Talk:Captain Goomba (Mario & Luigi series)

Remove identifier
When someone searches “Captain Goomba”, he is likely trying to find the MQ one rather than the MP8 one. Hence, the MQ page is more popular. So shouldn’t we remove the identifier? Honestly, I think this is too minor for a proposal. - 01:35, 27 December 2017 (EST)
 * Maybe, but the point still stands that Pirate Goomba is a pirate Goomba. And he is not a pirate Goomba. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2017 (EST)
 * I...don’t get it. What does the fact that the MP8 one is a pirate have to do with moving pages? - 02:50, 27 December 2017 (EST)
 * Look, both characters are too minor for one to take precedence over the other, so let's just keep identifiers on both for now, okay? (By the way, yes, Doc's comment is a little off-topic.) 07:45, 27 December 2017 (EST)
 * At the moment, this particular Captain Goomba is the more popular one. But popularity shouldn't play a rule in the identifiers, hence why we don't call the Spiny Shell (blue) page "Blue Shell". Also. 10:06, 27 December 2017 (EST)
 * Okay, but I should point out that the MQ one is a major character, while the other one is minor. By the way, here is the revision that started the whole Pirate Goomba thing. - 15:37, 27 December 2017 (EST)
 * Regardless of popularity or role, they both have the same name, so the identifier is used to distinguish them. However, as per Naming, the type would've been the first consideration. Since they are both Goombas, that doesn't work, but perhaps this Captain Goomba could've been "(character)" while the other could be... ... ...Yeah, the game identifier would probably be best. 15:46, 27 December 2017 (EST)
 * You know what, bro? I'm inclined to agree with you here. I think the Captain Goomba page needs the identifier removed because it's established itself as the more major article, and anyone who searches Captain Goomba is more likely trying to find this page if anything else. I'm putting up a proposal for it...I think. 16:18, 27 December 2017 (EST)
 * I think it's fine the way it is now, both have identifiers, we have a disambig page for this that does its job. 16:38, 27 December 2017 (EST)

This is so simple it's ridiculous. This CG is not minor, he is the entire star and major player in more than one game. PG, (pirate goomba) Is a minor character noone cares about or looks for. The identifier should stay, but add the thingy that says 'this article is about _, for _, go _' instead. Plain, simple, necessary, and not a debate lol 02:58, August 10, 2020 (EDT)

Remove the identifier of this article and change the identifier of the Captain Goomba (Mario Party 8) page to (pirate)
As per the discussion above, I think it's pretty clear that this is the main article for all Captain Goomba searches---in other words, when someome is trying to look up Captain Goomba, he is most likely trying to get to this one, the Minion Quest: The Search for Bowser one. We have one character who is one of the main protagonists of a game and who has a major role and contribution to it, against a minor character that sparked a running gag and who doesn't serve much of an importance in his game other than giving players a star when they get to him. And as for the name similarity, we can just use the template to accordingly distinguish between the two. It's more than just popularity, it is about the role and importance and contribution they make to their games. You take your pick on what's more important.

Proposer: (blocked) Deadline: February 6, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Oppose

 * 1) Even so, this doesn't mean the M&LSS Captain Goomba truly takes precedence over the MP8 Captain Goomba. Plus, even if Mario Party 8&apos;s indeed has less pageviews than Minion Quest: The Search for Bowser&apos;s (by simply entering "captain goomba" for the latter), it's still difficult to determine if and how the pageviews will change, given that both characters appear in only one game each. At this point, I suggest keeping the identifier for now until either appears in another game, then we can truly decide what to do with the page titles. Lastly, I'm not very fond of the proposed alternate identifier, considering that "pirate" does not tell us much of anything; for all we know, it could just be an act.
 * PS: I'm also perring Mario jc's comment below.
 * 1) - This identifier works. Changing it would possibly lead to confusion due to it being inconsistent with how we identify other pages.
 * 2) Per all.
 * 3) Per all.

Comments
Still a better running gag than that stupid pink gorilla :V Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2018 (EST)

If the identifier is dropped, a disambiguation page is pointless. Just use. 02:09, 24 January 2018 (EST)
 * If that were to happen, I'd advocate changing the MP8 one's identifier to "pirate" as it's quicker to type, and I think there's a rule regarding roles in that.... Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2018 (EST)

@ToadettetheAchiever--You wanna know what I think? It does take precedence, and again, it's much more than the number of pageviews each one gets, it's about what they do in the games they appear in, and the winner of that category is, what do you know, Captain Goomba the flag-carrier! As I said before, the difference between these two guys is HUGE---one Goomba is one of the main protagonists of his game, and one Goomba is just, well, a minor character who only gives out stars. And as for Mario jc's comment, I think he has a point, and plus, I could make some changes to the proposal that wouldn't derail it or throw it off track. Also, we do have precedents for this. 20:53, 24 January 2018 (EST)
 * Going off of the Cheep Cheep Lagoon example, the MP8 Captain Goomba should be the one to lose its identifier :P The MK7 course could be moved to an identifier, with the base page becoming the disambig and the disambiguation being deleted, imo 21:06, 24 January 2018 (EST)
 * You missed the point (or then again, you could have interpreted it differently). MK7's article doesn't have the identifier because it's the one that plays the bigger role, and it's the same thing here--the one that plays the bigger role should lose its identifier and the other one shouldn't. 21:09, 24 January 2018 (EST)
 * They're both courses. I fail to see how one is more important than the other.
 * Regardless, I do see what you are trying to do here. One's a playable character and the other is an NPC. MP8's Captain Goomba is important to his board and MQ's Captain Goomba is important to the game. imo, if the two pages share the same name, there should be an identifier. I get that the wiki isn't perfect when it comes to stuff like this, as it involves moving a page and fixing all the links, which most users (including myself on occasion) just don't feel like dealing with. If you do feel like correcting everything, then kudos to you, but I'd rather have the identifier, hence my opposition. It just makes the wiki feel cleaner to me. 21:16, 24 January 2018 (EST)
 * Hey, that's just fine with me. I understand your arguments and why you think that. Also, I have more precedents. 21:22, 24 January 2018 (EST)
 * One of those was called "King Bill" in a game, and the other seems to be a mistake, as the same guide called Banzai Bill King Bill. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2018 (EST)
 * That Cheep Cheep Lagoon (disambiguation) page is not meant to exist. If someone searches "cheep cheep lagoon" and is actually looking for the golf course, they are taken to the MK7 course, but the notice lets them know and provides the correct link; meanwhile, the disambiguation page has no involvement in this whatsoever, making it completely useless. That's why King Bill doesn't have its own disambiguation page with the one other similarly titled page, which you just listed as a precedent, and why a disambiguation isn't needed in this case should this proposal pass. A disambiguation page with the "(disambiguation)" qualifier is only required if one subject is prominent enough to not have an identifier, but shares its title with several others. With only two pages, such a page is unnecessary. I would suggest amending your proposal accordingly.  23:21, 24 January 2018 (EST)
 * Okay, fine...I think. I don't wanna rush to conclusions too quickly. 23:34, 24 January 2018 (EST)