Follow TV Tropes
Toon Link is Wind Waker Link/Phantom Hourglass Link/The Hero of Winds
Also unlike the Twilight Princess Default Link who is in many ways a composite character (like having Navi appear in a taunt) all of Toon Link's gear and animations are based on The Wind Waker. Even if the Wind Waker and a few other games may imply the 6 or so other Toon Link's that arent The Hero of Winds are technically represented, (and that both TP Link and WW Link cause Alfonzo to appear on the train stage) as a composite character, everything else about this link is The Hero of Winds.
Agreeing with this. Also, please stop edit warring over it.
But the design first appeared in Four Swords. It doesn't matter how many facts you put up saying that he's based on the Wind Waker version, which no one is disputing, it doesn't change the fact that Four Swords debuted first. Banjo was created and designed for Banjo-Kazooie, but that doesn't change that he debuted in Diddy Kong Racing first. The same exact thing applies here.
All of you "evidence" just points out that he's based on the Wind Waker version, and actually does nothing to actually prove that he debuted in Wind Waker instead of a game that came out 11 days earlier. There are several questionable groupings in the trophy boxes, and they should not be taken as definitive proof of anything.
Well... Wind Waker Link is a different character than Four Swords Link.
And the Banjo thing doesn't really hold up because in this case, the character design was originally designed for and debuted as (via the original trailer) WW Link. FS came out first, but just because it had a shorter design cycle doesn't mean it's the original.
None of these characters are the ones that appear in their home games, they're just toys being played with. The design first debuted in Four Swords on December 2nd, 2002, not in Wind Waker, on December 13th, 2002. It's about their first appearance in a game, not their first appearance in a trailer. And the Banjo thing does matter. By the same logic you're using, Roy's debut in Melee should be completely deleted from his character profile and changed to only being Fire Emblem 6, because though his first playable appearance was in Melee, he was designed and shown off for Fire Emblem before hand.
The name of the character is Toon Link, not Wind Waker Link, not Hero of the Winds Link, "Toon Link". No matter which one of the iterations he's based off of, and no matter how many references they make to Wind Waker with the character, the first game released with the Toon Link design was Four Swords.
And of course the trophies and such written by the Japanese team are going to reference the Wind Waker first. The Wind Waker came out before Four Swords in Japan. As far as they're concerned, Wind Waker was his first game, but worldwide, Four Swords was first.
Whoa, Wind Waker debuted before Four Swords in Japan? I think we have closure to the debate. Wind Waker came out first.
Or should we disregard the existence of Pokemon Red and Green (and Japanese Blue) in 1996, the Japanese anime 1997, and Japanese Yellow Sept 12th 1998 and pretend that none of the Pokemon characters existed until Sept 28th 1998 when Red and Blue came out worldwide? If you want to be technical about dates.
Four Swords came out on December 2nd, 2002 and Wind Waker came out March 24th, 2003 in the U.S.
Wind Waker came out on December 13th, 2002 and Four Swords came out March 14th, 2003 in Japan.
Four Swords came out first internationally even though Wind Waker was released first in Japan.
Either way FS Link and WW Link are two different characters even if they look identical. Smash bros doesn't recognize FS Link at all.
Note default Link (despite being TP Link) states that his debut was in the original Lo Z (indisputably a composite character). Toon Link has always only recognized WW and Phantom Hourglass.
You mean other than his alts being based on the four swords colors?
This isn't a debate on which version of the character the Smash Toon Link is based on, no one's disputing that, but the character design of Toon Link has been used in 6 games, by five different incarnations of Link, none of which is any more important than another, and the first one of which just happened to be Four Swords.
And I know the design appeared in the Wind Waker trailer first, but never, in any form of media, has a trailer been considered a "debut" of a character. The debut is based on when the media in question is actually released. And while Four Swords was using the Wind Waker design, it came out first.
Alt colors are shout outs but say nothing about who the base character is. That's like saying Mario could be Wario because he's always had Wario colors as an alt since 64.
The design of Link is not just the character but also his gear. WW Link has WW gear. He has the Master Sword and not the Four Sword. He has the Wind Waker baton. His Punch Out title references the Wind Waker. And I would argue that WW Link is the most important Toon Link particularly in this context. He's the only version of Toon Link called out explicitly. Toon Link's Brawl trophy is a bio of WW Link. This is not true for any other composite character. Default Link doesnt reference the events of TP, it talks about Link generally. PKMN Trainer doesn't reference the events of RBY / FRLG, it talks about the idea of trainers generally. Toon Link talks about Outset Island and his sister and such.
Your last point is fine.
If we admit that WW Link and FS Link are two different people (even if they look identical) and in all official promotional and in-game material Smash Bros talks about the story of WW Link specifically, then you can't say that he debuted in FS. That was another guy who looks just like him.
This is not about them being two separate characters.
Fact: All characters in Smash are not their cannon appearances. They're toys. So, in reality, he's neither FS or WW Link.
Fact: Toon Link is a design used across many games.
Fact: One of those games was four swords.
Fact: Four Swords came out before Wind Waker.
Until one of those statements is proven wrong, Four Swords is his debut game. Im not seeing how you dont understand that.
Your facts are straight but you're willfully ignoring one fact.
Fact: Smash Bros canon recognizes Toon Link as Wind Waker Link, not as Toon Link as a design used across games.
Which renders your fact 2 moot. Regardless of your headcanon about composite characters there's nothing in the text of Smash that indicates that Toon Link is one of them.
And the relevance of your fact 1 is moot. If all characters are toys/trophies being played with by Master Hand, then all characters actual debut is their first Smash Bros appearance and game of origin should be taken out wholesale.
that's 2 out of 4.
and really if fact 2 is moot then facts 3 and 4 are no longer relevant either. none of your statements are wrong they just arent relevant. I think the burden of proof is on you disprove the one fact i've been pushing and backed up with all the evidence in my first post. Besides that you're just talking past me.
Give me one piece of non-circumstantial proof that the game does not recognize all versions of Toon Link. You're the one ignoring relevant games in the actual canon to fit this Toon Link into your own headcanon. Even if you want to ignore fact 1, facts 2 through 4 are relevant, and nothing you have said proves otherwise. His name is Toon Link, not Wind Waker Link. It's a design used in multiple games.
Show one piece of proof the Toon Link did not appear in Four Swords, and I'll admit your point. Until then, Four Swords Link = Toon Link.
Toon Links trophy description in Brawl mentions Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass specifically and gives a bio that's based on the events of The Wind Waker.
When Brawl was released several other 'toon links' had appeared including Four Swords and Minish Cap. None of them were mentioned in the trophy description.
In contrast, Default Link's trophy talks about Link generally and lists his debut as the original Legend of Zelda on the NES, despite being heavily based on Twilight Princess, Smash Bros recognizes and includes the possibility of multiple Link's in this version of the character.
Four Swords Link is "A Toon Link" but not "The Toon Link" and The Toon Link did not appear in Four Swords, only in Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass and received a mention in Spirit Tracks
I mean we can mention it in the description as a bit of trivia that a similar looking Link appeared in Four Swords, 2 weeks before this character debuted. But that wasn't this character.
For the record, Smash 4's Trophy mentions him directly being in Wind Waker and Spirit Track(via the Game Origins)s. It's very clear now it's talking about his design, but for the purposes of Smash, WW is the first original appearance of Toon Link.
The 3DS version doesn't mention game origins whatsoever. So yes, I'd say WW without a doubt.
Yeah, but are we going to label Link as having debuted in Ocarina of Time or Twilight Princess?
The Legend of Zelda. Just like the Trophies say for him and Young Link. They're meant to outright come from that game, despite using the OOT-style models(which are just 3D versions of the original player character, with new shields designs at best, and slightly different colored clothes).
Does anyone have a link that confirms Pit was 13 at the start and 38 now. I find that hard to believe.
He was 13 years old in the Kid Icarus games, but I can't find info on the Super Smash Bros Brawl ones.
I thought he only has the looks of a 13 years old in Uprising. If one takes "Medusa's Revenge" as an example, Pit's younger appearance looks closer to 10 years old at the most.
I thought he was a child 7-10 and then the normal ending was canon (since him being an adult is not canon) therefore he aged from a child to a teenager appearance.
My guess is that since he was 13 in the original, and the sequel came out 25 years later, they just decided to be clever and decide he's 38.
It wouldn't make sense for him to be 13 in the original game though. Sakurai specifically says Pit LOOKS 13 but he's not 13. Pit makes multiple references to being an adult and Snake calls him a veteran.
However in the original game he looks nowhere near a teenager (I would even think the manual said he was a child) except in the normal ending. He would still be in his late twenties/early thirties if we went with his younger age and if angels age differently then he would end up going to Disgaea levels for his age.
Assuming that these works use the same standard for "adult" as we do, mind you.
I don't remember Pit saying he was a adult, but a commissioned officer and all that jazz? But I believe Pit is 13 years old in all types of "age" except human chronology. I also have a personal theory on HOW he ages, so if you're interested to know I can make a post later.
About certain characters having things removed due to no being confirmed, like Mega Lucario being a Final Smash, should we really do that? We can delete it later if it's wrong, not to mention the sheer amount of unconfirmed things present on other character's pages. For example, we have no confirmation Mike West is Fox, but we have that put up, as well as Roger Craig Smith as Sonic. It's inconsistent, and either we need to weed out EVERY example, or just keep it.
That other stuff needs to be removed, then. Until we can confirm it via things like the game's credits(IMDB can be edited by anyone, so it's not that reliable), actual gameplay videos(this is how we were able to confirm Luigi's new Final Smash)and POTD's. Or other official information.
Don't we have a thing called There Is No Such Thing As Notability? It's pointless to do that, simply because it contradicts something site-wide.
That policy is about work pages and notability, not characters or "unconfirmed" material.
Fine, but don't say "that other stuff needs to be removed" without making an effort to remove it. RCS and Mike West are still up, even after I said something about it. Want it to be removed? Do it yourself.
And way to be an asshole, Septimus.
You don't call someone an asshole just because they pointed out you invoked a rule incorrectly.
The <Sigh> is because people keep using that page to argue things that aren't about the suitability of work pages and it's becoming an annoyance. No need to get upset.
If I had time to remove the unconfirmed ones, I would have already. I worked 7 days in a row(including today) and have been extremely tired as well.
Please do not assume people are not putting in effort here. It's completely unnecessary to do so.
I cannot remember which ones were confirmed by a Twitter from the actual person(which is pretty close enough to an official source that we can use), in which we would leave that. Those who we don't know from their own words or something unreliable like Wikipedia or Internet Movie Database can respectfully be removed. Which ones weren't confirmed from the actual source? Once I know, I can remove that/comment it out(and either comment it back in or change it to the official one if it was incorrect) later. But at the moment, I lack the information to do so.
I'm really not sure why Mega Lucario as his new Final Smash is labeled as "unconfirmed" and keeps getting removed. It was confirmed months ago and it even appears under Super Mode on his character sheet.
You would have to ask the person who kept commenting this out. Also, you may want to provide a link to where they confirmed it.
It was never confirmed at any time.
Sakurai simply said it existed and explained some of its mechanics. This is why it appears under Super Mode. We know it's a different form of his that makes him far more powerful. What we don't know(officially) is if it's a Final Smash or not.
And yes, link to where he actually outright confirmed it was a Final Smash. I even double checked with multiple Moderators on another forum because of this, to make absolutely sure it was not confirmed. And it wasn't. Look, nobody is questioning that it'll be a Final Smash at all. I even think it will be. But it was never officially stated in any capacity regardless. It's a perfectly reasonable assumption, but it has yet to be proven in any way. No gameplay, no Sakurai statements, the two requirements.
The fact of the matter is, it's actually possible for it to not be a Final Smash, so until the confirmation it's a Final Smash, we have to keep it commented out. The only reason it's even commented out is that we're just that sure it's a Final Smash that we simply have to remove the "commented out" markup. In reality, it shouldn't even be listed on that part because we don't know what it is just yet.
Well then. I checked and it really wasn't confirmed as his Final Smash. A mistake on my part and I apologize for that.
...though I would be really surprised if it turns out to be anything other than his Final Smash.
Ah, alright. To be clear, it's probably necessary to note "wait till it's revealed" part at this point, since everybody pretty much think it's his FS.
Anyway, it might help if you double check something if people say it's wrong next time. In addition, it might help to make a Discussion post early on after the fact that people have been reverting an edit you made.
Thank you for double checking on your own. I'm glad this is cleared up. And yes, I would be surprised too.
Alright alright alright, this has turned into a very slow Edit War.
NAFEDUDE, why do you insist on adding that bolded part? The fact that Charizard's not a Dragon-type has no relation to what kind of dragon he's based on.
It's more of a tidbit: As far as I know, as long as it doesn't directly contradict the Trope, it's fine. I'm aware it's not PART of the trope, per se, but it is worth mentioning.
Here's the thing though: If a piece of info is not relevant to the example, you don't put it in, period; Clear Concise Witty after all. Besides, a lot of the "Our X Are Different" tropes have seen some problematic times because of misuse; adding irrelevant info does not help matters.
It IS relevant, though. He looks like a dragon, but technically ISN'T a dragon. That's pretty relevant and definitely worth mentioning. It's similar to saying a starfish isn't actually a fish: casually, most people don't care, but in a more formal discussion, it's something you are required to know to be taken seriously.
Dude, he looks like a dragon, sounds like a dragon, and breathes fire like a dragon. Typing is completely irrelevant when it comes to whatever kind of creature he's based on.
This trope does cover all dragon-like stuff, so that tidbit is a) unnecessary and b) wrong.
Again, it's relevant because of a technicality. I'm not saying he doesn't fit the trope. Quite the opposite, actually. I'm stating that DESPITE him not being technically a dragon by typing standards, he still fits the trope. Not to mention there are other references to typing that would be considered "irrelevant" by your standards, including another Dragon-type reference in Charizard's character sheet. Be consistent, or stop trying.
And it's not wrong, as him not being a Dragon-Type is provable fact.
Well, I actually only know this page, so I can't comment on which other pages ought to be modified. And whether it's a provable fact has nothing to do with whether it belongs here or no. So I stand with my idea especially in light of Elbruno's statement.
Again, the trope is about design, not the quirks of whatever series is playing with that trope. This especially holds true when you bring a character from one series to a setting where said quirk is completely inconsequential.
If a character breathes fire and you mention it's a fire-type when saying that, then it's justified and it makes sense. When you bring up typing to a design trope you're just making things more confusing than they need to be, especially with tropes as problematic as these ones.
It's five words. Five. It's not like a spiel on the reasoning behind it. He look's like a dragon. He's not TECHNICALLY a dragon. It's relevant. End of story.
Septimus, that means you pointing out it as "Wrong" was irrelevant.
In the Pokemon series, he's not a Dragon-type, true, no one's disputing that. What we're saying is that in the Smash series, Charizard is a dragon by design, even if he's not a dragon-type as a Pokemon. Pokemon typing is irrelevant in Smash, and while that note would be relevant in the Pokemon games, it shouldn't be included in the Smash character pages unless his typing has an effect on the Smash gameplay, like how Charizard is weak to water attacks.
I've put up a topic regarding the character order of these pages in general in the index's discussion. I'd rather not do this one-sidedly.
We need to do a rewrite on Pokemon Trainer.
As the game does not officially refer to him as Red(and he only looks like him).
It refers to him as a character not in Brawl, and the official trophy(as well as all official information) refer to him plainly as a general Pokemon Trainer.
However, doing this without outright copying the Trophy description is an issue. We should note how he's based upon Red physically, but that he is treated as a class throughout the entire game. In addition, he respectively acts like both Red and Ash with his dialogue choices as Anime-specific voice actor.
The current version recently edited corrects this information, but it's somewhat sloppy and can be written far better. What needs to be said is;
The last two bullet points are not as important, though. But the first two need to be outright stated so purely accurate information is put on this wiki, not speculation and a Fan Nickname.
Besides that, the Younger Than They Look entry is related to Red, not Pokemon Trainer, and isn't usable since G/S/C's Red isn't even mentioned at all. It's baseless speculation.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?