Category talk:Enemies

I have a question. For those enemies that are only known by their Japanese names (like, say, the one-eyed scorpion foe from Zelda II), are we going to be able to put up articles on them and put them under the Japanese name? Just asking, because there's a LOT of stuff from Zelda II that doesn't have an article because no official English translastions of the names exist. Dinosaur bob 09:50, 18 October 2007 (EDT)


 * If they have no official english translation, then it makes more sense for them to be created under the official Japanese names, rather than made-up English ones. A note stating the nature of the name should be enough. --Adam 15:56, 18 October 2007 (EDT)


 * All right. Thanks. I'll try to have the articles, under the Japanese names for those Zelda II enemies, up soon. Dinosaur bob 21:03, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Enemy Page Structure
There is one thing that has been happening recently that is greatly annoying me. A lot of the enemies that used to be structured with a section for each game now no longer have any information on the appearances in each game and now only have "general information", which is not very informative. By reorgizing the enemies pages this way a ton of information was lost, and it is destructive as most of the enemies ae wildly different from game to game, wth only a few basic features that remain in common. Please return to the old structure. 13:34, 13 March 2011 (EDT)
 * One of the reasons why we went with the new structure was because mostly, most enemies in the Zelda series don't change their attack patterns, weaknesses, appearances etc. For those exceptions, we have come up with solutions like seen in the Stalfos, Iron Knuckle and Darknut. Also, I think most of the information was kept intact, just perhaps differently worded to keep away the redundancy. It may seem like we removed information from the way the pages look, but I can assure you we didn't! Dany36 13:55, 13 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Perhaps if you elaborate what articles suffer from the current reorganization, we may be able to seek a change. We went ahead with the new format because it cut down almost all the redundancy present in the old version. Because I was the one that reorganized the majority of them, I can be sure to tell you that no information that was in the old layout was lost - only redundant, similar information between the sections was cut away to focus the article and cut down on excess text. Separating it into "Characteristics", "Variations", and "Weaknesses" not only centralizes the information into clear subtopics, but gets the reader right where they need to be instead of reading through the entire article just to find a specific weakness or characteristic. 14:55, 13 March 2011 (EDT)