Talk:Captain Keeta

They should be merged under the name Skull Keeta

Sure.
Let's go with that.

Yep
I'm good with that.

All anonymous people happy now?IfIHaveTo 08:12, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Move
I'd say we should move this to Captain Keeta. He is referred to in the game as either Skull Keeta or Captain Keeta, but never as Captain Skull Keeta. It isn't really appropriate to include "Skull" in the name. 16:36, November 25, 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides the quote on the page, here is the other three times he is mentioned by name in the game.

"Ohhh! Keeta! Is it not Captain Keeta?!?"

- King Igos du Ikana

"Captain's Hat Wear it with (C) to pose as Captain Keeta."

- N/A "It seems Skull Keeta, Captain of the Skull Knights, had the Captain's Hat..."

- N/A


 * So, clearly, it is not "Captain Skull Keeta". 16:46, November 25, 2008 (UTC)


 * Seeing as how neither the Daphnes Nohansen Hyrule or the Igos du Ikana articles include the characters' ranks/positions in their titles, this article should probably go the same way. I vote to move it to Skull Keeta, as his name without his rank. Jimbo Jambo 21:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Nnnh, I have to disagree. I rather think that articles SHOULD have the full character names with their ranks in there. Princess Ruto follows this. As DID Darmani before Matt moved it for a dumb and totally lame reason (YEAH THAT'S RIGHT I SAID IT). 18:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Omit the characters' ranks/positions.....?? Three words about this: What. The. Heck? I think we need the ranks/positions included in the titles. So yes, I'm against this idea.


 * P.S. Forgive my bluntness but, this just sounds like a dumb idea. One that is going to start a debate, and have little outcome. 02:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't need the ranks/positions in most cases. The one and only case where we absolutely need this is on the Princess Zelda page. On all other pages, we should go with what is most efficient. Meaning what will be searched for most. So Princess Ruto should be just "Ruto" and this article should be  Captain Keeta as that is the name most used in game. And Darmani stays where it is. I had good reason for it. First of all, no encyclopedia will ever have anything like "the third" in title unless necessary to differentiate from another person. It is not necessary in this case. Therefore it is best not to have it in the title. It makes the page look cleaner and it helps out the site on search engines. 22:33, January 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ, Matt. But, I just can't see the point to omit the ranks/positions. It is only going to cause confusion. What about the people who, don't know the character's name, but know the title? This is just an example...I know it has happened to me on several occasions. Getting rid of the ranks/positions just seem really....stupid and silly. 02:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Because we'd keep the full name and title in the very beginning of the first sentence of the page. Meaning that it still will show up high on the search page. That is the standard form that all formal encyclopedias hold to. Only what is needed in the title, full name in the first sentence. It is efficient and it works well and it is what is most professional. Looking professional is important. 00:42, January 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that Rank + Name is perfectly professional, perhaps more so than just the name. Unless there's some straight-up law governing the rules of article naming that I'm unaware of? :P
 * I'm still not sure why Princess Zelda gets to be the exception for your proposed naming standards. The only reason you've given me is "I don't want a big thing at the top of the page stating what else uses the name 'Zelda'", and that is purely aesthetic. If we switch, we go all or none, son. Kind of ridiculous to have naming standards if we break our own standards for something like that. After all, isn't that why English sucks so much? "HERE'S A LIST OF THE RULES o btw there are words that don't follow the rules. the fun is figuring out which ones and why!"
 * Also, Matt, you totally can't use this line, dude: "That is the standard form that all formal encyclopedias hold to." That coming from Mr. "just because others do it that way" / "we don't follow the standards, we set the standards" / etc. Man just seems totally weird to me. Y'know what I'm sayin', man?! :O 00:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Some standards are okay. We don't have to set all of them. Just most. This one is widely held. By the way, the capitalizing of titles is a wide spread standard. Wikipedia is just idiotic about it. And other wikis all over then copied Wikipedia. We went with what is actually correct English grammar. But it has a the right idea about unnecessary things in a page title. If it is not needed, then it is just wasting space there.

For example, if a page was made about me, we'd only put in my first name, in its short form, and my last. Not the middle. And then the full in the first sentence. That is a good form and it is what my English comp professor actually suggested to me today. 01:10, January 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Ando here.
 * Yeah, so if we do this, then do we re-name the Princess Zelda article to Zelda, or will that' be the "exception" article? 02:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You two are completely missing a point I have said many times. We only include the position in the title  if it is necessary  . In this case, it is. Because a search for "Zelda" could easily be for a game, the series, or the character. So it is REQUIRED to differentiate it. I've said that many times. And you two still aren't getting it. The ranks/titles are not required for any of the others because they have either one or no other thing named similarly. Meaning a simple message at the top like on the Rope page is all that is needed. 01:25, January 17, 2009 (UTC)

Yes Matt, I'm afraid I am missing the point. It seems to me,  YOU  are missing the point as well. Let me try to make my point as simple as possible. WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT THAT WE OMIT THE POSITIONS/RANKS IN THE CHARACTERS TITLES?? So what? It says "Captain" on the title?? Why can't we just leave this the way it is. As a final note, this discussion is pretty much fruitless. There is no point in it. If Ando gets his point across; we keep the titles. If you do, Matt; we omit them. 02:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * From the Skype Chat:

Don't forget, that if you want to go with this "all characters must have ranks/positions in the title thing", then you'll have to it for EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER WITH ONE. And some have more than one. That will cause a hell of a lot of problems and debate. Link or Ganon are examples. All the bosses will need it. It is a can of worms I don't want opened. But that is exactly what will happen if you keep pushing this that way.
 * So that is why we must do this. 01:44, January 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. bahhhh matt
 * we're still discussing this in the staff chat so consider nothing final or definitive until we, uh, say it is. yup.


 * It seems to me you're forgetting, Matt, that there are a lot of bosses' articles that HAVE....What do you call it? "Unnecessary" titles? That will need to be changed as well, if we do this. 02:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)