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) 18:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


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

On the Whole "Bloodline" Topic
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 (talk) 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.


 * This may not have anything to do with what you were talking about but it does have something with the theory of jabun being jabu jabu's decedent.if wind waker is an alternative universe in Zelda then does that mean that they could be linked to the other legend of Zeldas?Or is it just its own little pocket universe that has no connections to any other Legend of Zelda games.if it does not have any connections to other legend of Zelda game (besides phantom hourglass for that being a sequel to wind waker)then how could jabu jabu be related to jabun.or another theory saying that jabun is jabu jabu. Tomfunfun0530 (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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. For example, if I trademark a product with the government, nobody can replicate or produce anything with its name without my say-so. That's where a person or group comes and negotiates with me if they want to produce something to complement my product, but without that agreement/contract and without my final ok, they cannot produce it. The same goes for Prima: Nintendo marketed and trademarked the game, they printed a guide of their own, but Prima established an agreement with Nintendo to also market a guide for the game in their own line, and Nintendo had to sign off on the guide before it could be released by Prima. That's how trademarks work. Bottom line: Nintendo itself had to sign off on this guide before it could be printed and published by law, so your argument of it being any less "official" seems without merit. Link87 (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It was not anybody at Nintendo who wrote that information. Using that logic, the CD-i games could be considered canon because they had Nintendo's legal OK, even though they've regretted the decision to do so since and have disavowed the series since. Nintendo also had no oversight over the contents of the guide, they merely signed off on its existence. A similar situation arose with the Sonic Adventure 2 guide published by another company. While Sega's official name for Shadow's Super form was "Super Shadow," the guide printed "Hyper Shadow" and that name was used erroneously for many years. The main point is unless something originated in a Nintendo publication or Nintendo licensed product, it should be considered non-canon by default. Ganondorfdude11 (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No one is saying it's canonical, like I said we need an exact quote and page number and it belongs as trivia. This simply can't be the wiki for the UberPurists. The fan that comes along with only TWW, OOT knowledge and Prima guides will think we overlooked it, bringing us right back to a debate. 23:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It states atop the guide "Prima's Official Strategy Guide". ISBN: 0-7615-3960-3, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 2003101760. On page 26, the 13th character spoken of is Jabun, and it states: JABUN Jabun originally resides in Greatfish Isle, but he flees to Outset Island and seals himself inside a cave when Ganon's forces come for him. He possesses Nayru's Pearl, and object of great power that Link needs to raise the Tower of the Gods. The only way to get it is to speak with Jabun, and the only way to do so is to bomb the stone slab that seals Jabun's cave. This water spirit was once called Jabu-Jabu. He only speaks ancient Hylian, so no one understands anything he says. So I'm afraid, as I said before Ganondorfdude11, you don't have much of an argument here. Now, Axiomist, is there a way to cite this information??? Link87 (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's going in Trivia, but yeah, I'll have it sourced up. 03:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't believe this argument even took place. The game itself states that Jabun was born on Greatfish Isle. Are we actually taking Prima's word over the game itself? That line should be removed, or stated to be contradictory to in-game evidence. Pokemega32 (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Guardianship
Is there a source that says that Jabun was a guardian of Greatfish Isle? To my knowledge, we know literally nothing about the settlement that used to exist on Greatfish, and we're told that when Jabun received forewarning of Ganon's attack, he fled the island and saved himself. Whisperstar13 (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * In the first paragraph of p.59 of, it says that guardian spirits watched over three of the islands in the Great Sea until Ganondorf destroyed Greatfish. TriforceTony (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)