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! —Adam ^{[ talk ]} 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. --Ganondox (U) (T) (C) 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.— cipriano^talk 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? —Adam ^{[ talk ]} 15:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes... Doing now...- M E L C H I Z E D E K  (TALK) 23:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

NO WAY!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbobb25 (talk) 18:09, October 5, 2014

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.Emma ^(Talk) 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! :) — cipriano^talk 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. --K2L (Interrogatory) 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.Mandi ^Talk 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. — cipriano^talk 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)

It would be mighty difficult to simply differentiate the Gohmas who are not entirely unique, such as LTHP and LOZ and such, however I'm sure there is textual evidence which help separate them. Such as, Queen Ghoma from OoT is referenced as an arachnid when quite obviously she does not have 8 legs. The denizens of the usurped tree seem to worship her, and there could be more on that and perhaps her hatchings can be contained in that page. However, why not put the basic Gohmas together on the page and just have a link and a picture to another page? Besides, if I'm not mistaken there is a water like Gohma in Twilight Princess that is not referenced in the Gohma page? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Smighty (talk) 02:12, March 21, 2013

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)

I cannot say I understand your position on this one, Hylian King. Gohma appears as a boss in ever appearance, though it becomes recurring enemy in LoZ and FSA. It first appears as a sort of miniboss in FSA, I believe, and then it is seen just wandering around in one area. Still, I think it appears as a boss in every one of its appearances, so it would be hard to split it into those two pages. Noble Wrot 16:53, 11 January 2012 (EST)

Ah, woops, don't know what I was thinking there. For some reason I thought it was only a boss in OOT, TWW, and TP, and an enemy in the rest. Forget what I said earlier. — Hylian King ^[*] 17:06, 11 January 2012 (EST)

Gohma is indeed a boss in every game, although does appear as a rare common enemy in the some of the same games. I don't think this page should be split, because all instances are bosses, unless we make a rule that all boss instances should be seperate from each other. If this page gets split, many other pages should be as well (I am not happy with the Gyorg situation, but only because it seems to be getting special treatment over other enemies like the Moldorm, among others). Consistency is key here.

For what its worth, Gohma in TWW isn't THAT different from its OoT incarnation, just huge and worm-like instead. It still shares its eye as a weak point and two giant crab-like claws. Obviously its related to a Magtail, but its less of a drastic change than other enemies have gone through (such as the Helmasaur King, which became the Helmaroc King and yet only shares the mask as a similarity). Fizzle 08:58, 23 January 2012 (EST)

I personally would like to see this happen. A different page for each encounter with Gohma instead of making different parts of the page refering to different instances of Gohma being encountered —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raxit1337 (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2012

I think that the page should remain as is. We don't have Ganon split into appearances by game. GanonMorpha 01:44, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

I also agree with keeping things as is. Splitting this page would only make navigation more difficult and confusing for readers. Gohma's appearances are vastly different from one another, but the same can be said of many other enemies in the series: Armos, ChuChus, Darknuts, Floormasters, Freezards... Splitting shouldn't be done unless it is absolutely necessary, and in this case I don't believe it is.

In any case, I modified the infobox so that it randomly displays the LOZ, OOT, or TWW artwork of Gohma. This way each of Gohma's appearances is represented. — Hylian King ^[*] 11:41, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

I'm agreeing with ganonmorphaIganonmorpha, we didn't split the Ganondorf article into separate articles/sections just because he is a bit different. Plus, if you really think about it, you can think of a few similarities between the Gohmas. Both of thier weakness is the eye (pretty much all enemies in Zelda are), and that is a Gohma trait. ( Ghoma traits are; always a female, and a spider-like creature with one large eye.) and in WW and Oot, they are the first boss of the game. User:Golden Cucco/sig 22:05, 05 June 2012

I want it split. The Legend of Zelda is an awsome game

I think it might be a good idea (if a lengthy one) to have the bosses in order of appearance with a very brief description on one page. The links will allow for a centralized hub for bosses in general, and the article can stay as it is but have the different iterations of bosses go to the same page and it jump to the specific section so it is divided and there isn't a convoluted mess of goma pictures and videos and the such, but rather an easy way to get to a boss and get people reading about previous bosses and start wiki surfing. Just an opinion. --Fortunis 10:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Considering the points made above and more specifically the varying strategies that entail with each boss battle I believe the different Gohmas should be split into separate pages. However, there is room for compromise that doesn't jeopardise the simplicity of the page as it is now, perhaps consider an index page that links to the separate boss page? Within their respected pages, there can be the basic information as with all pages such as overview and strategy etc, but there could also be additional sections such as the Boss's Gohma Larvae (Who mind you, with first play through of Oot made Queen Gohma more difficult then anticipated, specially as a child) which are also clustered together as the bosses are now. I understand this has been up for quite a long time, however nothing is yet to be done. There are separate pages for some of the Dodongo bosses, perhaps we should now work on the Gohma. Smighty 8:22pm 21st March, 2013

That's because the different Dodongo bosses have different names and are thus different creatures. Same reason Armogohma has it's own page. In this instance, it's simply Gohma under a different design, which as HK mentions above, is not unusual for enemies in the series, particularly in TWW where almost every enemy got a new look of some sort. Personally I'm not against a boss getting it's own page, but only if it's consistent and we do it with all of them, and not arbitrary. In this instance, I see it as being arbitrary. I also see the different Gyorg pages as being similarly arbitrary, actually. There's no reason why the Gyorg from Majora's Mask gets to have a separate page from the enemy Gyorgs in TWW when other boss enemies LIKE Dodongos and Armos Knights share their pages with the non-boss versions. ※Fizzle (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't really think we should split all the bosses from this page, but I think we should at least give the OoT Gohma and the TWW Gohma their own page. There is A LOT of information about them on this page, and removing them might let us expand the other Gohma sub-articles, and also the Oot and TWW articles.

And I think it was mentioned that the infobox was supposed to show a random Gohma, but all that's showing up for me is the OoT Gohma --Planetbox 19:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That's because of page caching. I think it only changes every so often. You'll see a change if you purge the page cache (select "purge" from the dropdown in the upper right or use the keyboard shortcut Alt+0). — Hylian King ^[*] 20:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe so many people are arguing about merging the the Gohma's into the same page. Personally, I think every Gohma species should go on the same page, like we did for a lot of other enemy species, like Keese. All we would have to do is explain the differences between each type of Gohma. TheSource (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I've always been of the all-or-nothing approach. We keep them together or we split all the bosses. One of the two. Anyway, perhaps the real issue here is that the page needs some work. It's quite disorganized to look at at the moment. ※Fizzle (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, just split it. Don't each of the different versions have a different move set. Just end this discussion and split the pages. User:Ganon789 15:50, 25 October 2013

Move set? This isn't a fighting game, so I'm not sure what your point is. Lots of enemies act differently in different games. They're a type of enemy that often appears as a boss across various games with differences between each appearance. This applies to MANY other enemies in the series, so what happens with this page affects other ones. I would argue that if this page is split, then other pages such as Armos Knight, Dodongo and other enemies would have to be split into multiple pages. There is nothing special about Gohma. Sure, it looks significantly different in The Wind Waker, but this applies to MANY other enemies. In Japan, the Helmasaur King and Helmaroc King are the same enemy, for example, despite looking nothing alike. ※Fizzle (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that, if we were to split the page up the resulting pages would end up being stubs, or to be so small as to be irrelevant. They would not pay proper homage to Gohma, as the larger article does. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Brainiak97 (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm a brand new newbie to the Wiki, but not at all a newbie to Zelda itself. Sorry if I accidentally template this wrong. I very simply have this to say: I think it's a good idea. Reasoning: Queen Gohma and Armagohma are nothing the same, they deserve individual pages. Just cuz of the fact that they're nothing alike! Same goes for every other Gohma!

ReDead64 (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be split into TLoZ/LA/Oracle/FSA, OoT/WW, and TP articles due to similarities and differences —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darre (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2014

Any Gohma that comes from a different game should have its own page. But if you split up the pages , the results would be stubs, like Brainiac97 mentioned. But its a change for the better. An over-inflated page is worse. It causes loading errors on poor computers, it causes more lagging time, and it is just overall harder to navigate. Which is better? Stubs or oversized pages?InvisibleGanon (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A split to me seems like a bigger waste. The Gohma article isn't even that big, and by splitting each Gohma appearance into its own article, you'll have a lot of displaced articles that ultimately would just make navigation around the wiki harder. There is nothing wrong with the different Gohmas all sharing a page. especially as not all Gohma appearances have been major and that the article, in comparison to some others, is really not quite that big. The Goron Moron (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You may be right. I guess only some Gohmas need to have their own page. There needs to be a compromise.InvisibleGanon (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

How about making the non-canon appearances into it's own page instead of making separate pages for Ocarina of Time and Wind Waker's canon ones if it will be split? (Nightmare Lyra (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC))

Yes I completely agree with you (Steahl), due to Gohma from TWW being a giant magtail. Minuet of forest

Split Discussion Round 2

Since the previous discussion got too long and spans back four whole years, let's start up a new discussion towards whether or not to split, with our current community.
I say we keep it on one page. If we feel the page is too long, we can always go the route of giving the Other Appearances section its own page. - Tony^{T S C} 02:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a point in splitting it. The Gohma page isn't really that big, and there's actually other pages that are twice the size of it. (Like the Gorons...) If it's really that big, we can just trim it down, but I don't see a point in splitting its sections. -The Goron Moron (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The designers intended these to be the same family of monsters, as apparent in the names.KrytenKoro (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Keeping Gohma to one article makes more sense to me, and I agree with the previous points made in this Round 2 discussion. Maybe someone could note in the article about the many forms Gohma has taken over the series, specially if this is uncommon to to bosses and other big characters to do this. Also, as someone mentioned earlier, if we broke up this article, wouldn't that be grounds to start separating a lot of other articles on the Wiki, like Armos? I don't see any benefit to that. ---Pixel ^TC 16:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I also agree. Even if it is a long page, each game has its own section and I don't feel like it's cluttered or anything. --Planetbox (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)