Talk:Zora (Enemy)

May I suggest we find a way to arrange the images in a more organized manner? As of right now, they're randomly scattered around the page, and it's kind of akward. Dinosaur bob 22:15, 6 October 2007 (EDT) Would some one please put a picture of the zora warrior as i have no idea what it looks like Zanramon

Image
Did this thing ever appear in a game? I'm pretty sure it did not appear in ALTTP. Suppose it's artwork not related to any game's canon, should I add it to the article (gallery)? IfIHaveTo 07:39, 25 December 2007 (EST)

Female?
I was just on Zelda.com's encyclopedia and it defines Zolas as "Zola is the name given to any female Zora who turns against Hylians and chooses to live a life of violence. They normally hide underwater, then spit fireballs at anyone who walks by." It also has them appearing in TLOZ, ALTTP, LA, and FSA. So should we really consider Zola officially abandoned? of course some of the info in that encyclopedia is incorrect. BanaBana 17:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

go for it. i dont think that things a zora anyway. my prima giude for alttp calls deadrock a goron. change the name, i fully support!Dragonstetraforce 21:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ewhh.. Well, Zelda.com is infamous for its tendency to substitute in fan-fiction for fact. I wouldn't believe it if I were you. 21:59, August 29, 2008 (UTC)

Zelda 2
I don't believe the enemy listed as a River Zora appearing in Zelda 2 in this article is actually one. I've always known it as a Basilisk. It looks more like a lizard than a Zora, and its appearance in this game - appearing in deserts and caves - is totally out of character for Zoras at the time this game was made. I never would have thought to even associate this enemy with Zoras/Zola until I read it here. Lysia 06:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

FSA Zora
Zora's in FSA were ALttP styled and acted like ALttP zoras, but they looked different! I remember them being blue and red, not orange and green. I'll try looking for some evidance. -- կրակ (խոսել) -- 22:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You can see one in this video at around 04:13; it does look more like the original LoZ colouration. 12:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of FSA Zoras, there is obviously two kinds of them in FSA. Interestingly, in the Official Nintendo Player Guide, the green-type Zora ( the one that uses recycled ALTTP sprites ) is always described as just 'creature' and never as a Zora. The blue type ( the enemy ) is always described as a Zora. Another case to the Zora mystery, I guess. Question remains if we should take this ( the guide ) at face value or not. It probably the closest thing we have as a source. Otherwise people could just decide that the green creature in FSA are Zoras simply because they use recycled sprites from ALTTP. If they're not Zoras at all, then that would explain why Nintendo bothered to introduce another Zora type in FSA ( one resembling the LoZ Zoras more ) Nerushi 22:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Split Zora Warrior
Merge Zora Warrior with Geozard. See Geozard's talk page. Jeangabin 13:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is Zora Warrior even a canon name? I think Geozard is just the name that the Prima guide made up for them or something... Anyway, if it IS split off from the River Zora page, then yeah...definitely merge Geozard with Zora Warrior or whatever. Same enemy, pretty much. Dany36 19:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Couldn't say it better myself... Zelda nexgen INC. 19:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Both "Zora Warrior" and Geozard are called Gyomazon (ギョマゾン) in Japanese. See here. Jeangabin 15:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Zora Earring
This page has no mention on where that Zora earring seen in the gallery appears, could someone please add this? Vuvuzela2010 18:32, 25 January 2011 (EST)

Trivia
I may be mistaken, but to me, any article that has a "trivia" section instantly loses something. If it's trivia, it's not worth mentioning in a (hopefully) encyclopedic article. If it is worth mentioning, then it should have it's own place somewhere in the regular article. For instance, the one sourced "trivia" item (the one about female/male zora's being against hylians, etc) is interesting, and I would actually put it in the Zora or Zola section. Vyselink


 * Someone can correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems to me that the point of the trivia section is to mention anything that would seem relevant to the article that could not be mentioned anywhere else. Oftentimes trivia sections have such quirky and little-known facts that they often (at least in my opinion) are some of the most interesting parts of articles. It seems to me that removing relevant information would be doing the exact opposite of what Zelda Wiki (or any encyclopedia) strives for. Besides, the great majority of mainspace articles on this Wiki have trivia sections. Its something that's pretty heavily implemented in the Wiki...
 * Now, that being said, I do agree that this particular trivia section is indeed in need of attention, especially if we're going to be featuring the article. It kind of defeats the purpose of having bullets when you have huge paragraphs like that, and it makes the trivia section look rather ungainly and definitely larger than a trivia section should be. Perhaps those two big paragraphs (bullets two and six), which both pertain to the naming of River Zoras, could go with the "Zora or Zola?" stuff and put all into one section named, say, "Naming" or "Nomenclature" or something... What do you guys think? 20:18, 21 February 2011 (EST)


 * Because this wiki is less straight-edge than Wikipedia and other like wikis that deliver only information that is "worth mentioning", Zelda Wiki carries a sense of uniqueness not many wikis can say they have. By no means is the Trivia section pointless, as it often alludes to connections, similarities, or "did you know"-kinds of facts that don't have a place in the main body, but should have a place elsewhere. As HK said, the Trivia sections are some of the most interesting parts of an article. Because Zelda Wiki is staffed by fans, edited by fans, and read by fans, Zelda enthusiasts find this sort of information fun and relevant; it has continued to be included in articles because it embellishes the topic at hand, and adds to the overall understanding.
 * To take your point, HK, I don't see an issue with a trivia section that has lengthy bullets. If it's trivia, it's trivia, no matter how long it takes to explain it. You have a good iead there, though, so it may be worth including in the main body. 15:17, 22 February 2011 (EST)


 * Aye. I agree, trivia is included in articles to add interest and things such as similarities, quick facts, ect. To take that away, would also detract from some of the interesting facts in an article. As far as the trivia section "looking ungainly", I don't really think it looks bad. We could probably do something else with it hough, like incorporate some of the facts into the main text body, or something. 20:51, February 22, 2011 (UTC)