Talk:Hyrule/Archive 1

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. Shona 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)

Page Image
The original page image was the map of Hyrule from Ocarina of Time, but I changed it because that image was one the page twice already. The replacement image was taken down because it was non-canonical, being the image for the Bridge of Eldin stage in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. I don't think that this is reasonable grounds for declaring it non-canon, as it is a backdrop taken straight from TP, and other articles, most notably Dark Link, use Super Smash Bros. models as their page images because they do not conflict with canon and were taken straight from TP with no modification.Ganondorfdude11 01:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm...you make a valid point, especially with the Dark Link page. Also, I perfectly remember that Link's page had an image of his SSBB appearance in the infobox for a LONG time until someone changed it into his TP appearance, so we're definitely being inconsistent when it comes to accepting non-canon images in important pages. We really need to come to an agreement about this, and the picture in Dark Link's page needs to be changed as well. Dany36 02:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well just to satisfy everyone, I tried to find a compromise image that still features the castle and Hyrule Field from the game itself. I like both, but I did that just to try to compromise a bit. But I loved the one Ganondorfdude11 had before, it was majestic and colorful and just a wonderful image of Hyrule overall. Link87 02:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understand taking down an image if it's taken from a source like the manga or comic books, but most of the Zelda stuff in Brawl was designed by the same team that made TP, so the images are almost identical to ones found in the game itself. I'm pretty sure it was even possible to look at the bridge from a similar angle in-game. The compromise image does the job, but Hyrule Castle really isn't that prominent in the picture. Maybe someone should snap a screenshot of the bridge and castle and we can use that for the page image.Ganondorfdude11 02:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd really like to reinstate the picture you had up, it was very majestic and as you said featured Hyrule Castle prominently as well as the bridge and Hyrule Field beyond. And as you said, if we have other pictures on here from SSBB, then there's no reason we shouldn't be able to use this one to represent Hyrule and its majesty. I regret that the one I have up now doesn't feature Hyrule Castle as prominently, but I am unsure how to snap a picture within the game as you said, so I can only go off of the pictures I can find online. I'd really like to see the one you had up before restored, that would be ideal to me. However, I don't want to step on any toes, so if we get the green light from someone of authority to reinstate it, I'm all for doing that. Link87 02:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This one has a shot of Hyrule Castle and the Market, and I can find several in-game shots of the Castle and field, but the problem is that they're from the cutscene in which they get covered in Twilight, which certainly is not the "default mode" of Hyrule and wouldn't work as a page image.Ganondorfdude11 03:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Bridge of Eldin picture that Ganondorfdude uploaded showed off Hyrule Castle very well, and it would be a nice picture to put up. However, I'd like to see what other staff members think of having a non-canon picture in an important article like Hyrule. Things are a bit hazy right now since the Dark Link page also has a non-canon picture as its main image (as mentioned, and Link's page had this problem as well), so we need to come to an agreement with this before doing anything hasty. Right now the picture that's at the beginning is pretty good, but like I said, we'll just have to wait on the input of others to see how to go about this. Dany36 03:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dany, we should take the input of the admin council into account, and bearing that in mind, I took the liberty to contact Steven to ask how flexible we can afford to be in regards to images from SSBB and to see if perhaps we can still use the picture Ganondorfdude11 had before due to its amazing quality and overall beauty. I am awaiting a reply from him as he is the original objector to the picture, and I want to get his take on things and see if we can come to some agreement as Dany said. Link87 03:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Would this image work?Ganondorfdude11 03:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a wonderful image as a matter of fact, but was there any bottom to it? It looks like there was more to the picture originally, so I was just wondering. Link87 03:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's from the Japanese website, and the bottom of the image was a navigation menu. I cropped it, but there does seem to be too much sky in the image.Ganondorfdude11 03:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ganondorfdude11, can you go back to where you got that image and try to get a larger area of the picture??? It's not the sky persay, but if we could just get a little more of the lower part of the castle and the field below that would be OUTSTANDING!! I really love the image, it has my vote of confidence. But I really would love to see it in its entirety. Is there any way you can get the whole image, or is that really all there was?? Link87 03:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I found it here. The bottom portion of the screenshot is covered up by the navigation menu, although maybe somebody can try to duplicate the screenshot. I looks like it was taken at South Hyrule field.Ganondorfdude11 03:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If the Twilight Princess site is still around, I might be able to. 03:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you check on that for us Steven and take those things out of the picture perhaps?? This would be ASTOUNDING for the article, as this is the most beautiful shot of Hyrule I've honestly ever seen from the games. I uploaded the main pic in case you can do it with just that. Can you work with it if it is uploaded onto the site here?? Link87 03:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Steven, the site still exists, and the picture is the main site's background. Here it is: . Can you work with it?? Link87 04:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I went hunting through the coding, and I got to their flash file (http://www.twilightprincess.nintendo.co.uk/loader.swf), but that seems to be as far as I can go. If I had a program like Adobe Flash, then I probably would be able to get in there and extract the image. 04:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Adobe Flash downloadable? If I knew how to do it, I would try to extract the image myself, but I'm not very good with coding or programming yet. It's okay if you can't get it out, but do you know of anyone else that would have the capacity to extract the image though?? Anyone that deals with pictures a lot?? Link87 04:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I do have Adobe, but never installed Flash, it's getting late, though, so I can work on it tomorrow. 05:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Great, we appreciate your help Steve. If you can extract the image for us tomorrow, we can install it into the article and have a really nice, eye-catching main picture for the article, with a nice profile of Hyrule Castle to give the picture more scope. Link87 05:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just an aside, if we can never get the full background image from that website, maybe this image would do all right? It's official Japanese art from ALttP, and depicts Death Mountain overlooking Hyrule.


 * I saw that image, it's good to have it in the article. However, for the main picture it'd really be nice to get the one that shows the most up-to-date incarnation of Hyrule. I love the image we have, and it looks nice even now. However it'd really be nice if we could in fact get the full image, it's very eye-catching. Does anyone think they can decompile it out of the flash file at all? Link87 13:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Page suggestions
Firstly, I looked over the article without reading it all to take in the shape of it and point out any layout issues. I'm just going to toss out some things I notice and you guys can address them or not at your discretion. I won't pull rank :p.
 * 1) The subsections list is huge, expected but careful trimmings can be done for a less cluttered feel. The Games without much to say about Hyrule such as TWW, OoX, and MM could go into one subsection, titled as you see fit.
 * 2) Lnadmarks can also be grouped in a few small ways such as the towns together, The water bodies together and the other terrains, etc. This would probably change the direction of the section's writing but I'd say that's for the better. And as a bonus, Zeldapedia's dudes would lose the vague claim of plagiarism.
 * 3) A brief section on Hyrule's extensive bestiary.(Tektites, Peahats, Octoroks, different consistently appearing beasts. I'd say 'Enemies' but that kinda leads to everything). Also some of the non-enemy animals.
 * 4) Addition to the races: Hylian Deities, besides the Golden Goddesses.
 * 5) A trivia section could note many of the smaller points without having to 'work' them into the articles. Such as: OoT indicating Hyrule uses the 24 hour time system. The Gossip Stones, Guards, etc all say the time is 21:43 rather than 9:43. This example isn't on the page, but I'd bet anything there's some things on the page that would serve better as trivia. Much of Zeldapedia's lower sections are not much more than trivia. It just goes to show their organizational issues. 16:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean Axiomist, and yes we can incorporate those into the article as well. I'll see what I can do as far as shifting things around a bit and adding/subtracting the things you suggested so we can perhaps cut down on the immense size of the article's section list and so it's not any more bulky than it has to be. I'll report back on here when I've done a little work with these items. Meanwhile, as far as the main picture, we've found a beautiful picture that was the main background for the official site for Twilight Princess, it gives a B-E-A-utiful shot of Hyrule and features Hyrule Castle's profile beautifully. We just need someone that is experienced at extracting the picture from the flash file. I think Steven said he could do something with it today perhaps, but if anyone else thinks they could do it too, the link is in the section above near the bottom of the conversation. Do you have any experience at something like that Axiomist?? I know Steven may be busy too, so maybe if someone gets time to do it before he can get to it, it would be less of a hassle for him. Once we have the picture extracted, we can incorporate it into the article as the main picture.


 * When you say "Bestiary", do you mean the races that live in Hyrule? Or are you talking about the different kinds of creatures that are found in Hyrule? Can you elaborate for me, and then I can get a clearer idea of what exactly you'd like to see done??


 * P.S. I agree about the ones not involving Hyrule a whole lot going into a section for "Minor Appearances", however as Dany pointed out before, we'll have to discuss the history of the Great Flood and how it drowned Hyrule and set the stage for TWW and how the game revolves around rediscovering Hyrule beneath the Great Sea and how it all ends there in Hyrule's final moments, so that may be one I would suggest keeping in the main "Appearances by Game" section since we do have that history to go through. However with all the others, I agree with you about forming a subsection for minor appearances. That's just my take on it though. Link87 16:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't pull the image. But I'm thinking I wasn't clear on the sections suggestion. I was hoping that Body of Water would be the section and not the water names, resulting in less at the Table of Contents :S Just pointing that out.Adam and I were wondering if you would be on Skype soon to help us address Zeldapedia's complaints 20:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have an idea then to solve our problem for the sections, and that would probably match your description. Give me a little time and I'll remake the sections to where it will be like you said, but with main article tags above to link to the main pages for the different locales.


 * Well, I'm not at home, I'm at work and I'm just at my work computer, so I don't have skype on this computer. I'll be going home soon though. So I may be on a bit later to do so. What are their complaints though??


 * Also, Axiomist, I have an idea that may be weclome news to you and everyone else involved here: what if we just use the main article tags for the locations and landmarks and include perhaps a single paragraph speaking about each kind of geographical feature being discussed? That way we wouldn't have to make a paragraph for every single place or thing and it would drastically shorten things down while still providing a link to the appropriate articles. What say you to that?? Link87 20:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Major Conflicts section
This is just a thought, but I was wondering what some of your takes are on the "Major Conflicts" section. Do we really need it do you guys think? If we're going to be talking about the conflicts in the "Appearances by Game" section, does it seem redundant to some of you to have this section too?? I'm trying to think of ways to cut down on the sheer size of the article, so I thought I would suggest this and see what your takes are on it. Link87 17:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I added it thinking that the "aapearances by game" section wouldn't have any plot summary and would just discuss gradual changes to the landscape and such. It is redundant now that they're covered by the plot summary in the game sections, but I'm one for conciseness. We could cut out the lengthy paragraphs from the game sections and keep the one-sentence summaries in the "major conflicts" section. Covering them in detail on the game sections is even more redundant as each of these wars has its own article where it is covered in detail.I say keep the one-sentence summaries in the conflicts section and trim the plot summaries in the appearances section.Ganondorfdude11 17:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm more in favor of keeping the paragraphs about how the wars and events of the games affect Hyrule in the appearances sections than the simple one-line statements in the conflicts section myself. There's just not enough detail there to see how each of those conflicts relates to Hyrule. Each is gone into a bit more detail in the appearances section. I would be more in favor of disposing of the one-liners myself b/c of that, but that's just me. As Dany said before too, we're not primarily worried about size over quality. To me, the quality of the paragraphs far surpasses that of the one-line statements in the conflicts section. I'm just suggesting getting rid of the conflicts section b/c it is redundant and doesn't do a whole lot as far as explanation goes. Link87 17:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is true, but the wars each have their own article, so we should just mention them and cut down on the plot summary. Each game does have its own page. We don't have to clutter the page with paragraphs that describe the same thing you'd see when going to the main articles.Ganondorfdude11 19:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We also have to take into account readability. If someone wants to read up on the various wars, then they can just click on that section and go to the main article, where the conflict is described in greater detail, instead of serching through the Appearances section. Some conflicts mentioned in the section also are not covered in detail in this article, like the Great Flood or the Interloper War, because they do not have immediate ramifications on the gmae plots like the Imprisoning War does.Ganondorfdude11 19:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ganondorfdude11, we are not done with the section writing yet. If you give me a chance, I can finish some of those so we can go into detail about all of them. We do not need the conflicts section however, we'll discuss them all in the appearances section and each will have a link to that conflict. Link87 19:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The appearances section seems bloated as it is. It's an impenetrable wall of text that could really use some trimming. I put the one-sentence summaries of the wars underneath the Military section, becase that's where they really fit, but the plot summary parts of the Appearances section really needs to just be the basic plot, not every little detail. That doesn't give much room to talk at length about the Imprisoning War and such. The conflicts section is also much more readable and concise than the gigantic paragraphs underneath the appearances section that themselves just seem like padding.Ganondorfdude11 19:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know the appearances section may seem large, but let's face it: that's going to be the largest section of all b/c by nature it must be. And no, there is not "every little detail" in them, only the parts that are truly main plot points that affect Hyrule's development as a plot device. And if you wish to put the list of wars beneath the military section, that's fine, as they were indeed wars that involved the military in certain cases. And we can try to trim the appearances section as well, but I've cut down to as basic of sentences as I can and tried to reduce the number as much as I could without compromising the integrity of the information it's trying to detail about Hyrule's development in each game. Link87 20:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The Minish Cap references
I've played every single one of the Zelda games mentioned in the Appearances section, except The Minish Cap and Four Swords. I somehow managed to add references to the Four Swords section, but I have never played The Minish Cap, so if someone could add more sources to that section, I'd deeply appreciate it. I can take care of the rest, if no one else minds. Thanks to anyone who bothers up to take that small task. ;) Dany36 03:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wind Waker "Next Hyrule"
The ending of the Wind Waker says that Link and Tetra will go on to find a new land. It's fan theory that this new land is the next Hyrule. When we have conflicting evidence on the matter (Zelda says one thing, the king says another), I'm of the opinion that the article should not assume that the new land is named Hyrule.Ganondorfdude11 04:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree 04:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While I agree we should assume nothing, it remains a distinct possibility and great likelihood that they will name the new land Hyrule, as Zelda herself said. There's also the new Hyrule Castle seen in ST's trailers as well as a new throne room where Link bows before Zelda, I could go on. While I agree we should not state that it "will" be called Hyrule, there is good enough likelihood that it "may" be called Hyrule due to Zelda's final statement in the original Hyrule. I think that is a good compromise here. And Ganondorfdude11, you're taking the King's words out of context here: never once does he say the new land should not be called Hyrule, he merely makes the point to the children that since it would be their land and not the Hyrule he was bound to, he could not go with them. He was bound to the original Hyrule as was Ganondorf, hence why he could not go with them to seek out a new land. But never once does he say it will not be called Hyrule. And let's not forget the King is now dead, Zelda is alive and the next in line to rule in the new kingdom. She said the new land would be the "next Hyrule", hence that gives great likelihood that the new land very well may be called Hyrule in memory of the kingdom of their ancestors. Now I will not go so far as to say that it "will" be called Hyrule, but I am convinced that it's very likely that it "may" be called Hyrule. Link87 13:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is still a large amount of fan theory involved there, and we have no official word on what the land in ST is supposed to be called. A castle does not automatically mean that it is the next Hyrule. Look at the two quotes in context:


 * Zelda:W-Wait! You could... You could come with us! Yes, of course... We have a ship! We can find it. We WILL find it! The land that will be the next Hyrule!
 * King:Ah, but child... That land will not be Hyrule. It will be YOUR land!


 * Zelda here offers to recreate the old kingdom, but the king tells her not to. Hyrule is dead, and to attempt to resurrect it would be futile. We have no reason to assume that their kingdom would be named Hyrule and completely contradict the king's wish for them.Ganondorfdude11 21:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Races
Why aren't the Gerudos included in the race section? They do make up their on race and live in Hyrule right? Or am I mistaken? Archon 15:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We just haven't gotten to that section yet, but yes, they are to be included in this section as well. Link87 15:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if my prior statement made me sound like a jerk... I can tell this page has gone through a lot of changes lately and is being worked on. I was just wondering if that there was some theory or logical reason they weren't included there yet.  Archon 17:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Something's Wrong
Something's wrong, when I tried to restore previous edits I made as a compromise for TWW section, it wiped over half the article. This phone I'm using is the cause, so as soon as I get home, I'll get on the computer and restore the article to its original form before Ganondorfdude11 went back into the debate about TWW. I apologize for the state of the article, but it's this silly phone that's responsible. Link87 23:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's because the size of the page. When pages get over 30KB, a warning is displayed. This is exactly what the warning refers to. There are two solutions to this problem:
 * Remove less important content.
 * Move sections to subpages and then include the subpages onto the page via Substituting the correct name of course.
 * That's about how it goes. It has nothing to do with the wiki itself, it's the web browsers. None of them are all that reliable after 100KB. 23:27, August 26, 2009 (UTC)