Continuing conversation from Drour:
Yes, Dungeons:Baby Ghast was obviously more popular because the ghastling did not exist at the time. However, as you said, currently the most popular thing is the ghastling, which is factually a baby (happy) ghast, similar to a baby pig (piglet), baby sheep (lamb) or a baby squid. Additionally, how are people more likely to search Dungeons:Baby Ghast if it's not as popular? Most people (me included) just use the "Dungeons:" namespace when searching for something in MCD.
The disambiguation page is not obscure to find as when you are redirected to the ghastling, it clearly, and quite obviously says, that "Baby Ghast redirects here. For other namesake, see Baby Ghast (disambiguation).
Tl;DR: No it isn't lmao
👁 Image
Ayaan 09:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Support, ghastlings are the only baby ghast in Minecraft. Dungeons may have a baby ghast, a non-happy one, but spin-offs should have lower priority in these cases because the main game is just drastically more popular. Admins can see Special:Analytics, the ghastling redirect has 22 thousand views, while Dungeons:Baby Ghast is not even on that list because it does not have enough views (less than 9 thousand). - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
09:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- There is no baby ghast in the original game, it would be wiser to make a Baby Happy Ghast page with a redirect to Happy Ghast#Ghastling, and redirect baby ghast to Dungeons:Baby Ghast, because that mob is there Buzzilaa (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- Baby happy ghast does already exist.
- I think you want to be pedantic (which is a good thing :) i like being pedantic too) and accurate with the name however I think its practicality far outweighs it in this case. The wiki should serve the users with what's best rather than what's technically correct. Hopefully you see my viewpoint. I'm not against you :) 👁 Image
Ayaan 12:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- The only reason why “Ghastlings are more popular is because recent updates are always more popular. In fact, you said so yourself that the reason “Baby Ghast was popular at the time was because it was new. Popularity of recent features should not be a factor in this because hype dies down when the next big thing comes around.Drour1234 (talk) 07:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
- Okay Drour, and if Baby Ghast is still most commonly used for Happy Ghast#Ghastling in a few months, then what?
- You're argument really doesn't have any substance because you've not said why we shouldn't. If the majority of the users right now are using this redirect for the ghastling then why should we change it?
- MCD:Baby Ghast had been used for the redirect for years yet it had little usage. It already had its chance to show its popularity and usefulness. So why are we still trying to credit it?
- If you wanted to speak about this, you could have done so in the 2 weeks it was open, yet now you have reopened the discussion after it was closed, so why speak up now? 👁 Image
Ayaan 08:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
- There is no way to precisely measure statistics and probability and whether something will stay popular. This scenario has occurred with EVERY update. Also, you forget that this discussion began on Discord and there was no consensus there. Also, why should the wiki assume everyone who searches the term would be searching for the ghastling and not anything else? The wiki should not be biased in this.Drour1234 (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
- I think we can measure the statistics accurately. Currently, the Baby Ghast redirect has more views than MCD:Baby Ghast and I assume Baby Ghast (disambiguation) (if someone can fact check). So even if you combined the total views of those two pages and minus the view count of the redirect, this means that the majority of the users stayed on Ghastling subsection. This is assuming all views came directly after using the redirect (and excluding any other means of finding these pages), so this gives the two pages the maximum best chance of being useful yet it still fails.
- The Discord messages don't matter here. If they are, then it should be said in this talk page, not else where.
- The wiki isn't acting bias because there's no agenda to be bias for. It's serving what the majority of the people want. And we can't assume everyone wants to go to the Ghastling so this is why we have {{redirect}} template to Baby Ghast (disambiguation) as the first thing you see when redirected. So this issue doesn't even exist. 👁 Image
Ayaan 14:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Support Gwen Stacy (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Support - I still maintain that Ghastling should be its own page, in which this redirect (to Ghastling) cwould make even more sense. | violine1101 (talk) 08:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps if Ghastling is split from Happy Ghast, there may be a good argument for making this page redirect there instead of the Disambig page:Drour1234 (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
