Talk:Link

?

Uh, interwiki template messed up the image placement of Link's OoT artwork. --HavocReaper'48 18:29, 9 November 2010 (EST)

Infobox image

Should this image replace the current one in the infobox, or be deleted? havoC-- 15:27, 7 December 2010 (EST)

I say yes. Other people say no. We've had this argument a bunch of times, and I think it's about time we set up a forum or something to actually conclude it. Toomai Glittershine 15:53, 7 December 2010 (EST)

I second that. Omega Tyrant 16:20, 7 December 2010 (EST)

Link in SSB & Melee is based on OoT-Link, and Link in Brawl is based on TP-Link. Therefore, this page should have OoT or TP Link art in the infobox (leaning toward TP since Brawl is more recent), not Skyward Sword art since that has an entirely different Link altogether. - Reboot (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2010 (EST)

It already has a pic of OoT Link later in the article. We should have a picture of Skyward Sword Link in the gallery. Mr. Anon (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2010 (EST)

Why should we have it in the gallery? If we don't have it in the infobox, it shouldn't be anywhere.--MegaTron1XD 23:54, 7 December 2010 (EST)

You've summed up the general form of the argument for that side. The other side of the argument (like me) says that these articles are about the characters, not the characters as they appear in the Smash Bros. series, so restricting to things that only predate Smash Bros. is arbitrary. Also, Link is one of the more extreme cases. What about people like Mario, who appearances are pretty much all the same? Yet we currently have his Super Mario Galaxy artwork at the top of the Mario page, for no real reason other than it's the most recent Brawl-predating game. Toomai Glittershine 09:59, 8 December 2010 (EST)

Yes, some characters can use new artwork, like Mewtwo, but others don't require it as much as those kind of characters do. We don't need to follow patterns like we did for Tabuu's Domain.--MegaTron1XD 10:41, 8 December 2010 (EST)

Most Recent Appearance

Yes, Link may not physically appear in Nintendo Land, but players wear Link costumes and he is obviously referenced. That seems close enough to put in the Most Recent Appearance section. ChuckNorris 08:59, 22 July 2013 (EDT)

No, that's not the character himself appearing in the game. There's a difference between "reference" and "appearance"; Sonic's shoes showing up in Donkey Kong Country 2 is in no way Sonic appearing in the game. Likewise, some miis dressed up as Link is not at all an actual appearance of Link. Omega Tyrant 09:07, 22 July 2013 (EDT)

Post-launch DLC and Most Recent Appearance

There's this one little logistic problem this wiki has never faced before concerning Most Recent Appearance I'd like to see settled via general consensus:

So there's the Sonic Lost World base game --- sans Link, obviously --- released first (October 2013), followed by NES Remix (December 2013), which is then followed by the Zelda DLC for Sonic Lost World (March 2014) which features Link in a cameo. Meaning that a game that didn't have Link at launch now suddenly features him through an update after yesterday, which wouldn't be a problem for the Most Recent Appearance infobox except that a game that did feature him at launch managed to sandwich in between the Link-less launch of a game and its much later DLC guest-starring Link.

Given this scenario and the potential of such cases repeating in the future, do we now consider post-launch DLC for a game to be a separate product qualifiable for a most recent appearance or do we disregard them entirely and consider only the base game's release date even if so-and-so-character was not included in the on-disc package, coming in only through a later online update? Pikawil (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2014 (EDT)

Link will appear in NES Remix 2 next month, so it's quite insignificant. Let's just keep the original NES Remix for now. Toast ltimatum 21:16, 28 March 2014 (EDT)

Still, I believe it's worth debating just in case a similar DLC scenario happens with someone else without another on-disc appearance being close on the release line enough to reduce it into a moot point. Better to set down the protocols early than late, methinks, now that we know such things can happen. Pikawil (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2014 (EDT)