Talk:Hyrule/Appearances by Game

Size of Page
Now that the Labrynna, Sheikah, and Hyrule pages have been dealt with, this page is now the largest page on the Wiki, and it needs to be cut down. Hyrule is indeed important, but we don't need to summarize every game when we mention Hyrule, because Hyrule relates to every game it's in because the game happened there. That's just redundant and pointless. In fact, this page is probably pointless because Hyrule is an all-encompassing location, rather than a zone to visit with significance. That's just my two-cents. Anyone who cares, you have until Monday the 7th to make the changes you feel necessary to cut this page down. After that, I will begin my extractions. --Xizor 06:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Tear this article apart! Yay blood! Noble Wrot 06:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You have my support. 06:43, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Do what all of you want, I don't care any more to be perfectly honest. You want to tear apart the few really comprehensive articles we have, go right ahead. I'm busy with school and don't have time to worry about things like this hardly anymore. I've got major tests in math and physics coming up next week, and I'm not going to sacrifice any more of my time to do all of this anymore b/c it's just going to come to this every time, and I'm not wasting my time or my effort. I can understand a wish to condense things, but to rip apart an entire work is overkill and shows a lack of appreciation by several to those who put the time in to create all of them. So if I have time to come edit here I'll do so, but I'm not going to go out of my way any more. If things get done, that's wonderful, if not I honestly no longer care. Several of those articles sat dormant for years on end while those wishing to tear them apart sat idly by and did nothing about them. Now all of a sudden they have interest in them being too long. As I said before though, I would suggest you change your label not to invite people to change things as they see fit and then throw all the effort out the window simply b/c you don't agree with the way those who took the time to work on it put it together. I'm to the point that I'm not even going to bother writing any more improvement articles b/c there's too much micro-management and too many people that think they know better, so let them have their way and see what happens. Have fun ripping everything apart, it'll take much less time and effort than it took to build each of them. Link87 20:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to have you on board this time. Certainly will make things much easier. --Xizor 21:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am almost done cutting out the stuff that doesn't pertain to the hyrule subject, but I was wondering since it was very little, if or how should I do the Majora's Mask and Oracle of Ages one...they are kind of hard to edit without deleting the whole part of them. Any suggestions?? Ladybug95 01:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC) UPDATE:  I am just going to delete them, and if anyone diagrees, go ahead and put them back up or keep what you like of them. Ladybug95 01:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All done with the editing and removing the non-hyrule related stuff. This calls for celebrating (does a little dance) Hopefully this is much smaller than before, and again, if there is anything that you didn't like that I took off, feel free to fix it. Woohoo it's done!  Ladybug95 02:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ladybug, the page looks stellar! Great job, and I hope to see you around the wiki! 14:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Citation of Information
There are too few citations for this article. Especially in reading the AoL section, there are no resources at all on the expansion of Hyrule and where the game takes place relative to the Hyrule of the original. Also, the WW section is highly speculative and perhaps should be preceded with "theory" or some such. Shadowsheik 09:23, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

Death mountain in Skyward Sword
This article mentions that Death mountain isn't present in Skyward Sword and phrases it in such a way that it gives the impression that there has been some kind of confirmation that Death mountain and Eldin volcano are two different places. I'm not aware of any such confirmation, in fact, isn't it generally believed highly probable that Death mountain and Eldin volcano ARE the same places? --Lennholm 19:08, 15 September 2012 (EDT)


 * There isn't any confirmation of that, either... But the likely relation between Death Mountain and Eldin Volcano as well as Lake Floria/Lake Hylia and Lanayru Desert/Gerudo Desert are noted on their respective pages, so it should probably be noted here as well. You're welcome to make the addition if you wish. :) 20:16, 15 September 2012 (EDT)


 * Ofcourse, there's no confirmation either way, but the phrasing made it strongly imply one of them. I rephrased it slightly to sound more objective. --Lennholm 06:28, 18 September 2012 (EDT)


 * I seriously doubt that Lanayru Desert has a connection with the Gerudo Desert, nor that Lake Floria has a likely relation with Lake Hylia. The Gerudo Desert is in a different province and Lake Hylia is found at Lanayru Province while Lake Floria is found on Faron Province, so it's impossible. The Lanayru Province is supposed to be an Eletric and Watery region like it was thousands of years prior the events of Skyward Sword, the place where the Kingdom of Hyrule was mainly established since The Minish Cap (very most likely). Anyway, the Eldin Volcano is likely related to Death Mountain since it's found on the Eldin Province. Maybe we should write that down.--Prince Ludwig 06:26, 16 September 2012 (EDT)


 * I agree about Lake Floria, but there is no place called "Desert Province" in Skyward Sword, so it's entirely plausible that the Desert Province is just a later offshot from Lanayru Province. Considering Hyrule geography, my belief is that the region called Lanayru Desert (with the mining facility and ancient Temple of Time) was later rejuvenated and became part of what is Hyrule Field, while Lanayru Sand sea never recovered and later became known as Gerudo Desert / Haunted Wasteland. With this in mind it's very likely that the people of Hyrule started considering them as two separate provinces. In this theory, Lanayru Gorge is what turned into Lake Hylia. --Lennholm 06:39, 18 September 2012 (EDT)

Timeline Movement
This page would look better if it was organized so as to show the chronological evolution of Hyrule by placing the sections not by game appearence, but by timeline placement. I know that the Wiki tends to only place "" things this way, but Hyrule is important. 15:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed to this, considering that there's only one "Hyrule" (with the exception of the new kingdom founded by Link and Tetra in ST), and its earliest incarnation was SS, from which it continued to evolve over millenia. 16:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have any oppositions to this? 16:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hylian King has voiced opposition in the chat, but has asked for some time to gather his thoughts of how to say it on here. 16:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying flat out "no", I'm just really unsure. I'm picturing how it'll turn out and I don't like what I see. Allow me to explain:

Certain articles are organized by timeline because their subjects have an "important" impact on the general plot/timeline of the series. So yes, for a character to have an impact on the whole timeline they kind of have to appear in more than one game. But, something can span multiple titles and still have little impact on the plot, in which case there isn't really a valid reason to organize it by the timeline. Common secondary characters, such as Tingle and Malon, are examples of this.

By that logic, this page should remain as-is because it's just a cut-and-dried listing describing Hyrule's physical geography throughout the series. It barely mentions any history if at all. If we were to make it about the timeline and explain the evolution of Hyrule, the article would have to be made more fluid. We would have to establish links between Hyrule's appearances, and that will inevitably involve adding story elements into the mix. I'm afraid that by doing that we'll just end up with a condensed form of Zelda Timeline with the non-Hyrule games cut out. It wouldn't be a list of "Appearances by Game" anymore. It would be a "History of Hyrule".

That aside, is there even that much to say about the geographical evolution of Hyrule? It doesn't seem like the developers tried very hard to link them together in chronological order. I mean, there's a pretty obvious connection between the SS, OOT, and TP maps but, other than that... There just doesn't seem to be enough concrete examples of geographical evolution according to the timeline to base an article on it. It would make for an interesting WikiExclusive, though, since then it would be OK to conjecture and stretch the facts a little.

tl;dr version: For what the article is being used for right now, I think it's more appropriate for it to be organized by real life chronology than by in-game chronology. Except from maybe SS to OOT, there doesn't seem to be much of an evident evolution of Hyrule according to the timeline, at least not from a geographical standpoint. 18:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, that seems to be a good point, it doesn't seem like there are that many timeline connections between versions of Hyrule. (i.e. based on its landscape, SS undefined could easily be the last game chronologically)


 * Also, what is "real life chronology"? If it is based on the evolution of Hyrule's geographical features, then it would be considered a non-canon order. There's more than one way to look at it.


 * Maybe you missed what I was trying to say. I'm not saying I want to add anything to the article, just move it around a bit. True, there isn't much to say about this topic, but there is no need to say anything.


 * As far as opinions go, we have one two supporting votes and two opposition votes. I say we see if anyone else has anything to say about this, and if not, keep the page as it is.
 * OH, and what's a tl;dr version? 18:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with HK, it would open the gates for too much theory and speculation, when it's fairly clear that the geography is largely inconsistent even at the best of times. In some cases some connections are worth mentioning (such as the Death Mountain Area in Zelda II being the area from the first game), but the whole article does not need to necessarily be arranged by timeline. Hyrule in FSA for example has much more of a connection to ALttP than it does Twilight Princess. 18:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Fizzle.
 * @Darkness:
 * 1) By "real life" chronology I just meant the way the page is organized right now. Also, there's a pretty big difference between "out-of-universe" and "non-canon". Organizing and writing information according to the order in which the games were released is certainly not "non-canon." 2) I knew what you were trying to say. I'm saying we have no reason to move things around unless we do add things. But if we do add things, we might end up with a totally different page that we might not want. That's why I think it should just stay as-is. (Even better tl;dr version right there, folks). 3) Decision-making of this sort is very rarely done by popular vote at Zelda Wiki. With a few exceptions, consensus needs to be reached before a change is made. 4) "tl;dr" stands for "too long; didn't read." I made a "tl;dr version" for the people that didn't want to sit through my entire argument because they're too lazy or have better things to do. :P 19:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Oh, I thought you meant organizing it by the way that it might happen in real life. I was thinking "Why would we do that?" : /
 * 2) Personally, moving the page so that it makes more sense is in itself a reason to move a page.
 * 3) Ok, I'm fine with keeping the page as-is.
 * PS: While you were writing the first long response, I had nothing better to do except stare at the Recent Changes for an hour, waiting for it to change. 19:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I also think that geography is not exactly the most consistent element in terms of continuity (e.g. Death Mountain and Zora's Domain somehow switch locations between OoT and TP) so I don't think it would be useful to organize the article that way. Zeldafan1982 00:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Peak and Desert provinces
I would call the desert and snowpeak provinces as shown on the in-game map. Anyone disagree?
 * I do because they're never referred to as provinces of Hyrule. They may be on the map, but the only places ever directly called provinces were Lanayru, Eldin, Faron, and Ordon. 16:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I checked a text dump and they are named provinces (Desert Province and Peak Province). But they're already mentioned in this article and have their own pages like the other provinces, so I'm not sure what the problem is here. 16:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it certain that the Peak and Desert provinces are part of Hyrule? This is the only problem in my view. Ordona seems to be just a neighboring province based on what Rusl and Shad say. Maybe it should be mentioned that the peak and desert provinces are not confirmed to be part of Hyrule and that the Ordona province probably isn't. Zeldafan1982 21:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ^That was another concern of mine, but I decided not to voice it because I wasn't sure if they'd been considered part of Hyrule or not. 22:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)