Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/The Legend of Zelda CD-i games/1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Concerns surrounding merging or deletion are separate from the GAR process, for which there seems to be a consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mah boi, these GARs are what all true editors strive for.

At the time of promotion to GA, this article was a fairly well written and sourced summary of all three CD-i games. However, in 2013, it was split into one article for The Faces of Evil and The Wand of Gamelon, and a second for Zelda's Adventure. The remaining article is now a much shorter and far less complete overview of all three games. Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon got most of the content that was previously in The Legend of Zelda CD-i games and IMO isn't far off from GA class as it stands.

Honestly, I don't think this article does a good job summarizing the three games and their legacy and reception, nor do I even see how it could function as such when The Faces of Evil and Wand of Gamelon have the lion's share of notability here. How this split in content has gone 11 years without being noticed by the GAR team is beyond me. I honestly don't think this should even exist as its own article anymore due to substantial content overlap at the Faces/Gamelon article, but one thing at a time. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you can AfD a GA. It's rare, but doable. That said I do agree this should be delisted.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely pretty poor now compared to the two separate articles for the games. If it is kept it might be better to expand it into an article about Nintendo's deal with Phillips in general and the other games and cancelled hardware that came from that (edit: like a main article for Category:Nintendo CD-i games or something), unless there's already a page or section for that somewhere else. If not it should probably just be redirected to the two Animation Magic Zelda games since they're the better known ones; that article should also be reviewed to see what's needed for GA status. Ringtail Raider (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I’m willing to work on this article to see if I can bring it up to good article status. I wouldn’t AFD this just yet. Let me see what I can do. Reader of Information (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, looking at what @Ringtail Raidersaid about the games, I can agree with his statement. However, one thing I do disagree on is where it should be merged. I think that the two animation games should be merged into this article. Not vice versa. This is because we would be leaving the third game out of the loop if we merged this article into the Faces of Evil and Wand of Gamelon article. Reader of Information (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, the impracticality of this however would be that it would become too long. Another idea would be to add something to it. I might do something to fix this without having it merge it. Let me see what I can do. Reader of Information (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The way it is now, those two having their own article separate from Zelda's Adventure, seems preferable as they have little in common (I didn't even realise ZA was released so much later). I never suggested merging it though, my other suggestion besides redirecting was about whether it could be made into an overview article about all Nintendo CDi game stuff instead of just the Zelda ones, as that information appears to be awkwardly spread out across all the different game articles right now. Ringtail Raider (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.