Talk:Jabun: Difference between revisions
From Zelda Wiki, the Zelda encyclopedia
→Prima Guide
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
: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. [[User:Christopher|Link87]] 13:25, 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. [[User:Christopher|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. [[User:Ganondorfdude11|Ganondorfdude11]] 15:45, 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. [[User:Ganondorfdude11|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. 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. [[User:Christopher|Link87]] 18:35, 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. [[User:Christopher|Link87]] 18:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
