Talk:Geru

Gaeru?
Where did this name come from? There doesn't seem to by any previous mention of it. 19:26, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
 * It was split from the Lizalfos page. But the split was never discussed. The user who created this was too hasty. -- 19:45, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
 * I know you have to petition to move a page, but I figured this was simply creating a page, so would be okay. Do you disagree with my decision? I simply cannot find ANY evidence of these enemies being referred to as Lizalfos outside of fanon. Surely there's nothing wrong with making a page for something that doesn't have one yet, right? As for the name, thats simply a pronounciation of the Japanese name (which is the only name known... but all Zelda II enemies went by direct translations of their Japanese name anyway). Forgive me for being hasty, I just didn't see any reason NOT to do it, and god knows how long it would of taken for anything to get done simply via the talk page (since people rarely actually visit them). As for the name, there are a number of sources that give ゲール as the Japanese name, the Japanese Wiki for Zelda II is one of them, along with the Futashiba guide (which has accurate names, although the art for some of them is unofficial) and a few Japanese Zelda fansites. I can give links if required. As for Gaeru rather than Geeru or alternate spellings, I just thought that was a happy medium on how to pronouce the name. I promise I did not create this page lightly, but I apologise if I broke the rules somehow. Fizzle 14:11, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
 * You broke one very important, and it's not looking for consensus. A bureaucrat already reverted your removal of the AOL section of the Lizalfos page for this. Surely there's nothing wrong with making a page for something that doesn't have one yet, right? It depends, you need to be sure we don't cover the subject in an existing page already. So yes, we do disagree with your decision. Don't do it again. -- 14:31, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
 * I couldn't find anything in the Help Guide covering this particular issue so I was not sure of the technicalities, but again, I apologise for jumping the gun. Please may I request that if this page IS merged back to Lizalfos in the event of no consensus, please at least retain as much of the information and rewriting I did yesterday as possible, as it took me some time and I do think its better than it was (I had to research those blasted experience points too). I guess I just assumed by the existence of Mago and Girobokku pages (as Girobokku at least does not have an English name and is commonly mistaken for a Moa or Patra) that it was general wiki policy. Again, I am sorry, I didn't mean any harm. Fizzle 14:43, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
 * It's quite alright. We know you meant well; don't think your efforts went unnoticed. Under any other circumstance, we would be praising you for your good work instead of chastising you. To be honest, I think K2L is being a little harsh.
 * What you did was splitting a page, which requires user consensus just like a merge, a move, or a major content change. Now you know!
 * That being said, I'm not in favor of this being its own page. Although we can't prove that it is a Lizalfos, I don't think we can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it isn't a Lizalfos. They do look similar. I don't think a different Japanese name is enough to go on, nor a difference in behavior, for that matter. Look how much the Peahat has changed over the years. The same goes for all the other enemies in The Adventure of Link that pose a similar issue. This has been an ongoing problem and has caused no end of trouble. I say that unless the enemies are noticeably different, there's no sense in us worrying about it. Besides, whether or not this enemy is a Lizalfos, it is considered by the majority of people to be one. People will be looking for this information on the Lizalfos page.
 * By way of explanation, the Mago and the Wizzar can't both be on the Wizzrobe page, and the Wizzar is definitely the more similar of the two. Besides, weren't they named Wizzrobes in the english manual? Whether or not that was a mistake is irrelevant. We are an English wiki and, as such, English titles take precedence, even though the Japanese originals are a higher form of canon. 19:34, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Did I sound harsh? I guess I'll apologize. That's what happens for interacting too much with certain people at the wiki, their cynicism is quite contagious. -- 19:40, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Its fine, though I was kind of worried I was about to get banned already. I am trying to make good edits, I just get a bit ahead of myself I guess. Fizzle 21:43, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
 * My argument would be that while English does indeed take precidence, there is no English canon in this instance (on the subject of Wizzrobes, no, they are not named in the manual, and in fact, Nintendo Power AND the Official Player's Guide called them simply Wizards (with a capital letter). Magos were named in Nintendo Power as Magos, actually (I have scans on hand for all that stuff if anyone is interested). Them being Lizalfos is fanon, in my opinion. They are similar, and certainly the sprites look the same, but they have very different weapons, and do fight differently. They are much more similar to a Daira. There is more evidence to them being different (being that they are different in Japan) than them being the same. If there is no English canon, Japan canon takes precidence right? That is the order of this wiki. I really don't take fanon as any form of canon. The name Lizalfos simply didn't exist until Ocarina of Time. I'd also argue that if they had intended to retcon the names of the enemies in Japan, why keep Iron Knuckle and change Gaeru to Lizalfos? It just seems unnecessary, and its just something that doesn't really occur, the Japanese games are more consistent with enemy names in general. Also, you might question as to whether a Gaeru is a Lizalfos or a Dinolfos. I mean, who's to say? Link is an adult in both games, but a Lizalfos is much smaller than adult Link in OoT, yet Gaeru are the same size as Link in Zelda II. Who decides if they are a Lizalfos or Dinolfos? I'm being devil's advocate slightly, but I'd argue that with the lack of a canon name, we should revert to "lesser" canon before falling upon our own guesswork and fanon. By the way, thanks for the nice words. Its okay though, I did wrong, he wasn't being all that harsh and I'll make sure to check in advance next time. No biggie! Fizzle 21:43, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
 * I'm glad my tone was not misinterpreted. There are a few unwritten policies and one of them is in regards of splitting. Merging and moving are both adressed in the help pages, but not splitting. I myself suggested moving this section into its own article, but every freaking time I bring this it just goes unnoticed. And I know that if I make the split anyway, THEN people will come and say: "Wut?! Were did thizz com froooommmm?". It's sad, really, because that proves that the fusses and scandals only occur when the actions are done, not when they're first proposed. Anyway, let's see what others think about the current subject. -- 22:14, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Ah, I'm glad it wasn't just me who's fallen foul of the unwritten rules. It seems a bit of a sticky issue I guess. Hopefully people will come on board to a few splits, merging articles too much causes a loss of detail sometimes. In the meantime I will just leave it alone and let it get some responses, I'll get back to work on some other Zelda II articles, some of them need a bit more work I think. Fizzle 14:10, 14 September 2011 (EDT)