Talk:Zora

The two Zora articles need to be merged, not divided further. The two distinct types of Zora may have quite different appearances, but Zelda.com states that a Zola (River Zora) is simply a female Zora turned bad. They are the same species. --Adam 18:17, 28 October 2007 (EDT)


 * I always thought they were different species but I agree that they should be merged.--Green 18:33, 28 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Zelda.com has quite a number of inaccurate pieces of info and obviously is not (properly) updated since the the Oracle games. To illustrate my two statements:
 * Medli: Young Medli was a princess of the Rito tribe on Dragon Roost Island in the Great Sea. She possessed both unquestioned bravery and the ability to fly. - Princess eh? How about no?
 * Daria: Darias are disgusting hybrids of Hylians and alligators. They are expert axe-throwers, and their axes are so sharp that they are able to slice through most Hyrulean Shields. - I just love how unbiased that site is. At multiple points (like the Koholint article), it becomes clear that whoever wrote Zelda.com's encyclopedia knows nothing more than the gamers and as such, has filled several articles with their own interpretation and opinion.
 * Why do I have to look up Poe if I want info on Ghinis or Ghosts? Those are completely different creatures.
 * Zola: 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. - Did the PH River Zora look like females to you? No, and seeing how Nintendo dealt with the genders of all other races, it's safe to say they are not female. - Do they only attack Hylians? What's so special about Hylians that they specifically turned against them? - Do all of them live a life of violence or do we remember a few non-violent River Zora? Yes, there have been a few instances of non-violent River Zora (although I can imagine only one of them truly counts). Furthermore, the physical appearance of River Zora and Sea Zora is so different, it's ridiculous to think one is the evil version of the other.
 * In addition, we have this quote which contradicts the Zola statement: Zora's Flippers: Designed by Zoras to be sold on the Hyrulean market, these form-fitting flippers can make it easy for anyone to swim in the deepest of water. - In case you've forgotten, the Zora's Flippers first appeared in ALTTP and that game only had Rvier Zoras. Why would a "hostile race" who "turned against the Hylians" want to do the whole trading thing with them?
 * The second point is that my guess is that the encyclopedia was created around the time of OOT and MM and only properly updated after the release of the Oracle games. There is some serious info missing from the latter games. What I mean is, that info was put there by someone and never looked at again. How can one trust that info then?


 * River Zoras and Sea Zoras are not the same species. If anything, I guess they are at least as different as the four established human races. I don't consider Zelda.com canon because of its biased articles, lack of info, contradictions with ingame info etc. But even if I cannot make you doubt Zelda.com, the River Zoras and Sea Zoras are completely different qua role, powers, looks etc. It doesn't make sense to put them in the same article.


 * P.S., I just found what I was looking for: the instruction booklet of The Legend of Zelda. I'm assuming this is where the idea of River Zora only being females comes from. Woopdiedoo, the same booklet that calls Moblins Molblins. Anyway, Nintendo never touched on the subject again, but that doen't mean it still counts (or ever counted for that matter). If anyone can translate this, it would be most appreciated. 213.17.22.115 05:38, 29 October 2007 (EDT)


 * I'm all for discussion and debate, but this should take place before large-scale, drastic changes are made (and preferably in a less accusatory fashion). My main objection to your edits was the renaming of the entire Zora article to the unofficial fan-created name Sea Zora (perhaps Ocean Zora would be more apt), which also describes the Zora of OoT and TP who live only in freshwater rivers. And yes, I know zelda.com is riddled with inaccuracy. As are most of the games themselves. As are a number of your above statements. --Adam 17:00, 29 October 2007 (EDT)


 * It was accusatory? My apologies. I edited it a little before I posted it and didn't think it was still....accusatory. Anyway, Sea Zora is the name Oracle of Ages gave them. It is not fan-created. "Don't think us noble sea Zoras the same as those savage, vulgar river Zoras!" - some sea Zora in OOA. I would never have made the earlier changes if this quote didn't exist. I think that at the best, it says something about their prefered habitat. Because Sea Zora can be seen in the rivers of Hyrule in OOT and TP, and River Zoras in the waters of the Great Ocean/Sea in PH.
 * Just two more things:
 * As much as I love criticism (not being sarcastic here), I prefer it if an example is given. "And yes, I know zelda.com is riddled with inaccuracy. (...) As are a number of your above statements." - care to explain?
 * Why do you keep removing my edits to the River Zora article? First of all, it's biased (lacking the grace and beauty of the other zora race? Ugh, the I feel my stomach turning upside down.) and lacks info about their appearances in four games at the least. How am I supposed to edit it to make it look better if I can't even have a good look at the original edit?213.17.22.115 03:42, 30 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Dealing with your points in reverse order:
 * 2. If the River Zora article is such a "biased piece of nonsense", how is it so greatly improved by removing 3 words, and pasting in text from the Zora article? (BTW, I do however fully agree with the removal of "Unlike their peaceful cousins, the River Zora have no hint of beauty or grace.", and have now removed it again).
 * 1. As an example: "Why would a "hostile race" who "turned against the Hylians" want to do the whole trading thing with them?" When/where is it specified which "species" King Zora is? Judging by appearance alone, he is the same species as the hostile Zoras, which could equally serve to reinforce the assertion that they are simply violent Sea Zora females.


 * And I do find statements like "In case you've forgotten" and "How about no?" fairly accusatory... Anyway, all petty bickering aside, this is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. Given the wild inconsistencies in information within the games and all other official sources, we should be aiming to have an article which sticks closely to the known facts. The only result that I can see from running two separate articles is that information will be duplicated, or worse contradicted. The only workable option is to merge the articles into one, and find some way to diplomatically represent the ambiguity in the nature of the Zora. --Adam 04:24, 30 October 2007 (EDT)


 * That and the part about the river zora being a subspecies of the Zora, which links here, while there is only that questionable source for it (and even then, subspecies isn't the word.); and the mentioning of their roles in the other four games. Yes, I know I should've filled in those sections a tad more, but it has been awhile since I played those games and I was hoping on editing it later (or that someone with more recent memories would see it and edit it him/herself).
 * I'm afraid I can't follow you logic. As far as I get it, you say King Zora (ALTTP) is a river zora and thus that means that river zoras are violent sea zora females?


 * Once more, my apologies. I wasn't aiming that text to anyone in specific (at the most to Zelda.com), and thus did not deem it "rude". As from the articles, I don't think there's any need for fear of duplication and contradiction. First of all, what kind of contradiction do you think might come into existance? I can't think of anything myself. As for duplication, the Sea and River Zoras only appeared in one game together, so that's the only game section that might somewhat get doubled (and that even hardly since the two species have completely different roles). I mean, why would we mention the games they did not appear in? We don't have to touch on the Zola-Zora subject in the sea Zora article as they were called Zoras from the start. The two zora races have completely different histories throughout the zelda games, so that can't be duplicated. Yeah, some info is bound to appear twice in the encyclopedia, but that's like writing in the Jolene article that Joanne is her sister and in the Joanne article that Jolene is her sister.


 * Also, if any section would ever get created about the Zora appearance, biology etc., it would have to be divided into two subsections due to the differences between the two zora species.


 * Otherwise (if those are your only problems), I have an offer. You give me (and/or anyone else interested) a certain amount of time to create two (decent basic) articles about the River Zoras and the Sea Zoras. I will not change any links to the articles or move the Zora page to a Sea Zora page. If at the end you deem the articles duplicates of eachother or consider them contradicting, I will not fight a merge between the articles anymore.213.17.22.115 07:02, 30 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Sounds fair, let's see what you come up with on the two articles, and we'll look at it again from there. --Adam 16:32, 31 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Ok, thanks. Just one question. You've added most of the images to the River Zora article. Mind telling where they are from so I can find a good place for them in the article? Not just from what game, but also what medium.213.17.22.115 14:57, 1 November 2007 (EDT)


 * Here you go, I added a few. --Adam 15:18, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

And I've just hit the point where I have to say: "Much more I can't do. If it's not worth of staying separated now, it probably will never be, although some feedback (a subject I have not paid attention too, a biased part) would be appreciated before any drastic changes would be made."
 * A few things I want changed, but "can't" do on my own are:


 * still looking for one image: a river zora in Phantom Hourglass (thanks for the other images)
 * I am convinced that that big Zora from ALTTP had a name/title, but I can't find proof in any text dump. Does anyone know whether he was called King Zora or Great Zora (or nothing at all)? And if he had a name/title, where in the game could it be found? IfIHaveTo 07:01, 3 November 2007 (EDT)


 * Uhm, is anyone going to judge the articles? I mean, I can't do much more than this. As for the quote about King Zora, I'll look it up one of these days myself. It's not the only quote in a random TLOZ text dump that for some reason is not present.IfIHaveTo 12:11, 9 November 2007 (EST)


 * I'm not slightly annoyed* Okay, I put a lot of work into these articles and wish to hear what others think about them (and the River Zora = Sea Zora issue alltogether). It's been over ten days since I asked and frankly, I'm getting a little impatient. I want that merge template gone (seeing how other articles with merge templates are treated) and certainty about what's going to happen with the two articles. If by tomorrow morning no one has replied, I am going my way with this article. I don't think that is unreasonable.IfIHaveTo 08:37, 13 November 2007 (EST)
 * Hrm... at the very least, have two sections within the article- Sea Zora and River Zora. One section for each kind,since there do seem to be some disctinctions (minor ones, yes, but they do seem to be there) yet within one handy article for all Zoras. I think that's the way to go. Dinosaur bob 10:21, 13 November 2007 (EST)
 * Hi there. First of all, sorry in general for my absence from the wiki; my internet connection went into meltdown, and I was without internet access for a whole week! Second, the articles are great, I think you've done a really good job of fleshing them out, in particular the River Zora page which was woefully lacking before you started. Lastly, on the issue of merging, I want to clarify what I said earlier; when I talked about duplicate information, I wasn't accusing you. You've done an excellent job of dividing the content and making a clear distinction between the two species/clans/races, or whatever :) My concern is that, a few weeks or months from now, someone less through than yourself will come along, read one or other of the articles, assume that the information which belongs in the other is just plain missing, and the duplication will begin. Without moderation, it will then escalate into contradictory information being written. For that reason, I still believe that the two must be merged, but keeping a clear delineation into two individual sections as DinoBob suggests. --Adam 12:12, 18 November 2007 (EST)


 * Hehehe, yeah, I kinda figured out you just had not been online for a while. The reason an sich is not important, as I know people have a life outside of the world called internet and which is the more important one ;)
 * First Dinosaur bob's argument: Why? The two species have NOTHING in common with eachother, except that they are both amphibian/fish-like creatures (a tuna is not a piranha, so to say) and they both have the basic name of Zora. Following that logic, Link and Dark Link should also be merged, as they are both Hylians and bear the (basic) name Link. I could argue that way that the Nejiron and Goron articles should be merged or the "Hook device articles" or that the Bombchu article should not be split. Many, many people can't see, or don't bother about differences if it isn't closely related to them. But take a look at the Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens for instance. They already are more related than the two Zora races due to the latter having no (undebatable) confirmed relationship, but are they the same? Far from, that's why Wikipedia and every single encyclopedia/book out there gives them each their own articles/pages; because they are not the same, despite many "similarities" qua name and appearance.
 * Then Adam's argument: I thank you for your compliment. It really is appreciated. However, I do have some questions about your arguments for a merge. First of all, I know you weren't accusing me and I appreciate you gave me the chance to prove my point that duplicate info is nearly completely avoidable. But why give me that chance if your argument now is that while it may be good now, someone else might come one day and ruin it, so it is better to merge it to avoid such a situation? That's like "my chance" was merely a diversion. True, if you would have said that then, I wouldn't have exactly been happy, but I can't say that argument is making me feel much better right now. Also, you're a mod, right? Isn't it "your job then" (*) to undo inaccurate/wrongful/stupid edits, which would include a sea zora edit in the river zora article and vice versa? Considering both articles as a whole make a clear distinction between the two species (especially if the Zora page becomes a disamb page and the zora article is moved to a sea zora page), you'd kinda have to have a lack of braincell connections to make such an edit. Also, why worry about tomorrow? I can guarantee you right here and now that one day someone will come by and resurrect the Ganondorf article. Would that have been a reason to have kept them apart?
 * (*) Those "'s were meant to question each word and get any possible aggression/accusation or whatever out of that sentence, not to emphasize those three words.IfIHaveTo 15:54, 18 November 2007 (EST)


 * You make a good point, and I suppose I'm just letting past experience cloud my judgement. We'll leave the articles as they are for now and see how/if it develops. Again, thanks for your hard work and sorry we kinda got off on the wrong foot! :) --Adam 16:08, 18 November 2007 (EST)