This Entire Section Needs to be RewrittenEdit
The general ideas on this page are fine, but the actual writing is horrible. Too much of the text is written in the present tense rather than the past tense, which would be more appropriate for an encyclopedic article such as this.
Too often, the article gets caught up in minor details of the games which are irrelevant, such as blow-by-blow accounts of what a character does in the game that s/he is featured in.
The "Evolution" section, I feel, gives a bit too much creedence to that particular theory, and gives the impression that it is by and large the accepted reality for most fans. It should be rewritten in a way that presents the idea as what it is: a theory.
Robotpoop 20:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Should this be merged with the new The Legend of Zelda series characters page, or do you think the Zoras are important enough to have their own page? I'm undecided. I've already moved the Gorons, but then again they appear in only a few games compared to the Zoras. Master Thief Garrett 22:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Merge this with The Legend of Zelda series races. (It looks like you were probably going to do that anyway.) You can probably drop the Evolution section, since that's already addressed in the other article. Aerion//talk 21:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think this section is maybe too large. It's filled with mostly speculation. Also, I tried to copyedit it and had to guess a couple times at the meaning of certain sentences. I hope I didn't misinterpret anything. Anyone have opinions on this section? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? If nobody objects (does anybody even watch this page?), and I remember, I'll clean it up.
I'm also on a campaign to eliminate writing in the second person. It makes the article sound like a walkthrough, or at least something severely unprofessional. Among the articles that I edit, writing in the second person seems to be most prominent in video game-related articles. I don't know if this is because the topic lends itself to walkthrough-style writing, or if it's because the author of a video game article is more likely to write informally. Aerion//talk 04:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, that is a haphazard section and a half. I find my head bouncing around like a pinball keeping up with all of the random leaps and bounds there. At the very least, I think some reorganisation is definitely due for this. Beyond that, there's a lot of speculation as well as an entire part of a paragraph dedicated to things that aren't Zoras, so I do agree. I'm going to give it a good crack and see what happens with it. If you don't like it, feel free to revert it and give it another go. The Missing Link 06:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if I should make evolution its own section...
- To me it seems that two or three theories regarding Zoras/Zolas are going on in the evolution section; it is quite confusing.
- The answer is that there is no one possible explanation for it, and no direct evidence has been given to account for it. The community at large also hasn't come to a single consensus on the issue, so by the rules of NPOV, all of the major theories need to have at least some mentioning in the section.
I don't even see why there's any speculation about it. The whole point of the getting Medlii is because she's a decendent of the Zora sage. There's truly no question of evolution - it's pretty plain to see that it happened and it's almost explicitly explained that way in the game. The same goes for the Koroks. They were originally the Kokiri children.--Cwiddofer 05:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Japas is the band's second guitarist?Edit
I was under the impression Japas was the band's bassist. Perhaps I'll have to play MM again. - 22.214.171.124 04:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
No, you don't have to play MM again. Japas is the band's bassist.
Mikau and LuluEdit
I have always wondered whether Mikau and Lulu had any sort of relationship, and by that I mean something more than a friendship. I was once told that Lulu's children were Mikau's as well, but the game itself doesn't give any sort of evidence. Any thoughts?
- Seems suggested by the game, but it was never stated so we can't say anything. --Tryforceful 04:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Zaraeph has made some reference to your questioning my credentials. Is there a problem? --Mjformica 13:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Zeraeph said NOTHING of the kind, Zeraeph simply asked MJFormica if he really owned the site you posted (as you were fully entitled to) as his http://www.mhsanctuary.com (though it is not the most creditable site on the internet, I would hardly regard suggesting someone owned it as "questioning their credentials" particularly when they DO actually post work there).
- Based on his answer, (though he, apparently, does not, actually, OWN that site but only contributes to it, an important distinction if you read the bio of the site owner), Zeraeph went on to question his credentials personally.
Sakina bint HussainEdit
Fanon names - why are we using them?Edit
I changed the fanon names "Sea Zora" and "River Zora" into "Friendly Zora" and "Hostile Zora". I copied the Oracle series part into the Friendly Zora bit too, since it also concerns them. I then split the section into two, the part that reffers to the friendly zora, and the part that reffers to the hostile, and moving them accordingly - Saimdusan4:13 PM 7 June 2006
- "Sea Zora" and "River Zora" are technically NOT fanon because they appear in the series. Taken directly from Oracle of Ages as an example:
Don't think us noble sea Zoras the same as those savage, vulgar river Zoras! You're in the wrong place if you want to complain about being attacked by a river Zora.
- They are thus the official delineations which NoA has chosen to represent the distinction between hostile and friendly Zoras as the series has evolved. I'm changing these back, even though this article needs much more work than that... where did the River Zora information even go?
- --Tryforceful 04:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
My point was not that if the Mu'tazili position regarding hadith is mentioned then the QA position should follow. Due to the historical impact the Mu'tazilah have had they are much more worthy of mention than the QA. Per wp:undue, the QAers simply do not warrant mention as they numbers are negligible. The Mu'tazili page has a section on their position regarding hadith, although I think it is unreferenced. Supertouch (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)