Template talk:Enemies

From Final Fantasy Wiki

Contents 1 Inclusion 2 Werewolf 3 Zombie 4 Mover and Magic Pot 5 Monster=Enemies? 6 Chimera 7 Dragon and Worm 8 Bluer's Decision 9 A consistency 10 Wolf 11 Split

[edit] Inclusion

Ser Blue says at 15:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC) As to ease with what should be here: Has a parent page, At least five appearances in different titles, and At least two variants in the same title.

NëA 思い切って言う Just in case I screw up again, the current template's monster links to their respective articles now have the template.

Ser Blue says at 15:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Oh yes, I was about to commend you on such a smashing good job! =D

BlueHighwind Q? TALK - I Am Vengeance. I Am the Knight. I Am Batman! ツ: Lamia appears in several games, and she has two varients in at least FFV. I'm putting her up on the big board.

[edit] Werewolf

BlueHighwind Q? TALK - I Am Vengeance. I Am the Knight. I Am Batman! ツ: With Mystic Quest, that enemy just barely fits the bill. I'm putting that doggie up on the board.

Diablocon - No, the question is; who art thou, ham planks? Shanks! I meant shanks TALK - 22:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC) It doesn't have a parent page though. Plus, they are no way near iconic enough in FF.

BlueHighwind Q? TALK - I Am Vengeance. I Am the Knight. I Am Batman! ツ: Well that fits in a twisted kind of sense. Whatever.

[edit] Zombie

8bit BlackMage - Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum TALK - Desiderium peccatorum peribit- {{{time}}} Has a parent page, apepars in 8 games, and has varients in all those games barring IX and Tactics Advance.

BlueHighwind Q? TALK - I Am Vengeance. I Am the Knight. I Am Batman! ツ: As Diablo said: Not really iconic to Final Fantasy.

[edit] Mover and Magic Pot

Henryacores - You don't need a reason to help people TALK - {{{time}}} I didn't count these, but they sure are important monsters on the FF universe and should be added

BlueHighwind Q? TALK - I Am Vengeance. I Am the Knight. I Am Batman! ツ: Magic Pot only appears in FFV and FFVII as best I can recall. I'm on the fence on Mover, though.

Henryacores - You don't need a reason to help people TALK - {{{time}}} It appears more times than Mover, as it also shouws up on XII, X and VI. Crisis Core has it as a summon.

[edit] Monster=Enemies?

NëA 思い切って言う Should the "recurring monsters in Final Fantasy" change to "Recurring enemies in Final Fantasy"? As far as I know, Gilgamesh, Ultima and Omega weapon aren't monsters like Maolboro etc,etc.

Diablocon - No, the question is; who art thou, ham planks? Shanks! I meant shanks TALK - 12:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Indeed, Gilgamesh is way too friendly to be considered a monster.

Ser Blue says at 13:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Indeed, Gilgamesh should not have been added. He is a character, not a monster. Im not sure if I should be technical about the terms, but let's just keep the monster template as such.

BlueHighwind Q? TALK - I Am Vengeance. I Am the Knight. I Am Batman! ツ: Recurring Bosses are Recurring Bosses. Debating the issue of what constitutes a monster is a the road to nothingness. Some would claim that a four-armed interdimensional being with a bad attitude would be somewhat monster-like. I'm not one of them, I just thought we needed more recurring Bosses. I'm still in the grey on Deathgaze and Ultros. Any thoughts?

Henryacores - You don't need a reason to help people TALK - {{{time}}} Ultros only shows up on I, VI and XII. Deathgaze though, appears on multiple versions, like IX, where he plays as Kuja's pet. I'm all for Deathgaze, but Ultros isn't that recurring. I also think that Dragon should be added to the monster list, as they appear on every single game.

BlueHighwind Q? TALK - I Am Vengeance. I Am the Knight. I Am Batman! ツ: Not really iconic of Final Fantasy though. This is why wolves aren't up there either. If you expand the Deathgaze article into something like Omega or Antilion Fiends, I'll put it up there.

Henryacores - You don't need a reason to help people TALK - {{{time}}} Deathgaze only shows up on 4 games. Not recurring.

[edit] Chimera

14:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Chimera appears on eight of the main series, as well as Mystic Quest. On FFI, FFII, FFIII and FFX is a variation with Chimera still in its name.

Ser Blue says at 14:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Create a parent page first, then complete it with its etymology and Image Gallery. Don't leave it for others to fix.

16:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I planned on it, just wanted to see if others thought whether they are "iconic" enough.

[edit] Dragon and Worm

19:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Though not so much popular enemies (with the same name) in themselves, variations have appeared in probably every game. I know I consider them recurring enemies. So this would include "Dragon", and "[colour variation] dragon"s, and "worm" and "[prefix] worm"s. Should we?

Henryacores - You don't need a reason to help people TALK - 19:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC) You're right. They DO appear in every game. Maybe we should add Werewolf, Zombie and Skeleton as well. Just for the sake of avoiding misinterpretations: ^*Sarcasm.

20:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Your face. Unlike most of the above, the Worms share common appearances in all their appearances. As for Dragons I cannot say, but there are loads of variants ins some games. Now I'm sorry; Square Enix did not create the concept of these enemies... and what? They are common enemies throughout Final Fantasy, they are iconic. Zombie, Werewolf and Skeleton aren't, but the Worms and Dragons appear in possibly every game, at least Worms with very similar appearances. Iconic, so your face to your statement. You wasted your time with sarcasm helping you zero.

20:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC) And just so you know, most of the monsters in the current roster are indeed from legends. Dragon is still legend. Giant worms are not in fact, leaning further to the point that at least they should be there. Dragon used to exist as some sort of parent page. Now it stands alone, listing few enemies who hold relations to the word "Dragon".

Henryacores - You don't need a reason to help people TALK - 20:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Worms yes, Dragons no. And I haven't seen many Lamias, Behemoths or Catoblepas on other RPG Series.

16:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Maybe it's just my interest in legendary creatures... but my point is both Dragon and Worm are common factors in the FF series. But they don't stick to their names. I can imagine people will search them hoping for a parent-page. Anyone else's opinion?

Ser Blue says at 15:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC) As to ease with what should be here: Has a parent page, At least five appearances in different titles, and At least two variants in the same title.

17:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Worm fails at second one but that's not why it should be a parent page... it's the variated names that appear in so many titles. In almost every game (not VIII at least) there's more than one. As for the parent page... does that mean we can make every enemy disambig a parent page, but only ones following the other criteria get featured in the template?

For enemy disambig to be made a parent page, see here Bluer 17:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

18:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Now that is cleared up... I'm not sure what you were trying to say. Worm and Dragon are the common title (for genera too) for common appearing enemies in the series... even though they don't usually appear under the exact title. Are you saying yes and prompting someone to make the parent page first, or are you saying no?

[edit] Bluer's Decision

AJDurai - *insert Creepsy laugh here* TALK - What use is {{{time}}} if you're not gonna use it? While I do understand this is the departed administrator's decision, what is the basis of this? I would ask him instead, but he is gone >:3

Spheric FaethinTalk A perfect sphere collided with my fate." 05:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC) A suggestion by a respected member that met no opposition.

AJDurai - *insert Creepsy laugh here* TALK - What use is {{{time}}} if you're not gonna use it? And now it is being questioned by an ordinary editor. Any reason why this inclusion criteria is created? Recurrence is so general that it need not be defined by a set of numbers >;3

[edit] A consistency

Usually, we'd merge the list template with a Navigation template, as is what happened to Template:Items. Should we merge Template:Monsters and Template:Enemylists? And if we do do that, we should move the template to "Template:Enemies", it's annoying me at its current locat.  ILHI ^(W/B) 10:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

16:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't like your first proposal, since Template:Enemylists is used on the List of Final Fantasy Enemies pages and Template:Monsters is used on the parents pages of recurring monsters. One's meant to be at the top of the page while the other is meant to be at the bottom of the page.

By that extension, "Template:Enemies" might not seem like a feasible new template name, but if it's bugging you, then go ahead with a template move. 8bit 17:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If the Template is on the bottom it can free up the top for an image of some sort. FFII has a piece of artwork detailing a bunch of enemies, if I recall. That would look nice. Let's be honest, this choice is purely a cosmetic one. --BlueHighwind ツ 17:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Errm, people seem to have misunderstood. We remove the Enemylists template, and use the Navigation instead.  ILHI ^(W/B) 17:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I understood completely, get rid of the top-right Template, put it all on the bottom thing. I'm all for it. --BlueHighwind ツ 17:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I misunderstood what you were saying at first. I can't do it now, but if anyone feels like doing it, they can.  ILHI ^(W/B) 17:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT: 8bit luvz artworks. I was the one who misunderstood; I thought the Monster list would be fused "onto" the enemy list template, which would remain in the upper right corner. Green light. 8bit 17:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to get the enemy list section on top of the recurring monsters, and then perhaps move it to "Template:Enemies" like ILHI suggested? This way we can include enemies like Gilgamesh and not just creatures like Malboros. 8bit 18:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit again: Never mind, Gilgy and others are already on there. Are we okay with the color scheme of white and black? 8bit 18:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

BlueH, I kill you for a Klondike bar because:

• I said I would fuse the templates
• You edit conflicted me on the template page
• Above two are pretty much void because you figured out how to fuse the templates about 5 minutes before I did. Yay for my coding skills! 8bit 18:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

And it might have been a good idea if you waited, since it's being moved to Template:Enemies now. 8bit 18:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Template name bores me. As long as the Template appears as it should on pages, my job is done. Sorry, for edit conflicting you, you can ban me for thirty seconds if it makes you feel better. --BlueHighwind ツ 18:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I was being humorous, since by looking at the history of the template, you finished the merging about the time I trying to figure out why the lists were floating up above the template on my revision (accidentally deleted a |) If you have another idea for the template time, suggest it now before I link them all. 8bit 18:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me that my offering my life up isn't humorous? I think I need to be banned even longer then if that wasn't funny! --BlueHighwind ツ 18:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, will two weeks suffice? </lulz> Hmm, I'm adopting ILHI's speech patterns :D I guess that means boring old "Template:Enemies" is fine wit' joo. 8bit 18:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wolf

I've done two and am not up to a third just yet, so someone else, do the Wolf enemy page. :p Drake Clawfang 22:39, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Split

To clarify my decision to split the template into "Recurring enemies" and "types of enemy": Recurring enemies is for specific enemies, types are for broad classifications. Like, Tonberry and Cactuar and Behemoth are specific enemies, there's the occasional variation but otherwise, that's that. Others, like Undead, Elemental or Flan, are recurring types of enemies, than specific enemies. There's the Flan, then there's all the different colors and types of Flan.

So yeah, if anyone wonders where to put a page, there's the distinction I made. Drake Clawfang 22:47, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...to say that the Tonberry has an occasional variation is playing its family tree down... I dunno. Not really liking... meh, it's just a random feeling I have. If no one feels the same way, then it doesn't matter. 8bit 02:42, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

Well, looking at its page, most games only have two or three variants of Tonberry, including the original. Crisis Core seems to be the only game with more than that. Drake Clawfang 03:08, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

Change it back to how it was. I mean, the specification for having a page was it had to have variants in at least three appearances wasn't it? This rule is generally ignored now, but hardly the point. FFVIII has Bomb, and no other member of the race. VII and IX have a Bomb and a Grenade. Which doesn't really make it a species. Basilisk is hardly a species. Just the way the article is presented that makes it look that way. Basilisks are usually members of the "Lizard" species. We've just dumped all palette-swaps of Basilisk in list form. Which is hardly fair, because he appears in FFI to FFIV, and FFVI, and all of these games feature countless palette-swaps for every enemy.

It's when we get to VII we see a difference. One Basilisk. IX, the same. X and X-2 works with species. In Spira, Basilisk is the name for the race. Although the Basilisk in X are nothing like in previous games. And then ditto with XII.

So they're only really a species (and with that, Basilisk is usually just one member of the species) in games that completely focus arounds pecies. It would be like calling Anacondaur a species.

I don't see it helpful for the two to be seperate. All our enemy articles are race pages because they always list palette-swaps.  ILHI ^(W/B) 14:48, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

The reason they're separate is as I said before, some of the enemy pages are for recurring types of enemy, others are for a specific enemy. Like I said, compare the Tonberry or Cactuar page, to the Worm or Flan pages. There is no enemy called "Worm", but there are still several Worm-type enemies. Tonberries and Cactuars have boss-type variations, but as enemies normally the Cactuar is the only variation of the Cactuar. See the difference? Drake Clawfang 15:32, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

Bat? Yes. Dragon? Yes. Elemental? Yes. Flan? Yes. Toad? Yes. Undead? Yes. Worm? Yes. Basilisk, Bomb, and Mimic? No. Why should Mimic be on there? He's never a species. X barely counts, same with XII.

Okay, how about we decide a rule?

If an enemy article would only be a parent because of its variations, then it should be listed as a species.

In other words, Worm has two (or was it three?) enemies by that name, but it is the variations of worm that made me parent it. Therefore it is a species. Bomb? It recurs all the time in the series, sometimes along with the species, other times not. Without all the variations, it would still be worthy of a parent: Recurring enemy.  ILHI ^(W/B) 16:35, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with that, sounds good. Drake Clawfang 16:49, October 7, 2009 (UTC)