Talk:Jabun

Zora -> Rito evolution theory
Considering the monumental debate that this topic caused on the Rito article, might it be better if this topic wasn't discussed here, and rather that the article simply linked to the relevant section of Rito? —Adam (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Editing of the Article
I read the article and noticed that it had been added too since the last time I read it. However most the information is fan speculation added on more and more with each edit... I just want people to tell me if they think it is really improving the article. Much of the zora/rito debate, which was talked about above has been brought in...--Magnus orion 17:56, 31 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Well, it is marked with the theory tag now. 21:46, October 31, 2008 (UTC)

On the whole "Bloodline" thing
While I support the Zore evolved into Rito thing, it turns out the original Japanese never says the word bloodline. Instead it says descendant, which in the case of sages, could mean successor instead of a literal bloodline relation (The sages in TP, assuming they were the original sages, were replaced in OoT's Adult half by different races, which were eventually replaced by all Hylians). Should we make note of this, or not? 23:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Kind of tough to say whether "bloodline" was a mistranslation, or if they actually knew what the writers had in mind. Jimbo Jambo 06:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ritos and Zoras
I have a theory that the Zoras ended up getting split up in the great flood you know with apples of new water every where and that some went over to death mountain and evolved into the Ritos by the powers of Valoo. The others ended up with Jabu-Jabu (Jabun) and they remained around gratefish ile and lived on and around the island the Ganon destroyed the island they fled into the ocean. another point is the fish people who draw your sea chart they could also be a relation of the Zoras.

Prima Guide
Last time I checked, Prima guides were unofficial and not affiliated with Nintendo. The particular guide that gave this quote was even released during a time in which Nintendo was publishing official guides of their own (which they don't do anymore, unfortunately) and should be considered even less canon than the official Nintendo guide. Just because Prima games said it does not make it official or even evidence for a theory, as the guide wasn't even an officially licensed product. Ganondorfdude11 04:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, ZW needs help hashing out a canon policy, btw. But since the statement is sorta sourced, it can remain until we get a canon policy firmly settled on. 04:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't a matter of what should be considered canon among licensed merchandise and such, the Prima guide wasn't written by Nintendo, wasn't published by Nintendo, and even directly competed with an officially licensed guide from Nintendo. Common sense says that it has the same canon weight as fanfiction. While the Jabu-Jabu=Jabun theory has a lot of canon weight, the Prima games guide should not be used as a source for it. Ganondorfdude11 04:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Much of it can be outright rejected, but some things like names for enemies not otherwise named anyplace else will be commonly used among your general LoZ fan. Someone with that specific guide needs to grab the exact quote and page, and it more belongs in trivia. The problem with removing it entirely is that someone may see the article, not know better and put it back later, again and again. Thus beginning edit wars. My take is to note it, and marginalize it. 04:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, I see nothing wrong with the statement. It is under the theory section, with a specific theory label on it, and it does list the source where the information comes from. And the book does indeed state this, I have seen and read it myself. As far as sourcing it, I do not know how, but anyone that also has the book and knows how to source a book on here could easily do it. But even as it stands now, it is not in the main part of the article, rendering this debate about it pretty much moot. I do agree howver that it would be more appropriate under a trivia section with the source listed, but I am unsure myself how to source a book on here, it's not like sourcing a webpage where you can just list the webpage's link. Link87 13:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is not that the statement is not sourced or whatever. The issue is that because Prima Games is not affiliated with Nintendo, the guide really shouldn't be considered evidence. There was even a competing Nintendo guide out at the time that had a huge "Official Guide" label on it, which the Prima guide did not. Note that this is about the guide itself, not the theory. The theory is good, but that one piece of evidence should really be discounted because of its unofficial status. Ganondorfdude11 15:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ganondorfdude11, if Nintendo had not intended for it to be said, they would not have allowed Prima to print the information in the first place. Prima is associated with Nintendo, in case you didn't notice, otherwise they would not have an agreement to market guides for their games. Had Nintendo not intended for these things to be said in Prima's guide, they would have withheld their okay for the guide to be published. So as I said, your argument on this topic does appear to be moot for all intents and purposes, to me at least. Simply because there's no "official" label on top of the guide does not mean that Prima does not have to go through Nintendo to print their guides. Link87 18:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)