Talk:Hyrule

This Page is a Mess
I am shocked that such an important page is so hopelessly disorganized. There needs to be clear distinction between canon and non-canon information. The Kingdom or World debate has no place in this article (especially if there really is nothing to counter the Kingdom argument). This wiki should first and foremost be a source for canon information, not a discussion panel for theories and fan fiction. Calebyte 18:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I know why the text in the Geography section needed changing. But why did you think the pictures had to go? They would help reader visualize the differences. I think I will add them back. But... I think it would look far better to have them back as a gallery. 18:36, July 21, 2008 (UTC)

Expanding this page
This page is also one of the more important. We need a section on Hyrulean history, a brief summary of Hyrulean races, and some mythology and lore. A better description of the geography and landmarks would also be nice. -- Lex

I added some to the article, but I don't have as much knowledge as others.--Claire 21:34, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Because The Landmark section lacked any actual landmarks, I added the most common ones as well as a brief description. Onen 23:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom or World
I believe it's a kingdom, and I don't see much evidence that can counter it. I'm going through Twilight Princess again, and one of the light spirits (maybe Faron) says that eventually the whole world will be enveloped in Twilight, "not just Hyrule". So... thoughts? --Ando (Talk) 18:09, 25 February 2008 (EST)


 * Yeah, I'd say the fact that it has a King kind of clinches it; ever hear of a king of the entire world? ;P In all seriousness though, I think the ambiguity really lies in the fact that the bigger picture is never discussed in-game, i.e do Hyrule, Labrynna, Holodrum etc form part of the same world, or even the same continent? And does that continent or world have a name? It's a level of detail which is never mentioned as far as I'm aware, and thereby forms part of the mystique of the games. I guess anything further that we have to say on the matter is just speculation... —Adam (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2008 (EST)

termina really complicates things.Dragonstetraforce 21:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am fairly certain that it says that the Link in the Oracle series has actually heard of Holodrum and Labrynna before in the instruction manuals. I can't check though because I left those manuals at home. Yeah, we can't even be sure that Termina is another dimension or just in another part of the world. The events of The Wind Waker clearly indicate that Hyrule is but one kingdom in the world. I assume that this is a completely fictional world and is not some alternate version of Earth. It is obvious that many thousands of years go by in the series with very little technological development. Can we come up with a fan-name for the world? 22:32, September 30, 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is definitely not our earth, but just because it isn't Earth doesn't mean it can't be called such. In example, the world in which The Lord of the Rings series takes place is Earth (the land being "Middle-Earth"). 22:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That was the example I was thinking of too. We still can come up with a name though. The King of Hyrule didn't want Tetra and Link to call the new land that they were seeking "Hyrule". We something more unique. 23:20, September 30, 2008 (UTC)


 * "we can't even be sure that Termina is another dimension or just in another part of the world."
 * Actually, the manual states that Termina is, in fact, a parallel world. In this scan of the US manual, the first sentence is "This is a kind of parallel world that is similar to and yet different from Hyrule...". ALSO, from Ocarina of Time:
 * So they do in fact call it "earth". 19:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So they do in fact call it "earth". 19:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No, in that context "red earth" refers to the land itself. This is because the lowercase word "earth" literally means "dirt". So it is not the name of the planet. 20:55, October 1, 2008 (UTC)

In-game proof!!! Beyond any possibility of doubt! Here's the quote: "You have... never been to Hyrule, right? In the kingdom of Hyrule there is a great castle, and around it is Castle Town, a community far bigger than our little village. ...And far bigger than Hyrule is the rest of the world the gods created. You should look upon it all with your own eyes."

- Rusl (Twilight Princess)

As you can clearly see, there is a whole entire world beyond Hyrule. No question. 20:04, October 7, 2008 (UTC)

Landlocked?
You know, I have realized that, in most Zelda games, Hyrule is a landlocked country (this is, with no geographical contact with a sea or an ocean); obviously it isn't in the NES games because of the Wind Waker flood (remember that the NES and SNES games predate the ones of today by chronology). Is this information worthy for the article, or do you think I am wasting your patience? --K2L 04:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's more of a matter of personal theory than actual, solid, verifiable fact. It can't be proven, therefore really shouldn't be put anywhere in the article other than a theory section. 05:53, June 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * Matt's right. For the time being, all timeline information should be left out of all page, other than timeline theory pages. The only ones that are confirmed are TMC-FS-FSA, OoT-MM, and WW-PH-ST. There are a few other more-than likely connections, but we really try not to theorize about such things here at ZW. 16:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Crap
I look at the Hyrule page and go: "Stupid crap stupid crap" xD. Once this is actually BETTER, then I may change my mind. :D 01:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't necessarily say "crap", but there's a lot of extra information that doesn't need to be here. Lysia 00:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Game Summary = No
This page is not about summarizing each game with vague references to Hyrule. The page should maybe describe differences in Hyrule's appearance throughout the various games, but summarizing the games does not fit into this page's M.O. Sorry. --Xizor 22:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Weird
The article looks very much like this, and both have been changing rapidly at the same time. I checked the histories and both used to look the same as well (back when it had that big list of landmarks). —Andy [ talk ] 21:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * yeah i noticed that to on zeldapedia....witch one came first? User:The-Gman!

i smell foul play Don Lark Kiin
 * I occasionally visit there, and they have a reputation of copying our articles and images (including a few of my images), so I wouldn't be at all amazed if they did copy ours. 22:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * i checked the dates, this one was redone after that one. Don Lark Kiin 22:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

ive checked the histories, and this one was revamped ealier than this one, but alot of the stuff from gannondorfdude appears like copying.........so........idk.....&#91;&#91;User:The-Gman!&#93;&#93; DATS ME!!! 22:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't copying, it's just that if the two wikis are writing an article on the same subject, similar information is going to show up.Ganondorfdude11 22:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

on the same week and almost identical fasion? Don Lark Kiin 22:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Plagiarism is a serious accusation. I am not rewriting this article alone, and I lifted none of the information I added from the Zeldapedia article. Expanding the "appearances by game" section with information taken straight from the games is not plagiarism. Both articles were revamped independently, as both were really bad at the beginning of the month.Ganondorfdude11 23:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree, the two articles were both in a poor state at the beginning of August, and both have been edited heavily upon in the time from then. In that time frame, many of the edits look similar, and the articles have evolved bearing many similarities. —Andy [ talk ] 23:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

my main prob is that the edits you make are so similar to changes that are made on the other one...&#91;&#91;User:The-Gman!&#93;&#93; DATS ME!!! 23:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How so? I never even looked at the other one. Quit throwing accusations around.Ganondorfdude11 23:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

not gonna get into a fight with you on this. i can have my opions, you can have yours. i can state my oppions, so can you... and everybody else. ok? &#91;&#91;User:The-Gman!&#93;&#93; DATS ME!!! 23:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a chat room, go download AIM or Skype and argue, but stop cluttering up talk pages with this garbage. Thanks. --Xizor 00:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Plagiarism is a serious accusation, and one which should be backed up by evidence. I've checked a number of Ganondorfdude11's recent additions to the page against the link Andy posted above, as well as the current version of Zeldapedia's Hyrule article. I found no match between the content added, or any notable similarity between the two (i.e. no matching phrases etc). In future it would be appreciated if any such concerns could be backed up with specific evidence (e.g. "Revision X of page Y is identical/similar to revision Z of page Y at ___ "). 12:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not speaking of Zeldapedia's Hyrule article, I'm speaking of a user-made one on Zeldapedia found here. If you want edit similarity, take the August 9th edit where their page switched around sections and made an appearances section here. Two days later on August 11th, this article changed in a similar fashion; Ganondorfdude11 made an appearance section as well here. I'm not saying he stole content, but it seems coincidental both pages began being seriously rewritten at the start of August. While the intermediate edits are different from one another, take a look at their article prior to being rewritten; their article had a very large history and landmarks section prior to the start of August. Now take a look at this early revision of our Hyrule article. Both started off with much on the landmarks, simply take a look at both of the table of contents. Now look the current state of both articles. They have both turned out remarkably similar in design. While there is no obvious way to point fingers, I have a feeling of some sort of foul play; I'm not going to accuse anybody of anything, but take a look at the histories of both pages and maybe you'll feel the same way I do. —Andy [ talk ] 16:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The entire article is receiving a face-lift, so this is kind of pointless in a way. Every article about Hyrule is likely going to have sections on these topics, so overlap isn't entirely unheard of. Either way, the entire article is being rewritten, so this is kind of immaterial really. Link87 16:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but how is it pointless? If both articles are being revamped suddenly at the same time and turning out looking very much the same, it's at least worth looking into. —Andy [ talk ] 16:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe b/c they see us over here making an article that truly rivals theirs and they are scrambling trying to keep up since we're doing a huge makeover of the entire article. The accusations are without merit, that's why I say it's pretty pointless and immaterial. Link87 17:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Andy, if I've understood correctly then you're saying that the similar layouts of the pages represent some kind of problem. I fail to understand why. You say "I'm not saying he stole content", but still you suspect "foul play"? The only evidence you've presented is a broadly similar section layout, and the fact that the edits are happening at around the same time (which appears to be either coincidence or competitive improvement).
 * The bottom line is that, unless page content is being directly copied, there is no issue. If someone were to read a page at Zeldapedia (or anywhere else) and subsequently decide to write something here in a similar format or layout, that's perfectly allowable. Also, as Link87 points out the page is undergoing a complete rewrite. It's entirely feasible for two individuals to independently choose similar sections for an article on a specific subject; there can be relatively few logical ways to subdivide such a topic. And even if there had been an issue with plagiarism, the way to fix this is by rewriting a page, which is already underway. As far as I can see, you're pointing to problems which don't exist, based on nothing more than a vague feeling. 17:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)