Template talk:Infobox Enemy

Infobox code
Copy and paste the following code into an article and simply fill out the fields. Habitat and spoils are optional. Habitat should only be used if the enemy appears in only one game. Spoils only for enemies form The Wind Waker who give out items for the Spoils bag.
 * Note 1: The Enemies category tag is not needed if this template is used
 * Note 2: If the  is the same as the article game the   parameter can be deleted and the article name will be used

Suggestions and comments
I made this template as an easy way to present basic data about the many enemies in Zelda. Unfortunately it is a little more basic than I would desire, but I could not think of any more fields. I did come up with the possibility of a "relatives" or "related enemies" section (eg Pea Hat would go in Sea Hat's and Bokoblin, Moblin and Miniblin would link to each other) but was not sure if I should put it in. If you could leave your comments on the matter, as well as suggestions for the name I would appreciate it. I would also greatly appreciate any other section suggestions, and of course anyone who takes the time to use this infobox in an article. I plan to create a seperate infobox for bosses (which will appear at Template:Boss) so don't go using this on those. Ian Moody 04:35, 22 Jun 2005 (CDT)

"Related Enemies" section
Please leave your opinions and suggestions on said section here.

New section suggestions
Please feel free to put any suggestion for new sections here. For better organiation could you please put the name of each new section in between two sets of 3 equals signs so it makes a new sub section like this:

First new suggestion
Why don't we add the enemy's weapon?--Herbsewell 10:16, 2 January 2007 (CST)

Separate Templates
I'm not sure if this is a common point of view, but including unused fields on every enemy article seems tacky to me. This became strikingly clear when I saw the Deku Baba article, which only uses two of the current fields, game and image (although, admittedly, more of those fields could be filled). The vast majority of enemy articles are filled with at least one unused field, the spoils field. Since so few monsters make an appearance in Wind Waker, and even fewer are likely to drop spoils, it seems a little odd to use it for monsters like Ocotoroks. I'm not suggesting that the current enemy template should be limited to only two or three fields, but rather that multiple Enemy Templates could be made, each with specific fields. This would allow lesser-used, but still important fields to be used when the situation requires them, and not when they are unneeded. For example, the Bokoblin article could utilize a template that included Image, Game(s), Habitat(s), Related Enemies, Effective Weapons, and tWW Spoils, while the Shabom page would use a simpler template limited to Image, Game(s), Habitat(s), and Effective Weapons. It's easy to make another template when you already have one to work with, so I don't think making an additional one would need more than three or four minutes of time. And of course, the vast majority of these would be reused anyway. The only true downfall of multiple enemy templates would be a large amount of infobox templates, and even then, enemy templates could have their own category to keep from cluttering up the Infobox templates.

If it was desired, using multiple templates would also allow for fields that differ greatly between games. For example, the Armos, which has varying weaknesses and habitats depending on the game, could have an Effective Weapons (ALttP) field, Effective Weapons (LA) field, Effective Weapons (OoT) field, etc. --Douken 20:49, 17 January 2008 (EST)


 * Until recently, any unused fields in all infobox templetes collapsed, therefore if nothing was entered in a particular section it would not be shown at all. The fact that they now appear is symptomatic of a fault with the wiki, and it is something which should be able to be resolved. I'm looking into it at the moment. I don't think the answer is to redo all of the templates, however. --Adam (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2008 (EST)