Talk:Young Link

Uh, about the Melee info- Young Link has the Deku Shield and the OoT-style Kokiri Sword, so I'm editing out mentions that he wields the Hylian (Hero's in Majora's Mask) Shield. Dinosaur bob 14:14, 12 November 2007 (EST)

In fact, since OoT Link and MM Link are the same person, perhaps I should edit out that whole passage arguing that it's any specific game's Link. What do the rest of you think? Dinosaur bob 14:20, 12 November 2007 (EST)

I'm not entirely sure. It would seem that SSMB's YL indeed, qua powers and looks (official artwork of OOT/MM-Link = YL in SSMB), is OOT/MM Link, but on the other hand, his trophy states that YL is (considered) "the true Link" (or something along those lines). Anyway, that would mean he is far more based on TLOZ Link. I think info on what Link he is based, is fine to stay, but the section has to be rewritten (like, The Great Bay/Lake Hylia-part; that's not an argument).IfIHaveTo 06:41, 13 November 2007 (EST)

"Young" Link

I think some clarity's needed with regard to the name. To me, Young Link describes the opposite of Adult Link, and as such only exists in OoT (and by extension MM and SSBM). The only reason for describing him as "young" is to distinguish him from the adult form. While it's true that Link in other games is also of around the same age, surely it's redundant to term these incarnations as Young Link, as he appears only at one age in these games and is, by default, young? In my view, if this article is not treated strictly in this sense, then it would need to be merged with and integrated into Link. —Adam ^(talk) 14:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

I think it falls under the same line as Toon Link. They are not their own character, but a notable derivation from the original. I do think it should be merged with Link. Saibh 19:04, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

I too think it should be merged with Link.--Link hero of light 19:10, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

I made a few (read: quite a few) changes to the article, and would like to know if my edits cleared any of this up so we can remove the tag at the top. Oh, and this article is too important to merge with Link, by the way :p. Anthony 09:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This article really seems like it would be better off as a subsection of Link. This is, after all, just the child form of the OoT/MM Link, and none of the other Links get their own article.Ganondorfdude11 18:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

Support

1. This is Link, and just as Toon Link doesn't have an article or that Ganon and Ganondorf don't have separate articles, there really is no reason that this should. Young Link is also a fanon name given in a spin-off title, so the name can't even be considered canon.User:Steven/sig 00:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Food for though: Just because Billy wants Ganon and Ganondorf to be separate articles doesn't mean that they should be. If we start letting the fans' thoughts and feeling organize the wiki, everything will be out of place. User:Austin/sig 02:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Opposition

1. I've thought about this for quite awhile. This page is rather highly viewed, just barely out of the top 400 pages out of 2815. I think some fans just identify with Young Link. In skype, I'll mention something I thought of, to compensate for the fact that we will be keeping the Link page sectioned by game. User:Axiomist/sig 12:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
2. First, it would keep the Link page from getting messy and uneccesarily long, and there is enough legitimate info on this page to warrant one. Second, as Ax said, even I identify with the character having played and cherished OoT when I was younger. We don't have to merge or delete everything, guys - it would just get weird to not have a Young Link page, canon or not. We can even just put the conjectural title up!And honestly, when writing for a wiki that has a lot of fan support, sometimes you have to consider the thoughts of the fans, esp. since we are too! =) User:Cipriano 119/sig 02:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Zelda related article. Begrudgingly, I must defend it as such.—Justin^(Talk) 03:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Comments

Merging

Could someone please merge this page with Hero of Time to remove confusion. Also it can be tedious when clicking between pages to get information on one character. User:GeneralTarken/sig 00:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the merge entirely, so long as nobody has any objections. Now that we have the Hero of Time article, there's no real reason for this page to exist. It refers to the exact same incarnation of Link, and a lot of information is repeated. The only problem is what to do with this page afterwards. Should it redirect to the Hero of Time article, redirect to the Link article like Adult Link does, or should it just be deleted altogether? Personally, I believe the former would be the most logical form of action, seeing as Template:OOT is the only game in which there is a distinction between Adult Link and Child Link. Naturally, this would also mean that the Adult Link redirect would also have to be changed, for the sake of consistency. Dannyboy601^Talk 15:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't really support the idea of a Hero of Time article, but if we're going to keep that, then there's no point in keeping the OoT/MM information from this page here.

However, I say that this page should remain to detail the character from Super Smash Bros. Melee, much like we have the Toon Link article focusing solely on the eponymous character from Super Smash Bros. Brawl instead of all the incarnations of Link that resemble him. - Tony^{T S C} 15:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've never particularly liked the idea of the Young Link and Toon Link articles. The thing is, based on Young Link and Adult Link's movesets and appearance in Melee, it's made pretty clear that they're based on the Hero of Time, so why not keep their information under "Non-canon Appearances" on the Hero of Time article? This also goes for Toon Link, who is based on the Hero of Winds (at least in Brawl, anyway). This also brings into question the Link from Brawl, who is shown to be based on Link's Twilight Princess incarnation. If we were to keep a separate article for Young Link and Toon Link, then surely we would also have to make separate articles for the Link from Brawl, and possibly the upcoming SSB game as well? And where does that leave the Link from the original SSB, who is also based on the Hero of Time? I believe that Young Link and Toon Link shouldn't be allowed to have their own articles simply because they have unique names, when they are clearly based on existing characters. Dannyboy601^Talk 16:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I know this is a year later, but I agree that it should be merged with the Hero of Time article, and that this should remain to detail the Super Smash Bros Melee character MHNinja478 (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Considering Young Link now appears in Hyrule Warriors and is very likely not the same character, I think we should keep the page. Peanutjon (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The idea is to keep the page with only the SSBM and HW appearances and move the canon information to the Hero of Time page. You can contribute to the current conversation down below. - Chuck * ^(Talk) 19:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Article Reorganization

Since there was a discussion previously about merging the content on this page, and there was a good consensus that content had to be removed from this page, I want to discuss a few things:

1. Young Link is not present in OoT or MM. They are not Young Link. A young Link appears in those games, but Young Link is a name for a character based on the child Link from those games, in the same way that Toon Link is based on the Link from The Wind Waker and related titles, but isn't necessarily him either.
2. There is no canon basis for "Young Link" as a title in relation to the child form of the Hero of Time, so the canon and non-canon aspects of this page need to split. I'm fine with the notion of merging the OoT/MM information with the Hero of Time article (as much as I don't like that we have said article).

Because of these, this article should be treated the same way as we do with the Toon Link article and we should instead put a clear focus on the Young Links that appear in non-canon media to distinguish them from the normal "Link" (those being Melee and Hyrule Warriors). - Tony^{T S C} 14:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Now that we have at least 2 non-canon appearances, we can make a decent article out of it. - Chuck * ^(Talk) 19:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Also agreed, this article is currently layed out in a confusing manner, and really should be treated like Toon Links article. ---Pixel ^TC 16:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that to, and that the canon information should be put on the Hero of Time article MHNinja478 needs a life (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Small Edit

Sorry if this doesn't warrant an entry on the talk page, but I wanted to explain why I am changing part of the Young Link article, mostly so that it doesn't get changed back. I'm a stickler for attention to detail and I noticed an error. The article states that Young Link wears Hover Boots when performing his Triforce Slash combo in Hyrule Warriors when he actually doesn't. While the Hover Boots were something the Hero of Time could equip (at least as an adult), what Young Link actually dons for this attack is something the Hero of Time never got in OoT or MM, the Pegasus Boots. If you look closely, you'll see the boots have the Feathered Wing that the Pegasus Boots have been depicted with in Link's Awakening artwork and the in-game 'Item' sprite in Four Swords and Minish Cap and not the Golden Metal design that the Hover Boots sport. Young Link using the Pegasus Boots could be a reference to how other 'young' Links, such as those in the Four Swords games, Minish Cap, Phantom Hourglass, Link Between Worlds, and, arguably, Link to the Past and Link's Awakening, used the boots while other 'adult' Links have not, arguable though since LttP and LA are somewhat hard to place between 'young' and 'adult', appearing more 'teen' then anything. User:DevaAshera 5:20, 8 February 2015