Talk:Goht

He or It?
The first lines of the article clearly state that Goht is a mechanical bull but the rest of the article refers to got as He or him. Shouldn't Goht be refered to as it since it's mechanical? Though I'm not sure how Tatl refers to Goht but we could use that as our basis if we need to. Archon 19:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to disgree with this one unless the game contradicts it (if Tatl says "it" then I'll agree with Tatl). By definition, a "bull" is a male. --Yumil 20:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Tatl calls Goht "it", but she pretty much calls any enemy "it". So, I don't think that holds a point if Goht's gender is questioned on his body. I vote against calling Goht "it" just because he's mechanical though. The series has a good portion of creatures that are not made up of flesh and bone that I don't think that's a good argument. IfIHaveTo 20:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You guys make a good point, bull's are normally male. I went to check out the other MM bosses and Tatl refers to Gyrog as it, but uses him for Odolwa. An argument that could be made is that both Odolwa and Goht are obviously males. So why would Nintendo use it to refer to Goht in less it was due to Goht being a machine. (I'm playing devils advacate just so we can hear all sides. I'm fine with leaving it as he.) Archon 21:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Article was flagged as "Needs Attention". In my rewrite, I changed all "he"s to "it"s because Tatl calls Goht an "it". I also added her "advice" as a reference to show this. Feel free to continue discussing or change it back if it really bothers you, but my vote (obviously) is for it. Tbiz 02:23, 24 August 2010 (EDT)
 * Tbiz, your contribution to this article is great so far! Most of the editors in this conversation here are long gone by now, but I think you have the right idea. Labeling Goht as an "it", with a reference, is incontrovertible. ;) 02:40, 24 August 2010 (EDT)
 * Thanks Cipriano119, it's nice to know that my first (of many I intend) edit is appreciated! :) I figured the talk may well be long dead, but since I considered it intentionally in my edit, I figured I should explain a bit over here. Tbiz 03:39, 24 August 2010 (EDT)