Template talk:FireEnemy

Warm?
Warm seems a bit vague, and not even particularly accurate, as something like Geldman lives in a desert, but its not warm itself. Heck, deserts get incredibly cold at night. Sand is not warm by default. Not only that, but there are various other desert enemies who aren't on this list. To be honest though, I'm not that fond of some of these templates, they can be kind of arbitrary and not very specific. I think "Fire Enemy" and "Desert/Sand Enemy" templates would be better. There's definitely more than enough of each, there's numerous fire and sand enemies NOT on this list. Fizzle 09:25, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
 * That sounds like a better division than this is. It'd be up for it.— 11:23, October 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * Same here. 07:26, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
 * I'm all for splitting them, since sand isn't necessarily warm and "Warm" is a pretty weak adjective for fire enemies. I suggest headers of "Fiery Enemies" or "Fire-based Enemies" for the FireEnemy template and "Sand-based Enemies" or "Sand-dwelling Enemies" for the SandEnemy template. 21:25, 21 October 2011 (EDT)

Fire-breathing?
Forgive me, but aren't there hundreds of enemies that breath fire in the series? So are Zoras fire-based enemies now? I don't like this. I argued a split from warm enemies to seperate them from sand enemies, but including every enemy that can breath fire is really just asking for trouble. So what, we add Zoras to a fire template? How does that make sense? At what point does it stop? How about a sword template for every enemy that uses a sword? We'd end up with an endless pile of templates under every enemy. We already now have a new "electrified" template, which just covers enemies that use electrical attacks (so Demise of all people is an electrical enemy now, apparently), which I personally don't agree with.

Lizalfos don't even breath fire in the majority of their appearances! So all it takes is for an enemy to spit a fireball in one game to become a "fire-based" enemy? We need to be RUTHLESS with our definitions if we want to avoid endless rows of templates beneath each page.

Oh, but apparently since I don't use the Skype thing I can't discuss this with anyone, because nobody wants to use these rather handy little talk pages. Come on guys, its a pretty big change not to discuss this here. 11:52, 19 February 2012 (EST)


 * Hey Fizzle, check out this proposal to change navigation templates. Basically, we'll have the ability to differentiate enemies more clearly, and be able to collapse/hide templates in case they start taking up too much space.
 * Anyway, how would you define a fire enemy? 23:45, 19 February 2012 (EST)
 * It looks good, and may solve these issues. I'll check it properly and weigh in shortly there. Anyway, as for fire enemies, I think the idea was that enemies are defined not by their abilities, but by their physical make-up. So you have arthopod (insects), humanoid (human-shaped), Stal (skeletons), etc. So fire enemies should be made of fire, rather than simply attack using fire. As I've mentioned, I really would not consider a Zora to be a fire-based enemy in the slightest, but River Zoras do breathe fireballs in every game they appear. Similarly, the Helmasaur King breathes fire, but he's not a fire-based enemy. Dodongos are a difficult one, but while they breath fire, they also die when they fall in lava, which isn't particularly fire-based if you ask me. Plus they did not originally breathe fire, that was something added later. Lizalfos, as I've mentioned, only breathe fire in one game.


 * There are some enemies that do seem fire-based despite this, like Furnix. Furnix has only one appearance, one attack (breathing fire) and a name that's clearly meant to invoke flames. Plus its based on a pheonix. But I think including every enemy that breathes fire will lead to problems. Lizalfos appear in the Lakebed Temple and Jabu Jabu's Belly in previous games, so they're not even linked directly to fire habitats. If we were only looking at Skyward Sword Lizalfos then sure, they're fairly fire-based to some extent, but I don't think its that simple. 09:20, 20 February 2012 (EST)