FANDOM


Forums: Index Watercooler Assuming MM/OoT names

Some of the characters who have an equivalent in OoT and MM are not named in one of the two games. Our current policy is to lump the two together in the same page, and extend the name of the named character to the other, unnamed incarnation. I think we should instead be giving them separate pages (people without proper names would of course be given titles like we usually do). Some reasons:

1: The majority of characters in MM who's OoT equivalent had a name are either unnamed in MM or given a new name. MM characters were generally not intended to be called the same thing, and some names may have been left out intentionally by the developers to avoid implying that they are the same person.

2: Giving people names they don't have is just false information technically speaking. We really should at least clarify that they don't use the name in a certain game, even if we leave them on that page.

3: This can result in confusion and misunderstandings. For example, Shikashi is the astronomy professor in MM, and his equivalent guy in OoT (the guy who talks about the eye that could see the truth) is not named. I believe we have a theory section mentioning that the guy who talks about the eye might be related to a Sheikah, and one of the pieces of evidence sighted is his "name" (which he doesn't actually have and didn't exist when he was made up) sounding like Shiekah. We have a guy who studies the ocean being called the "Lake Scientist". It's also an iffy thing to do because characters actually do cross over between the two games (Link, Epona, etc.) since they're in the same time frame. We've probably got people convinced that the owl in MM is Kaepora Gaebora, even though there's no reason to believe it's the same being. Another example is MM's self proclaimed "Stylin' Scarecrow", who looks identical to both OoT's Bonooru and Piere, thus making it weird to pick one page to put his information on. Note that we've already separated some characters, like the Beggar and Banker. Obviously that was done because they both can't fit under just one of those titles, but that's exactly the point I'm making here.

So anyway, I think things would just be a lot clearer and more straight forward if we didn't extend names to people who don't have them, and instead made separate pages for OoT/MM equivalents. Even if we don't, I think it would be a good idea to clarify at the begging of OoT/MM sub-sections that the character is not referred to by that name in the game. I also think we should make links such that they don't use a name that isn't given to someone, i.e. [[Lake Scientist#The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask|the professor]] (they always call him professor in MM). I do think though that the simplest way to keep the names clarified and linked to properly (especially as new links get written) would be if they just had separate pages/names in the first place.--FierceDeku 21:30, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

I think our current system is fine, although some elucidation regarding the fact that they are different may be in order. As for your linking idea, I don't like it at all but I may compromise if it means the current system is kept. That is assuming other participants in this debate should somehow support the separate article idea, rendering my argument moot. Problem? --AuronKaizer! 23:19, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
Clarification about the names would be good. I'm not against the new linking idea, but at the same time I'm not overly fond of it. I just feel that it makes the linking overly complicated for most people to do correctly. I am against having different pages though as I think the system we have now works well. --Birdman5589 (talk) 00:34, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
I think the system we have works fine, but I'm not particularly against the separate article idea; I'm fine with the system we have now and will happily stick with that, but if the others decide that we should make separate pages I'll be happy to help out with that too. I don't particularly like the linking idea, but I think we should clarify about the names in the beginning of the subsection. -Minish Link 00:57, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

Noting really can be perfect in this case and what we have now seems to work as well as it's going to. Separating the named and unnamed characters completely wouldn't really make a lot of sense in some other cases such as Anju who isn't named in Ocarina of Time but appears in The Minish Cap playing the same part she did in Ocarina of Time (where technically she wasn't called Anju). Clarification seems best to me (and if that Shikashi reference is still there it needs to go, pronto). However the Scarecrow is a special case due to the identical models. Oni Dark Link 21:41, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

As most people have pointed out, the current system works, more or less. However, I think our standard's higher than that. It does strike me as somewhat un-encyclopedic to refer to characters by names they're not actually given, & I don't think we should resist change just because the current system "isn't that bad". Also, we're pretty particular about naming in other cases—like Dark Link & Shadow Link having separate pages—& so letting this slide seems inconsistent. So yeah, I'm for the idea.
If we don't make separate pages, I definitely think we should mention the issue in articles; the current first line of the Lake Scientist's MM section works for me. As for the linking idea, I think it's reasonable, although it's probably unnecessary to link to the specific section—so just [[Lake Scientist|the professor]], as opposed to [[Lake Scientist#The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask|the professor]]. Knives182 (talk) 01:49, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Same as all before, I believe the system we have already is just fine, but I agree that some names may need clarification in their respective articles. Anyway if there is a page that should be separated then that should be discussed in each particular case, in general the characters have the same name and model throughout the series. —TheNewSheik 15:36, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the linking idea because it seems so clumsy, but it just illustrates how our current system fails at being precise and accurate. Under the current system, the linking thing nobody seems to like is the most precise thing we can do. Even clarifying within the actual article strikes me as lazy because people will read on a page like Shikashi that in OoT, Shikashi isn't actually Shikashi. That said, I support separating the articles because it's our most logical option. Jedimasterlink (talk) 19:40, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Shikashi is an article that needs some discussion, maybe it should be separated maybe it doesn't but can you give another example? (Lake Scientist was long discussed before and it was settled in one article .) —TheNewSheik 03:49, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
My point is that this applies to all articles that assume names for one game or the other. Lake Scientist, Anju, Aveil, and Mamamu Yan are more examples. Jedimasterlink (talk) 08:00, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to bog this down with details, but since you asked for examples here's a list of characters who are either extending a proper name to a game that does not use it, or have a title that can't necessarily be applied to the both characters. I may have missed some, but this should be the meat of the problem. Also note that while going through the list I found a number of examples of pages that were already split, supporting this idea and making me realize that it was never a standard to keep OoT and MM characters together in the first place.

  • Bonooru: As has been stated here and in his talk page, the unnamed scarecrow in MM is identical to both Pierre and Bonooru, so we can't logically put him on either page even if you're for spreading names between the two games.
  • Ghost Hunter: No name in either game. Ghost Hunter doesn't really fit in MM, though I don't know what else we'd call him.
  • Grog: Not named in OoT. This does not cause any big problems off the top of my head, though splitting the page doesn't hurt anything either.
  • Guru-Guru: Not named in any game he appears in other than MM. Again, this causes no major problems that come to mind but is still technically not accurate.
  • Kaepora Gaebora: Not named in MM. Given that Kaepora Gaebora is supposedly the reincarnation of an ancient sage and popularly tied to Rauru, that the MM owl transcends the time loop, and that the two could be mistaken for the same individual due to MM coming right after OoT, I think there's enough significant stuff going on with the two that it's best to avoid implying they're the same being. The MM owl doesn't seem to recognize Link when they first meat, so chances are they are indeed different individuals and the way we have it now does not reflect that at all.
  • Lake Scientist: In MM, he studies the OCEAN, not a lake, and is always referred to as the professor. This makes no sense and requires one of the out of place "Hey, see the name at the top of the page? You really need to forget about that for this section." things. People who search for him will be looking for professor, or else marine researcher or something. He has an actual in-game title that people repeatedly refer to him with, and it's nonsensical to put him under the OoT name, so he's a perfect candidate for a page split.
  • Mamamu Yan: Name originates from MM. She's not called this in OoT, though she is called this in OoA. Should a Labrynna naming count for extending to OoT?
  • Mutoh: Not named in OoT or OoA. However, MC did be all lame and rip the name off from MM, so I guess there is some president for the name extending to Hyrule, though a mention in the article wouldn't hurt.
  • Shikashi: Not named in OoT. Though it's been removed now, this name extension was once used in a theory section as evidence that he was/was related to the Sheikah. This is a great example of how names that don't at first seem like a huge deal to carry over can still make problems.
  • Anju: An odd case as she was unnamed in OoT, but MC went and confused everything by calling her Anju. If no page split happens a clarification would still be nice.
  • Aveil: Unnamed in OoT. Seems like kind of a needless extension to me, especially since the Gerudo worriers who guard the prisoners look exactly the same. She's not necessarily even wearing the same color clothes as MM's Aveil. It's just messy to attach names to people with no definitive reason.

I find Knives' comment interesting. Yes our current system is more or less passable, but really our standards should be a little higher than that. It's not encyclopedic to list characters under headings that don't make sense, contradict ourselves by saying that the character doesn't actually have the name, and confuse people who don't read the full article by filing people under names they don't have. While some people are satisfied with the current "system" (again, it turns out we actually do split pages a number of times, I can list them if you really want me to), I also haven't heard an actual reason that leaving it unchanged is preferable to the alternative. Do people think we should leave things unchanged by default because it's easier? If it's a time put into it vs how valuable the result is thing that's keeping people from wanting to do it, I'll gladly do all the actual editing myself if it's approved (I don't have anything better to do ;p ). Why leave something as passable when we could make things a little clearer and more accurate?--FierceDeku 10:49, July 29, 2011 (UTC)


Sorry for this wall of text but I feel it necessary to explain exactly how I feel on the subject.

There are more characters then, Medigoron and Biggoron are the only one that immediately springs to mind but I imagine there's a lot more. But really I don't see what the whole problem is. Apart from Link in some sequels pretty much no two characters are the same person in any games with few exceptions outside the Oracle games. Syrup from a Link to the Past is not the same character as the one in The Minish Cap. The Impa from the NES games is different from the Oracle games and Ocarina of Time. We don't clarify that in any articles why should we clarify that the Owl in Majora's Mask is not the exact same Owl from Ocarina of Time. I'm willing to believe most people reading the site will be aware that the same models were used in Majora's Mask and that it is not the case of almost every character in Ocarina of Time emigrating. Majora's Mask should had an easier time naming some characters then Ocarina of Time did as some also played a more important role so they needed some name. The later games place the same characters back in their Ocarina of Time roles with there Majora's Mask names meaning it is viewed by the creators that this is the characters name and the character does this job. Just because they are not the exact same person does not mean they are not the same character and not suitable to be on the same page. Further more there are also many characters who do share the same name both games such as Hone & Darling and Dampe. If none of the characters between either game had the same name it might make sense but there are those that do, in my opinion assuming we can call some other unnamed characters by their later giving names makes sense. Some are special cases however like the lake scientist and Booonaru who should be treated independently. Besides all that what would you actually call half these pages? Dog Loving Woman? Richard's Owner? For most cases what you come up with will be unofficial names for characters who look and act like other named characters in the series. If he looks and acts like Kaepora Gaebora then it's best to call him Kaepora Gaebora. At least that's the way I see it. Oni Dark Link 13:02, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Of course recurring characters get the same page. The issue is about characters who are both distinct and implicitly have different names. If we're going to put characters on the same page because they look similar, let's add the owl from LA to Kaepora Gaebora, or merge Talon with Tarin and Malon with Marin (which could easily be different translations of the same name based on what I know of Japanese translations). See how silly that is? Is that really so different from what we're doing here?
Based on how some pages have been edited, it seems that some people have trouble understanding that the OoT and MM models are reused for different characters, even though we do things to try to communicate the difference. On several of these pages, we even have game-specific quotes to indicate that the two characters sharing the page are, in fact, distinct. So basically the pages I and others want to split are already two separate pages that have been fused together just because the characters look the same. Jedimasterlink (talk) 17:11, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with splitting pages with separate characters, I even said Boonaru and the Lake Scientist are some of the special cases. What I am against is splitting characters who are the same just because they aren't named in every game they appear in, the likes of Guru Guru and Mamamu Yan for example. A parallel for Marin and Malon is not the same thing as both of them have official names (and are actually quite different characters considering there's no ranch on Koholint but that's beside the point) Oni Dark Link 19:00, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
Again, that Malon/Marin and Talon/Tarin (which potentially could have been translated the same way (perhaps they were localized differently to indicate a difference)) are completely different characters, yet several of the OoT/MM characters are just as different. This is exactly the point I was trying to make. Look at the two Shikashis, the two Lake Scientists (one of which doesn't even study lakes), the two Aveils, the two Grogs, the two Kaepora Gaeboras, and the two Ghost Hunters. In-game, these are all different from each other. The only characters that aren't that different are Mamamu Yan and Anju (only because MC pairs her MM name with her OoT story role). I would concede to not splitting Anju and Mamamu Yan for that reason, but the others are easily distinct enough to have their own pages. Jedimasterlink (talk) 20:01, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the problem is that you are looking into many particular problems, instead of one. Lake Scientist of OoT is the same as in MM, the manga calls them with the same name, and I believe in Japenese he is called Dr. Mizumi in both. Shikashi, Guru-Guru and Grog are debatable, anyway the rule "same character model, same name through the series" seems to apply as it does with Mutoh, Kaepora Gaebora, Anju, Mamamu Yan, Medigoron, Biggoron, Link and many others. The Ghost Hunter does have a name issue, it could be changed to Poe Keeper or something, but they are almost the same as they do similar roles in both games, and again same character model. Tarin and Marin are different from Talon and Malon because they have official different names. The Owl in LA is not Kaepora Gaebora, the Owl is the spirit of the Wind Fish. With Aveil you might be right if she does have a different color between OoT and MM. And the Scarecrow in MM is indeed a problem, I don't know how we selected his name as Bonuru instead of Pierre or viceversa. Anyway all do not seem to be the same isssue.—TheNewSheik 21:33, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

I'd disagree with many of them being very different. the two Lake Scientists still study water life, the two Grogs still mope about stuff, both Kaepora Gaebora's give info on the location, and the two Ghost Hunters involve themselves with Ghosts (while also speaking in the same manner with pauses and laughter). Guru Guru still plays his music box and gets angry while Mutho is still a loud mouthed carpenter. As for Aveil or Shikaski we don't really get enough info to determine their personalities in Ocarina of Time so it can't be said whether they are different or not. On his own Shikaski's Ocarina of Time appearance would barely be big enough to make a page anyway. Oni Dark Link 22:39, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Again, I am aware of the particulars of the LA characters. I wasn't suggesting doing anything with them, and giving reasons that they should be left separate only serves to illustrate my point (merging them would be incorrect for similar, yet more obvious reasons, as keeping together the articles we are discussing). All of the characters I listed above, minus Kaepora Gaebora, have very distinct in-game roles in OoT and MM (though he does have distinct characteristics in OoT that admittedly don;t apply in FSA). Some of the similarities (Kaepora Gaebora and Guru-Guru) make sense, but others (Ghost Hunter and Grog) are over-generalized. Shikashi and Aveil are different specifically because of their lack of significance in OoT.
We aren't really getting anywhere with this, so here's a compromise: what if we only split the characters who appear only in OoT and MM? This means we would not split Anju, Guru-Guru, Kaepora Gaebora, Mamamu Yan, or Mutoh, which would be the most confusing to split anyway because of the similarities between games. This leaves Bonooru (a special case that we should probably split regardless of how this discussion turns out), Ghost Hunter, Grog, Lake Scientist, Shikashi, and Aveil, all of whom have distinct personalities, roles, characteristics, or some combination of those between OoT and MM. Just to outline some of the differences:
Ghost Hunter: Hunts ghosts in OoT, seems to be some sort of guardian spirit in MM (still relates to ghosts, but the exact role is very different)
Grog: Sociopathic youth in OoT, cucco keeper (and not sociopathic at all) in MM
Lake Scientist: Called "Lake Scientist" in OoT, called "the professor" in MM (actual character similarities exist, but they do have different names)
Shikashi :Random person who gives minor hints in OoT, astronomer in MM
Aveil: Barely distinct from other Gerudo (character model is identical to that of Gerudo Guards except for color) in OoT, named and has a more significant role in MM
All of these are distinct enough for separate pages and are not complicated by later appearances while the recurring characters tend to be more similar (sans Anju) and have later appearances that mirror their OoT/MM appearances, hence this compromise. Jedimasterlink (talk) 23:49, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
I'll support giving those characters separate pages. -Minish Link 23:59, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
I like this suggestion. The people Jedi left out have a basis for crossing the name between games/alternate worlds so it's not a big deal with them. I do still wonder about Kaepora Gaebora, since he is apparently a different being from a different reality, just like the LA owl is, but it's still more iffy split wise I guess since he at least plays a similar role (so does the owl but w/e). Aside from maybe him though, I support all the page splits and not page splits on Jedi's list.--FierceDeku 00:10, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
At this point I think both sides of the argument have some merit, & as such Jedi's compromise seems a good solution to me. On a side note, I'm pleasantly surprised to see this topic get so much attention; a gold star to all contributors. Knives182 (talk) 08:21, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any support/opposition to offer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedimasterlink (talkcontribs)

Someone left unsigned the phrase above. Well, I still believe this subject is an over-generalization, some characters may have details to fix like major clarification or page separation, but not all, I do believe that Nintendo has somekind of "same character model, same name" law. If you want a good example to this (aside from Link, Zelda, Ganondorf, and Tingle) is Dampé, he is called the same in OoT, MM and TMC, in textual quotes, also we have the others we stated before that don't have a name in Ocarina but have a constant naming through the series like Anju, Mutoh, Mamamu Yan, Kaepora Gaebora and others. For the Lake Scientist, you can just read the Majoras Mask manga and see that Link calls him the same as his OoT incarnation. I just say why not apply the same rule to the others? We can't make two articles for Grog, the Ghost Hunter, and Shikashi just because they don't have a figurine in The Minish Cap.—TheNewSheik 04:03, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

I can see why you think the issue is over-generalized, which is why I tried thinking about the pages individually. By doing so, I can see how characters with consistent naming in other games can be kept the way they are without much confusion--splitting those pages may even cause more confusion. However, the lake scientist, has his own name in MM, which I and FD have said a couple times now. "Dr. Mizumi" appears to be a completely non-canon name. The other characters don't give us any reason to think that they have the same name in OoT and MM. Saying that they have the same model doesn't really work because of character pairs like Ingo/Gorman, Talon/Mr. Barten, Ruto/Lulu, and Bombers/Boy in the Graveyard. Jedimasterlink (talk) 00:34, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
I still think it's not a good idea to extend Hyrule and Termina names across the two worlds just because that's what Hyrule does with their names. Names do extend between the two places sometimes (Dampe, the ones in Minish Cap, etc.), but there are also many examples of them not extending, so we have two conflicting "rules" with how Termina/Hyrule names are handled. I think it's weird to just pick one "rule" (extending names when they aren't stated) and take it as though it's the way that it is always done, when that is really not the case. We're not big on making assumptions here, just look at some of the obvious things that we keep in theory sections.--FierceDeku 01:57, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with giving separate pages to characters who appear only in OoT & MM & are unnamed in one of the two. I wanted to ask, though: is the Ghost Hunter actually named in either game, or is that an unofficial name? If it's unofficial, I think we could just choose a new unofficial name that better applies to both games & keep those two appearances together. A name like "Ghost Keeper" would work for both incarnations, & wouldn't be assigning an official name to a character never referred to as such, which strikes me as the real issue here. Knives182 (talk) 02:35, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
Ghost Hunter is made up. I think Ghost Keeper sounds good. That's not his only role in MM, but it's true at least, and he is a keeper of sorts over all the spirits of Ikana, as he knows of them all and tries to guide Link in the hopes that he can lead them all to rest. Even for OoT it fits better, since he's never known to actually hunt them (he may get them all through other means like trade). I like the idea of renaming the Ghost Hunter page "Ghost Keeper".--FierceDeku 02:50, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so if we rename the Ghost Hunter to "Ghost Keeper" and keep his appearances together, that leaves the Lake Scientist, Aveil, Grog, & Shikashi. Most people have agreed by now that the Lake Scientist's MM appearance should be given its own page under his in-game title of "Professor", meaning all we're really debating here are Aveil, Grog, & Shikashi. By my count, we currently have four in support of giving these characters separate pages (FD, Jedi, Minish, & myself), & three against (Oni, Sheik, & AK, who hasn't weighed in since the very beginning). So, thoughts? Knives182 (talk) 01:52, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out real quick that Aveil's 3D model is shared by a lot of people, and the OoT Gerudo left in charge of the fortress doesn't even necessarily wear the same color clothes as Aveil.--FierceDeku 02:28, August 26, 2011 (UTC)
^This is a good point. I also like the "Ghost Hunter" idea. Should we split the remaining pages, we'll need new names. Here are some basic suggestions: Aveil and Gerudo Fortress Commander (that's the extent of her role in the game); Grog and Outcast /Mutoh's Son (either aptly describes his role, though I prefer Outcast); and Shikashi and Kakariko Storyteller (or just Storyteller--all of his dialogue involves telling stories about Kakariko).Jedimasterlink (talk) 03:39, August 26, 2011 (UTC)
"Gerudo Fortress Commander" sounds good. For alt Grog, while being Mutoh's son is not his distinguishing feature, I think the name "Mutoh's Son" sounds most consistent with our usual scheme, and if I remember him correctly he's probably not so much outcast by others, but more likely he himself decides to shun everyone else. Thus he may not be an outcast technically (that's if I'm remembering right). "Kakariko Storyteller" sounds good, just storyteller would be a little ambiguous since there are other storytellers in the series.--FierceDeku 05:39, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

All righty then, the motion to give separate pages to Aveil, Grog, Shikashi, & the Lake Scientist, & to rename the Ghost Hunter "Ghost Keeper", passes. As for new names, "Gerudo Fortress Commander" & "Kakariko Storyteller" both work for me, & as already covered, "Professor" is the logical choice for the Lake Scientist.

As for Grog's separate name, while the two-word "Mutoh's Son" does sound more like a typical page name here, I agree w/ FD that that's not the guy's primary feature, & in fact is kind of a dirty secret of his. As such, if we can come up w/ a suitable alternative, I think that'd be preferable to using the spoilerish "Mutoh's Son". I like where "Outcast" is going, but if that doesn't quite fit, how about "Vagabond"? It can mean a wanderer, or someone who is "disreputable, worthless, or shiftless". Both apply pretty well to the character: to quote Mutoh, "Even my own son doesn't have a job, and he just wanders around all day!"

I'll leave Grog's alternate name for further discussion, & see if I can't get to work on some of the other stuff, which we all seem to be on the same page on. Knives182 (talk) 21:04, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

I am personally with Oni, AK and whoever else is against the splits. Many characters who are named in later games keep those names from that point forward. Examples have already been brought up (Anju, Mutoh, etc.) so it would be redundant do go into detail. But I don't think we should split them unless they actually change name like Talon and Barten. And as for the Ghost Hunter thing, that was the title he gave to Link (in caps by the way). So it seemed possible that he considered himself one as well since he already had many ghosts. It was far less contrived than the one it has been replaced with.

Edit: Oh right, and if they don't have a real name, but a description that doesn't match their prior counterpart, they should be split like we have done before. That's my opinion anyway since it wouldn't make sense otherwise. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 17:22, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

Trying to keep this alive. I guess we're now four vs. four on the issue of giving Aveil, Grog, & Shikashi separate pages. I would like to note that:
  • Aveil can be a totally different color in OoT than in MM.
  • Grog only has his mohawk in in MM.
  • Shikashi's role as astronomer in MM is in no way applicable to his role of "random dude who talks a lot" in OoT.
  • The title "Lake Scientist" is simply untrue of this character in MM, & probably more importantly, he is actually named in-game as the Professor.
Giving this last guy separate pages is currently favored as Oni agreed that should happen. As such, I especially invite opinions on this situation, as if folks mostly agree that this can be done, I'd like to get it out of the way & then be able to focus the remainder of the discussion on the other three characters. Knives182 (talk) 22:11, September 20, 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, Aveil/the OoT Gerudo Commander/all of the Gerudo that Link fights in both games look the same except for the color of their clothing and lip stick. Aveil's color scheme doesn't even necessarily match the OoT commander's, though it does match the jail-guarding warriors from OoT. Maybe we should move that information to the Aveil page and call all the jail-guarding Gerudo warriors from OoT Aveil also! In all seriousness though, this is just a repeatedly reused generic Gerudo model. Since it's not just a unique model that is seen once in OoT and once in MM like with Shikashi/etc., I really think there would need to be a greater reason to keep this page together.
  • As for "Lake Scientist", the Pond Owner and Man form the Trading Post are Hyrule/Termina equivalents with no official name between them, and they get separate pages. The MM Professor has an official name (or title at least). Joe and Oni seem to be in support of splitting "Lake Scientist", since (I'm paraphrasing here of course) Oni said that this page was an exception, and Joe said we should split when one description style page name does not apply to both characters. Also, no one has spoken against this split specifically. If I'm reading this right, that means that for the "Lake Scientist" split specifically, there are now 2 opposes which were only directed at page splitting in general, 6 supports for the specific case, and some existing president on the wiki for splitting a page in such a situation. If nothing further is said on the "Lake Scientist" front, I'll eventually go ahead and execute this split.--FierceDeku 00:59, September 21, 2011 (UTC)

I still oppose against making a separate page for the Lake Scientist. Mangas show that is supposed to be the "same" character and further games show that Nintendo use the same model for recurring characters, also, it is good for the people that see the wikia to have things in the same article, instead of making them go from link to link to get information. Anyway if you believe is necessary to maintain encyclopedic quality and canonicity, I can't stop you anymore. Maybe we should finish with this subject to work on others that may be more important or begin to prepare ourself for Skyward Sword. --—TheNewSheik 00:14, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with none of these splits. --AuronKaizer! 00:17, September 22, 2011 (UTC)
First off quickly, the points supporting the splitting of Aveil still appear to be unopposed. Does anyone have an objective reason for why the page is better as it is now, or for what makes it ok to make assumptions that the character appears at all in OoT/is definitely the Gerudo Commander (despite potential visual differences)?
I get what you mean with wanting to keep equivalent characters on the same page for convenience, but I don't think that makes erroneous page names ok. The See also can link people to Hyrule/Termina equivalents like it does on most pages. Manga is non-canon, I'd think we would disregard it like we always do. If we did take it into consideration, calling him Dr. Mizawhatever in both mangas only made sense because it was a proper name. The games use a title though, one that the MM character is noticeably incapable of holding, being a researcher of the ocean, in a land were there are no lakes to be seen in the first place.
If a split cannot be agreed upon for "Lake Scientist", then I propose we change the page name to "Professor". It is also an official title and just as valid as "Lake Scientist", is used a number of times by a number of people ("Lake Scientist" appears only once), and at least has the potential to apply to the OoT character, whereas "Lake Scientist" is a title which the MM character cannot hold.--FierceDeku 06:45, September 22, 2011 (UTC)
I was just about to make that exact proposal Oni Dark Link 18:43, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

I will have to research Aveil stuff, if the colors are not the same we can split the page I don't see any problem in that. With the old man we could change the name to professor but the Lake Scientist name is just equally valid, at least is written in caps in the in-game text. --—TheNewSheik 19:29, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

Splitting Lake Scientist is pretty much non-negotiable, regardless of what anyone thinks of splitting pages in general. Aveil could be split quite easily if people agree to it, and Shikashi is probably the page with the least need for a split (I would still like to see it split should we get support). Honestly, since manga is non-canon, there are precisely zero valid arguments for not splitting Lake Scientist, so if I or someone else gets time in the next couple days, that page ought to be split as soon as possible. The way things stand now, more people are in favor of splitting this particular page than not, anyway. The proposal doesn't work, because it discards a valid name entirely, though the proposal does imply how silly and irrational not splitting the page is. I am only online for as long as it takes to type and save this comment because I'm overloaded with schoolwork and will continue to be through this weekend, so if someone else could do it in the next couple days, that would be appreciated. Jedimasterlink (talk) 20:16, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

No objections, even after over a month. No split page, either. Yet if we can override a consensus based on speculative reasoning, we can surely commence this split since we have definite empirical evidence, especially since we have either a tied or supporting consensus, depending on how one interprets Joe's comment about a description that doesn't match a prior counterpart. I have time now, so it's happening now. This is about keeping things as official as possible, and in this case, it also happens to make sense, so even if there was no positive consensus, this would be fully justified. Jedimasterlink (talk) 22:20, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.