Talk: Twinrova

Trivia

That Trivia should not be there. Twinrova is Ganondorf's *surrogate* mother. That means either they were used to bear Ganondorf because his real mother was sterile or was dead and they served as substitute. They're more like their stepmothers.

• I've always been confused by that detail, and had thought it meant that their merged form, Twinrova, is Ganondorf's true biological mother. Because if his real mother was someone else, and was sterile, then she should not be able to conceive in the first place. Surrogate implies something in-uterine. Adoptive (Ganon has two mommies!) implies that they only took care of the raising part for someone else, not the birthing part. Though after Skyward Sword's final battle, and playing the Oracle series right now, I'm inclined to belive that the two origionally 'sumoned' Ganondorf into being, like conception by magic, shortly before OoT, and what was left of Demise used that as an anchor point to ressurect himself. And unless the next game Nintedo make is in some late-timeline era, and they drop a hint of Demise specifically, I would guess that, if my hypothesis is correct, Kotake and Koume never knew that their creation is Demise, seeing as all other information about Ganondorf's past pretty much impleis he was human before he essentially became a demon, and not a demon in human form that became demonic again. Xu-kitty 07:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Legendary Terror

Where in "Ocarina of Time" does Navi says that thing of Twinrova being a legendary terror?

Connection Between Games

They look exactly the same, and have the same names in both Majora's Mask and Ocarina of Time. What are your thoughts on the connection between the games, if you think there might be one.

Since technically meeting them in Majora's Mask takes place before you fight them in Ocarina of Time, they would be around 393 years old in Majora's Mask, if what they say in Ocarina of Time is true. It's possible that after MM took place and they've assisted Link in his quest, Ganondorf 'converted' them. Most people don't recognise Adult Link... hmm. Awkward fighting them as a boss earlier in the day and then meeting them in a potion shop later. GolemdX 02:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Termina is an alternate universe. The Twinrova from Termina aren't the same characters as the ones in Ocarina of Time.Ganondorfdude11 02:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible

Since Gerudo's are not known to use magic and are brown skinned, could it be that Koume and kotake are Zuna since they share the green skinned quality and magic. Unless gerudos turn green as they get older but thats kinda..weird to say the least

and the Zuna escaped to the Gerudo desert

Also if the Zuna truly are the Twili and with the age of those two they could have been around when their tribe were sealed into the mirror of twilight so what better way to get revenge on hyrule then to train Ganon to take it over since the Zuna were already untrusted.--Remo 06:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ganondorf also has this pale green skin tone. My theory is that they are indeed Gerudo, but perhaps their skin tone is a mark that they have magic abilities. Whether or not they are born with this tone (which is most likely), their change in skin color maybe a part of a special ceremony indicating that they have succeeded in their trials (how else would they be so skilled?).User:Steven/sig 09:49, 29 July 2008 (EST)

wow....to be honest I didn't suspect that answer...I wouldn't count that as a good reason though since we never really hear anything about a ritual and which Ganon do you mean is green skinned? hes pretty dark to me. --Remo 19:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My assumption is that they are simply green due to a genetic difference. Should the Orange Gerudos be like the Celtics and the Green Gerudos be like the germanics, they're both human (analogically speaking). Also, it is to be noted that a large part of the Gerudo's genetic makeup is influenced by Hylians, thus perhaps (a theory contradictory to the previous one) they are more purely bred Gerudo than the common Model Gerudo or Nabooru. --Stalkid 11:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Missing Koume & Kotake

I'm marking this page as needing attention, since we are missing an entire two sections that I feel shouldn't be deleted. Onen 19:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This page is pretty good. If we can complete the missing sections, it'll be worthy of being featured. So I got an idea. Everyone, judge this article as if you were judging it for being a featured article. That way we can fix the problems and get the page up to code. First thing first. We need to finish those sections. They are marked as incomplete sections.User:Matt/sig 21:31, October 9, 2008 (UTC)

Why are those sections marked as incomplete? I tried to fix them, but I can't get rid of the incomplete tags myself unless I know the problem. Neither played a large role in Majora's Mask, and this is about all the information there is on them. Ancblue52 19:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Separate sections

Do we really need separate sections for each sister and their role in each game? In my opinion, it would be better to mention appearances of both in each game, since separating them will cause them to be repetitive. Listing information on one sister without the other leaves out story elements, but, if you mention both, it becomes repetitive. Ancblue52 17:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes we need two different sections. For one thing, it makes specific links to each of them work. Second,they are not the same person. And they didn't do the exact same thing in each game. The sections will stay separate.User:Matt/sig 18:47, December 15, 2008 (UTC)

All right. In that case, I'll try to complete the sections as I can. Ancblue52 19:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The Koume and Kotake sections are practically identical when it comes to Ocarina of Time, they only start to differ when speaking of Majora's Mask. I believe that the two sections can be merged together, for the sake of the absurd Ocarina of Time redundancy, yet can go into separate paragraphs under the same section when speaking of Majora's Mask - there is nothing wrong with that. I'll do it if no one else wants to. And since we're worried about "specific links" breaking, I'll be glad to fix them myself if the case arises as well. User:Cipriano 119/sig 21:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Majora's Mask

I think that this sub-section needs some cleaning up. It mainly repeats information already given in Koume and Kotake's individual sub-sections. I think that either the repeat information should be deleted, leaving the Majora's Mask section, or the additional information should be merged into Koume and Kotake's individual sections. I am not sure which would be better. Thoughts? User:Bodo/sig 11:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a similar suggestion right above you, but apparently nothing was changed... I also think it sounds extremely redundant, so my opinion is this: the information of Kotake and Koume in Majora's Mask that appears in their own subsection should be added under the Appearances section of Majora's Mask (it's more elaborated than the one in under Appearances). Their own subsection (Koume and Kotake in Ocarina of Time) could be added under their corresponding game, instead of having two separate sections that pretty much repeat themselves. Eh...I'm not sure if I made any sense... Dany36 15:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Attention Text Dump Hoppers

There's a bit of dialogue throughout the OoX games from Koume and Kotake, even before linking the quests. The article could benefit from the mere mention of this, but more so if someone would get it all together and write up a paragraph or so from it. User:Axiomist/sig 07:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Reorganizing the article

Since the Twinrova article is so close to being featured, I decided to take a good look at it. Even though most of the supporting votes said that it was "well organized"...I found it to be the exact opposite! The redundancy thing has been a problem for some time now (see the "Separating sections" and the "Majora's Mask" section), and nothing has been done. Cip mentioned it in the featured article nomination page, and it needs to be said here as well: this article needs to be reorganized. I mean, just looking at the table of contents (THREE Ocarina of Time sections? Messy!), you can tell that this page needs major help. Any suggestions to what we could do to help improve this article are appreciated. Cip made a suggestion in February but...I'm not sure I understand it. XD So let's get ideas rolling, folks! Dany36 14:02, 18 September 2010 (EDT)

Ugh, this is going to be a headache... but it needs to be done. So I'm going to echo an idea of yours: Why do Koume and Kotake each get their own sections, and THEN have an appearance section? Because they appear in three games, I'm going to move that the Appearances heading takes precedence, and then Koume and Kotake can each have their own section under each game (plus a "twinrova" section under OOT. OR... this page could be "Koume and Kotake" and Twinrova (Boss) could get it's own page. Maybe that's taking it too far...). —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 14:19, 18 September 2010 (EDT)

Uh. NO! I'm greatly opposed to that. They are fairly major characters. They deserve a bit of respect. They need to have their own sections, individual sections. Having three Koume sections would look even more sloppy than anything that's claimed now. Yes they're twins, but they're still two different people. Keep the two main sections and put all the information there, possibly making another section for what they have in common. You'll get a small amount of redundancy, but it's worth it to have their own sections and it'd be less of a mess than now or what was proposed.User:Matt/sig 18:51, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, this is weird. Yes, they SHOULD have their own sections, but not, "Here's Koume," and, "Here's Kotake," and then, "Here they are AGAIN, but this time, by game!" It's like... the organization makes no sense at all. We need to combine them somehow, the Appearance and Individual sections, rather than the Individual (by appearance) AND Appearances that we have now. It's SUPER redundant. I never implied they shouldn't each have their own sections... —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 16:20, 18 September 2010 (EDT)

It's just that standard procedure for reorganizations so far has almost always been to totally disregard direct linking to sections. So it was the likely outcome here. Whatever we do, directly linking has to be given just as much consideration as the actual visual appeal of the page itself. So that direct section links are proper and efficient. This is even more important as it's two characters on one page.User:Matt/sig 20:25, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've made a start with what I think is the structure we should be using (organised by game). I've removed some of the redundant info and sandwiched the rest together; the OoT section still needs a rewrite, and the overall thing needs cleaning up, but I think it's getting there. User:Adam/sig 17:24, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

No takers for finishing this off, then? Or opinions on whether this is the right way to go about it? User:Adam/sig 07:58, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

Well, the OOX sections under Koume and Kotake are still empty. I'm incapable of filling these myself without just stealing information from elsewhere, and our current information (still on the page in the <--! --> tag) isn't separated for each of them individually. In light of this, should we resort to sorting the headings in the following way, rather than add an OOX tag for each of them?

• Koume
  • OOT
  • MM
• Kotake
  • OOT
  • MM
• OOX
• Twinrova

Thoughts please! =) —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 12:25, 31 October 2010 (EDT)

Um, my first thought it that I'm more than a little confused. The edits you've made most recently basically reverted all of the reorganisation work I did, and put the article back to its old format: like so. I thought we'd decided to try organising it differently, as everyone who commented above complained about the previous section formatting... which is exacly what we've now gone back to. :/ User:Adam/sig 08:45, 5 November 2010 (EDT)

Since there doesn't seem to be dissent on the wiki about your reorganization, Adam, it seems the only explanation is that it occured on Skype. Discussions on these reorganizations should occur on the wiki as well, especially if they formed on Skype first, just to let the other active users know of the change beforehand. Though I do feel that it was a better reorganisation (Adam's), I'm not surprised it was reverted, as it seems we are leaning away from the "by-game" method of article organization.

I think as long as Kotake, Koume, AND Twinrova are in the same article, there is going to be a mess regardless of reorganization... to me, the only visually appealing way of presenting the information is to split the witches into their own article and make one for Twinrova (boss) since they are separate labels. We recently split the Gyorg article into Gyorg (enemy) and Gyorg (boss) for a similar example of my preposition. It would seem to make sense that the witches AND Twinrova should be in the same article, but to keep in consistency with the rest of the wiki in respect to boss pages, and for visual presentation's sake, I believe they should be split. User:Cipriano 119/sig 10:32, 5 November 2010 (EDT)

If splitting the article will make this mess of an article a better article, then I'm all for it. I can't wait until this page finally gets done! :P Dany36 10:37, 5 November 2010 (EDT)

The article is practically split as it is! The split would place the "Twinrova" section, and small bits of the rest of the article into the Twinrova (boss) article, and a quick, general cleanup of the rest of the witches' segments. It would be that easy and provide a pleasing, well-linked visual that of the current conglomeration. I'm just waiting for Matt to come in and be like "Cip, that is not practical..." ;P User:Cipriano 119/sig 10:45, 5 November 2010 (EDT)

Actually, Adam, if you'll check the logs, you'll notice that the format I reverted to was my attempt at reorganization (which you decided to overwrite) and after some talk on Skype we thought that by-game probably wasn't the best way to go. How come I never get to see you on there? I'd like to. =)

As for splitting, I think it's a good idea, but, as Dany brought up on Skype when we discussed that, Koume and Kotake are bosses as well, so that could potentially cause some repetition, which I personally don't have a problem with. I think a split is more than possible and probably for the better. Having bosses and characters on one page is a bit of a mess, imho. —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 14:51, 5 November 2010 (EDT)

I agree; I think a little repetition is ok, especially if it is going towards a benefitial organization. Then again, Koume and Kotake as witches and as bosses are two different entities, so it would make sense to repeat a little bit of info; the witches do not behave the same in their respective situations. User:Cipriano 119/sig 23:06, 5 November 2010 (EDT)

Hum...so...what's the consensus? Split? Or leave as is? Dany36 15:30, 3 December 2010 (EST)

I'm bumping this conversation. There is a similar discussion taking place on the Majora's Mask (Object) page. User:Cipriano 119/sig 15:42, 3 December 2010 (EST)

Difficult decision, pal. Both alternatives are flawed (like choosing between Douche and Turd, a la South Park). However, seeing as the split method is the most veteran (applied in the Majora's Mask and Gyorg pages), I guess I'll choose the split method (and, if necessary, to make a subsequent disambiguation page). For that matter (and I apologize for the off-topic comment), I was thinking on split the Romani and Cremia page (not because of the two characters, but for a separate page about their various sidequests and special scenes, in the style of Reuniting Kafei and Anju when compared to Kafei and Anju). Hey, I'm allowed to dream =P. --User:K2L/sig 15:52, 3 December 2010 (EST)

Twinrova's Headband Featuring TWW Hylian?

Well, I simply don't see it. Both on her in-game model and in OoT's artwork, Twinrova's headband looks like it has the same Hylian as the rest of the game.--Jarsh 21:57, 26 September 2010 (EDT)

Well, look at this piece of artwork. For Kotake, "Ko" and "Ta" are clearly written in the WW alphabet, with the mystery letter being a katakana "Ke"(ケ). Similarly, "Ko" and "Me" are wriiten in WW for Koume, with the middle letter being the katakana "U"(ウ). Compare that to this and this and it's obvious that it is at least partially written in the WW alphabet. Template:Nosig

I looked and compared it to Omniglot's Hylian syllaberies. Yeah, it does seem to be partially TWW Hylian. Very interesting. OoX was in development when TWW was, so it makes some sense, but I suppose that doesn't really explain why they're there for OoT.--Jarsh 23:12, 9 October 2010 (EDT)

Those are just regular katakana ( コタケ コウメ ), albeit simplified to fit the thicker font. Seriously, it would be a stretch by a huge margin to imply that those were actually inspired by Wind Waker Hylian. Particularly when the game the language debuted in hadn't even been released yet. Its just a coincidence based on the fact that WW Hylian are slightly remade katakana symbols. I think the trivia should be changed since its misleading and it really should just say that its just regular katakana ( which anyone who is familiar with katakana would notice ) saying Koume and Kotake. Nerushi

Now that I look back on it, I agree with Nerushi. It's katakana, with slight modifications. User:Abdullah/sig 08:52, 12 February 2011 (EST)

Water and Fire Medallion Symbols Where Koume and Kotake Appear?

While playing through Ocarina of Time a few days ago, I noticed that the Fire and Water Medallion Symbols appear on the platforms that Twinrova springs out of in the Spirit Temple boss room; Perhaps we could add this to the Trivia section? Sage of Mirrors 00:13, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

I would think its because the Water Medallion was originally the Ice Medallion, therein lies the reason for those symbols' appearances in the boss room.

Koume= Fire symbol, Kotake= Ice symbol. Zelda4life 20:50, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

Kotake's name

There are so many pictures! I love this article. But I think there is one wrong thing in the trivia part. This article says "Kotake" is a type of Japanese mushroom". It's not right. "Take" means "bamboo" in Japanese. Both words have the same pronunciation but in Yatuhaka Mura, her name is written by Kanji and it also mean bamboo. Sorry for posting my trivial opinion. I'm a poor writer as you see so please edit it someone who can write a good sentence . Rin 09:41, 28 January 2012 (EST)

I tried to edit myself after all but failed to link reference site... Thank you for your correcting, Hylian King! Rin 09:41, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Any time ;) — Hylian King ^[*] 16:37, 24 February 2012 (EST)

Reorganization...again

I'd like to reopen the topic of reorganizing this page, since it seems like no consensus was ever reached. Currently, this page is a mess. There are separate strategy sections (with practically no content in them) under each witch when Link only ever fights them together. Their appearances in Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask are listed as subsections of their respective sections, while there is a short combined section after all that about their appearance in the Oracle Series that says nothing about strategy, and after that there is a single section on their Twinrova form that doesn't even mention the fact that they also fuse into this form in the Oracle Series. There are a few different ways we could reorganize the page, but at present the most basic things we need to fix are consistency and completeness. Most of the pertinent information about them in the Oracle Series is missing (I'd be happy to fill it in for you all once we've determined how the article is to be organized), and there's no rhyme or reason to the sections and subsections on this page. Anyone have any suggestions for how to restructure the page? --Osteoderm Jacket 07:32, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

You could try doing a section about them separately, then together, and then strategy for each encounter, then the rest of it (Trivia, Gallery, etc.)? If that makes sense. --Xizor 08:06, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

The page is indeed a mess. I think separate sections for Kotake and Koume individually is not needed, as they always fight together. Both Ocarina and Oracles battles can be mentioned here. The combined form should be listed under Double Dynamite Attack, "Twinrova" is the name for both of them even when they're not combined. If you like, I can grab some sprites of the ice and fire forms that Twinrova uses in the Oracle game, since that's pretty key to the battle. I also noticed that Twinrova's fire form uses Ganon's Blazing Bats in the battle too.User:Fizzle/sig 08:46, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Well, the only reason to have them separate would be if we want to discuss the lore of each character separately, if that is in fact even necessary. I think that there is merit to not having them separate, but I leave that up to those with more knowledge about Twinrova than I. --Xizor 08:51, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Wow, why ISN'T there anything under strategy for their appearances in OoT? This has always been a bit of a headache article for us, but frankly, reorganization isn't my forte. The separate sections for Kotake and Koume is there in the first place since their roles in MM are different, which I think is the sole problem on why we can't have them under one section. However...it COULD work if handled properly... That way, the two headers would be "Sorceress Sisters" (or whatever) and "Twinrova", instead of having the OoX section stick out by itself. --Dany36 12:21, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Why can't simply arrange them by game? Game, description of them separate and merged, strategy. For Majora's Mask, make a subsection for each. If you don't want the subsections to appear in the Table of Contents, you can create the headers with HTML instead of the usual equal signs. User:Abdullah/sig 10:46, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

That's not a bad idea. I second it. There's really no need to treat them separately in any game other than Majora's Mask. --Osteoderm Jacket 00:43, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

Yes, Majora's Mask is the only real outlier here, as they're almost entirely different in that game. I agree with this idea. User:Fizzle/sig 10:01, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

Boom goes the dynamite. Glad we worked that one out! --Xizor 10:28, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

Reincarnation?

Since they died in Ocarina of Time, I take it regardless of The Hero of Time being successful or not since he fought them before fighting Ganon, are the Koume and Kotake in the Oracle series the reincarnation of the ones in Ocarina of Time? Or are they the same that somehow were brought back to life? Lucasliso 16:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is ever explained. Couldn't find anything about it in the Hyrule Historia translations. — Hylian King ^[*] 17:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Names in other languages

This article really needs a names sections. The trivia is a mess as half of it refers to the names. I have little experience in adding templates, and would rather leave this to someone more skilled. Champion of Nayru (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Champion of Nayru

Halo

The depiction with a floating bright ring as a halo is the way the Catholic Christian Church depicts saints or good people. Koume and Kotake were evil. Why did they get halos when they died? Or is the halo depicting dead people in Ocarina of Time in general? Dampé has a halo too.Gomess 512 (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Does this really need an answer? It was just to show that they died. The Japanese aren't the most familiar with Christian Theology. Also, this is not the website to ask questions like that. Champion of Nayru (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That was a rhetorical question. I wanted to point out the irony.Gomess 512 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Then you shouldn't have asked about it at all. This page is for improving articles, not discussing them. Champion of Nayru (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. This is a bit of aesthetic information that could be added to the Trivia section, where strange,yet useless, facts often appear. Isn't that obvious? This kind of information cannot be mentioned anywhere else.Gomess 512 (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)