OoT Moblin[]
I can't find a single official source that refers to the big OoT Moblin as a "Great Moblin" (or "Club Moblin" for that matter). Even if there is one that I'm missing, the OoT "Great Moblins" and the Great Moblin from the Oracle games aren't at all related.
For those reasons, I'm proposing that the Ocarina of Time section of this article be merged into Moblin. — Hylian King [*] 19:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- What Hylian King is saying makes sense to me. While there are a few differences between the two kinds of Moblins in Ocarina of Time, there are not enough to justify splitting them up. Besides, in appearance, they are very similar. Noble Wrot 21:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's the Japanese name for the enemy, so it seems. There are various websites online that refer to it by that name. Since it has no English name, I don't see why he should be merged into an already bloated Moblin page. I just checked and the filename for the official art on the Nintendo Asset Library is "bossbline" (regular Moblins are known as "moribline"). It's definitely the same enemy.
- Also, he is a bit special, he even gets a new cutscene in the 3DS version when you first meet him. User:Fizzle8094/sig 00:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Look, I'm fine with giving them their own page, too, if people would prefer that. I was mainly suggesting a merge with Moblin because I thought Great Moblin wasn't an official name. If it is, well... "Great Moblin (Ocarina of Time)" isn't pretty, but it works fine for me. What I care about is the fact that two unrelated beings are covered on the same page. Even if they share a name, they're clearly distinct. I don't think I need to say more, given that we've already discussed this at length. — Hylian King [*] 00:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- I completely agree, and I think it could fit in with Moblin as we already do it with Skyward Sword's two varieties of Moblin, the Wooden Shield and the Metal Shield.XXSuperXXNintendoXx 03:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure, because you could argue the same thing about LOADS of other monsters that share the same name but have radically different appearances (and personalities) across different games. At what point do we split a page? We need a proper rule for this, otherwise it just seems arbitrary. If they've got the same name in the Japanese games they're generally the same monster, that's the rule we use across all other enemy pages. In this instance, one of them is a boss and one of them isn't, I suppose that might be a rule we could follow? I would just prefer some consistency. User:Fizzle8094/sig 19:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- That's another can of worms there, dude. As for this page... The Great Moblin in OoX is more of a character than anything else. He can talk. He has a personality. The one in OoT is just a brutish creature that swings a club. How is separating these two arbitrary? — Hylian King [*] 20:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- There are a number of other enemy pages that are not split despite similar potential reasons for being so. The Angler Fish page, for example, some people argue the Gohma page should be. Facade is not split into two sections despite having a personality yet being a different being in both games (although he is visually the same in both). Armos Knights and Dodongo pages are not split into boss and enemy varieties even though the bosses are usually quite different from the regular versions. I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm just asking for some consistency with other pages. Great Moblin has two depictions in two very different games. The Moblin King from Link's Awakening is actually the same enemy as the Big Blin in Spirit Tracks if you go by their Japanese name, and yet one of them talks and has a personality while the other one doesn't. In that case, we have different English names for both, but they're the same enemy, just a different depiction for a different game that has a different style. Moblins talk in the Oracle games (and some others), but in Ocarina of Time none of them do. No surprise that the Great Moblin is any different, really.
- Like I say though, not saying I necessarily disagree, but in this case they ARE at least the same enemy just in different games. Not the same individual, no, but that could be said about a lot of monsters. I guess the Oracles Great Moblin is both a monster and a character, yes, but again, the Angler Fish example pops into my head, as one of them talks. I suggest we split that one too if we're splitting this one. User:Fizzle8094/sig 23:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- As far as parsers go, I think you guys would be well served by this auto-piping template, and you could probably just use the game-title acronyms instead of full game-titles when making a new article (Ex: "Great Moblin (OoT)"). The acronyms are recognizable enough, and the point of the parser is simply to differentiate the page, rather than imply it's an official division; you can always specify the game in question within the lead anyway.KrytenKoro 20:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- By and large Zelda Wiki has never used acronyms within its articles; that also is opening another can of worms.
- It's very frustrating when someone's one and only argument is a case for consistency (e.g. "We shouldn't split/merge this page, because these subjects are similar and their page isn't split/merged."). No two subjects are the same, and so virtually all these comparisons are quite subjective; we can argue forever how different or how similar they are to suit our standpoint, but that gets us nowhere. At the end of the day, there could be any number of reasons why the subject you're comparing to is handled differently, and it's entirely possible that none or few of those reasons are relevant to the subject at hand. That's why I don't agree to this "all-or-nothing" business at all.
- Forget the other pages, I'm talking about this one! If we can agree that these two Great Moblins don't belong together, then we should do so regardless of how other articles are written. If we think other articles should be split, too, then let's discuss that on their respective talk pages. On a case by case basis. — Hylian King [*] 01:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- But Pakkun, it does, their Japanese names are the same, I checked. That's the issue here. Same enemy, different depiction. However, on the basis that the Great Moblin is also a character in the Oracle games I'm not against a split in this case, okay HK? I'm just saying, they ARE the same enemy, just a different depiction, and we shouldn't act like they're not. What do you think, Pakkun? Their Japanese names are the same so I'd be curious of your take on it. User:Fizzle8094/sig 12:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- I did a bit of checking around and the name "Club Moblin" is from the Ocarina of Time 3D Prima guide. It specifically says "Moblin & Club Moblin" and describes them. Personally I'm not overly fond of the Prima guides due to some of their inaccuracies, but that is a name being used in an "official" context. So if we wanted to split the page, we can use that as a title for the Ocarina of Time Moblin. User:Fizzle8094/sig 15:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Works for me. Not every page has to be huge. Concise is good. There might be a few things I can add if I think on it. More detail on the Spirit Temple one, for example. While I'm not entirely sure a split is required, I'm sure it'd look fine, as long as we mention that they're the same enemy in Japan.
- I know some would argue he should be merged into the Moblin page, I think the fact that he is a unique monster and shares the same name as the Great Moblin that gives him notable status. User:Fizzle8094/sig 21:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)