Lost |- | Best Technology | style="background: #9EFF9E; color: #000; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="yes table-yes2 notheme"|Won |- | Best Visual Art | style="background:#FFC7C7; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-no" | Lost |- | Audience Award | style="background:#FFC7C7; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-no" | Lost |}

source: https://gamechoiceawards.com/recipients Jebkerman420 (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done; though the source isn't needed, the existing sourcing covers this info. ― novov (t c) 08:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are the sky and sky islands capitalized like the Depths are? 2601:547:CC80:4F00:A943:C5C9:F465:CE4A (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect Zelda 20 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 14 § Zelda 20 until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect Untitled The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild sequel has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 6 § Untitled The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild sequel until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply