Talk:Gohma

Cleanup

OK, so I clean up the page a little by removing unnecessary strategy, and moderate rewriting to remove "you". One thing I noticed was the inconsistency in the pronouns used to refer to Gohma throughout the article; by that I mean that she is variably referred to as "he" "she" and "it", sometimes changing more than once within the same paragraph! What I'm wondering is, is there really any official source that determines Gohma's gender, or is it just an assumption based on the fact that it's called "Queen" in OoT an spawns young? I really think this needs to be standardised! User:Adam/sig 15:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason any incarnation of Gohma should be referred to as "he," and while Queen Gohma in OoT is obviously female (unless Gohma are asexual...), I might be cautious about using "she" in any instances where we're not 100% sure. "It" might just be safer, but I dunno. Jimbo Jambo 04:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

All the incarnations are obviosly female except in LOZ,LA, and FSA. User:Ganondox/sig 15:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

But there isn't legitimate proof they are, except for the the one in Ocarina of Time which blatantly references it as "Queen Gohma". Think about it this way: if Gohma from Ocarina of Time wasn't referenced as a female, we'd refer to it as an "it", because it doesn't possess any female characteristics - respawning is more of an asexual trait than it is a female one in this case: she can continuously keep popping out more gohmalings as long as the battle goes on.User:Cipriano 119/sig 16:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Glitch

Also, since I'm not really up-to-date on what's happening with glitch-related stuff, I'm not sure if the glitch info under the OoT section should be removed and replaced with a redirect here? User:Adam/sig 15:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes... Doing now...User:Melchizedek/sig 23:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Split

I don't agree with just mashing together different enemies just because they have a couple similarities. We should split off the bosses from this page. The sections for them are severely lacking in information and if we were to fully expand them with everything we could, they'd clog up this page very badly. With big sections like that it'd break the flow of the page and make it hard to read.User:Matt/sig 03:11, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Big NO from me. If we need to expand the sections, then go for it. We have huge sections for articles like Hyrule Castle, Kakariko Village, Lake Hylia, Hyrule Castle Town etc...does that mean we should split each of the places into each of its incarnations? Just....no. Dany36 23:17, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

You already heard my entire reasoning for why I oppose this merge, but I will reiterate. Not only do they share the same name, but Gohmas have have spider-like appearance in most games. The Wind Waker may be the most different, but these enemies tend to the same weakness. I also think splitting the pages would just make them something more difficult to find. I would rather look up "Gohma" and find all enemies under that name. Noble Wrot 00:25, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

I'm opposed to this. Anybody looking for info on one of the Gohmas shouldn't have to search out a completely different article to find what they want or need (specifically on the OoT and WW versions that seem to be up on the "splitting block"). It would only create more confusion in the end. I do believe though that any additional info that is found on any Gohma should be added to expand the different sections. RhythmicSmasher 01:46, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

I agree with Matt. We should split the Bosses up between the games, so we could have a page for Gohma (LoZ), Gohma (OoT), etc. I feel that leaving them all in one page limits the section's overall potential, as making them their own page opens up more room to expand the article, while leaving it as just a section, expansion is limited. Expanding a section of a page beyond a certain point makes an article look messy. Almost all the articles Dany listed I think are very, very messy looking, especially Hyrule Castle Town.—ZENOX ^T C 09:01, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

I also agree with Matt. A split would be really nice here. I've always thought bosses should get their own page for each of their incarnations. As for having all the information in one place, there can still be sections for each with a {{Main}} pointing them to the proper article. The Gohma from TP and the Gohma from OOT, while similar, are NOT the same. Why do they share a page?? —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 11:27, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

I really do think we need to revise how we organize boss/enemy pages. There are far too many blurred bosses and enemies on this wiki to tackle in any consistent fashion without being too redundant and striated, or too article-cloggy. Gohma is a perfect example - it appears as a boss more often than a typical enemy, but the way we currently organize articles on this wiki, it would make sense to split out the bosses and leave the generic enemy with a page of its own. Not only would the enemy page result in a stub, but because all the information is boss-focused, a split is hardly warranted anyway. Let's look at Twinrova - the boss is a transformation of two normal characters; it does not have its own page, but instead exists under the heading "Twinrova" which also includes the foundational characters! There's too much non-consistency floating around here - I think that before we make any hasty decision on this article split/keep, we should figure out what the real deal with bosses, enemies, and characters is across the board. Let's nip this in the bud early so that we don't run into problems, remerges, resplits, and general tomfoolery later! :) User:Cipriano/sig 12:03, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

There are several bosses, such as Dodongo and Mothula, which appear in several games as well. If this were to be split, so would the others, since it's important to keep consistency with the way all articles of one subject category are written. --User:K2L/sig 20:08, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

I already gave my opinion on skype about this. I don't support splitting these articles, the bosses in question are all essentially the same thing, just slightly different variants. Using this logic, we should split Dodongo, Mothula (as k2l just said), Princess Zelda, and probably a lot of others that I don't care about listing. Also, even if a split did go through, these articles would essentially be stubs, so then we'd have a numerous stub articles scattered around which were essentially regarding the same enemy. This gets a definite no from me.User:Mandi/sig 02:41, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

What?! That's insane and not true at all, Mandi. Almost all Dodongos require bombs to destroy, Princess Zelda always basically plays the same roles and Mothula ... hmm ... that one actually should be its own page. But that's not the point. Gohma always changes. Armogohma has the second phase "eye" portion of the battle, Gohma from WW has the peeling off of the armor + Valoo, OoT has the slingshot-to-stun deal, and LoZ has the "go-to" variant with the shooting of the eye. Sure, appearance-wise they're similar, save the obvious WW version, but the method of defeating them is always different. Also, I seriously doubt they would be stubs. None of these have a strategy section, or even really background information on the individual boss. A heavy ammount of background information could be added to each one of these, even the LoZ version. Not to mention the strategy section, which would bump the size of each article up to at least a standard size article.—ZENOX ^T C 23:19, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

I think everyone can agree that the TWW Gohma and, say, the OOT Gohma are completely different, sharing little besides name. To echo Zenox, they have unique backstories, strategies, purposes... They would not be stubby at all. .... Actually, yeah, everything Zenox said. XD —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 18:26, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

I guess what I'm getting at here, is that no matter the variation, the method of defeating Gohma is identically represented in every incarnation - find the eye and take it out. Of course there are variances, but they're no different than that of a generic enemies' variants between titles. Zenox, we must remember that Princess Zelda in TP is actually a boss and should be split out given your logic... yes, Gohma changes, but in the grand scheme of things, there's still a vulnerable eye in every version, even in the generic enemy version. User:Cipriano/sig 00:32, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

hey i have a sugestion to seperate the page between gohma (boss) and gohma (enemy) that way it won't make this page to big--Ruchq 11:22, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

I think we should them all together, all of them but TWW's, the only similarities between the one from The Wind Waker and the others is that A) It's weakness are it's eyes. B) It's an anthropod? No scratch that. It's like saying a computer and encyclopedia are the same things just because you can find information on it... Okay that's a terrible analogy but I think you guys get my point. Steahl 14:43, 13 November 2011 (EST)

For what it's worth, I'd prefer if it were split into Gohma (Boss) and Gohma (Enemy), like we did for Gyorg last year. Although, some people are looking to merge the two Gyorg pages... In any case, I strongly doubt we'll ever be able to reach a consensus on this subject. If we really want to settle this once and for all, we'll have to go to a vote at Hyrule Castle. That is, if there's a sufficient number of people who would actually vote. — Hylian King ^[*] 08:17, 14 November 2011 (EST)

I like Hylian King's suggestion to this, however I don't support this the thing is the Gohma all share the same weakness the eye. I like to think of TWW Gohma as an evolved Gohma due to the Great Flood or a large Magtail. XXSuperXXNintendoXx 23:16, 24 December 2011 (EST)