Beginning a topic thread here because I don't think enough people have taken notice of the debate going on here - Talk:Enuo (Final Fantasy V Boss). As Dazuro noted, at one time we had "Zeromus (Boss)" and "Zeromus (Final Fantasy XII)", and "Seymour (Final Fantasy X)" and "Seymour (Final Fantasy X-2 Boss)."
Now I've moved these to "Zeromus (Final Fantasy IV Boss)," "Zeromus (Final Fantasy XII Boss)," and "Seymour (Final Fantasy X Boss)". However I'm now quite confused on this, hence the debate. For one thing, we have "Sephiroth (Final Fantasy VII Boss)," while the Crisis Core page was "Sephiroth (Crisis Core)". Apparently this convention is common from what I've seen, and since obviously there's some inconsistencies with our tagging we need to discuss this and make it clear what tags to use and when when dealing with instances like this. | |||
I mean no offense, but I don't see how that's confusing. The Crisis Core one should say (Crisis Core Boss) according to both the new and old conventions, yes? | |||
Yes, but that was just an example of something occurring elsewhere. Chaos (Final Fantasy XII) - at first I figured to move it to the Boss tag as with Zeromus, but that would imply we have a page for Chaos in FF12 and a page for his boss info, as is the case with "Enuo (FF5)" and "Enuo (FF5 Boss)". That, and something like Ramuh - we tag his battle info by game but not as Boss, like Ramuh (The After Years boss).
| |||
Sister pages should retain the same tags as its parent, plus "boss", regardless of whether there were other bosses of the same in in other games. For example:
Disambig | Parent | Sister |
---|---|---|
Cid Raines | Cid Raines (Boss) | |
Enuo | Enuo (Final Fantasy V) | Enuo (Final Fantasy V Boss) |
And so on. That way, you can develop a sort of heirachy. It makes sense that way. Jeppo (Talk | contribs) 20:04, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
That's about right, Jeppo--except then we run into things like Chaos. Drake has an interesting point there. I don't like having the tag just end at FF12 when almost every other boss has "boss" in the name. Incidentally, shouldn't they have their own pages too? I mean, there's more information about them through the backstory and the how-to-obtain than with half of the early bosses, yet several of those get pages. As for Ramuh, if he's a boss he should get a boss tag. | |||
What of say, Ramuh? Should all his boss pages be moved to incorporate the Boss tag into the naming?
As for Chaos, given that a lot of the FF12 summons exist across multiple Ivalician games, I think it would be better to move them from "Chaos (Summon)" to Chaos (Ivalice). | |||
So, then how do we distinguish between Chaos(Summon) and Chaos(Boss) or Chaos(Ivalice)? Are we going to have different pages for each summon if they're a boss as well, and have their boss info on their boss page, and their summon data their summon page? Are we going to do this for all summons, such as the ones in FF V who are bosses and summons? Sounds like a large can of worms, but if that's what we're going to do, let me know how I can help. | |||
"Chaos(Summon) and Chaos(Boss) or Chaos(Ivalice)" - no, I'm saying we move "Chaos (Summon)" to Chaos (Ivalice), ><. As for "Chaos (Boss)" no such page with that exact tag would or should ever exist, but I get what you mean and that's precisely what this discussion is to determine isn't it?
| |||
I think it would only be confusing to move the FFXII summons to (Ivalice), as in FFT, the FFXII summons are bosses... So if it says Zalera (Ivalice) you might think it means the boss and not the summon. | |||
Except there is no Zalera (Ivalice). The reason I'm thinking the move would be better is precisely due to the Tactics pages - look at the Zalera disambig for example. Makes more sense to me to group all the Ivalice appearances under the same tag.
| |||
So, we currently have Chaos (Final Fantasy XII Boss) which is the boss, and doesn't include the word "boss" in the title, and "Chaos (Summon)" which has the summon data. So if we move the summon page to Ivalice, should the XII page also include boss in the title? I guess my question is this: We currently have a boss page and a summon page. How many Chaos pages should we have, and what should they be named? I'm not asking you specificall Drake, just in general. My thoughts are a "Chaos (Summon)" or Chaos (Ivalice) page for the summon data and a "Chaos (Final Fantasy XII Boss)" or Chaos (Boss) for the boss data, the issue being how many freaking Chaos bosses there are in the FF series. Anyone else have any thought? | |||
No, there shouldn't be a single boss page for Chaos, or any boss. There was a discussion I found last night on a talk page about this, can't find it now but it was about that exact topic. The result was, and I agree, that different game = different page. So we wouldn't have Chaos (Boss), we'd have what we have now with his battle information on separate pages. It's just a matter of what tag to use for them.
| |||
...and I agree since that would cause a lot of work, and just be confusing. ...but how about "Chaos (Final Fantasy XII Boss)" for the boss page? I haven't edited enough to know the answer to this, but do we normally include the word "Boss" in the page title, or would we have top change every boss page to include this? Do we just normally have the bosses name, and the game title? ...and if that's how we have it, SHOULD we change them to include the word "boss" in them? | |||
I think the principle so far has been that tags are a nuisance and the shorter the tag the better, so bosses usually don't have "Boss" in the tag, just the game. | |||
No, no, a thousand times no to the Chaos (Ivalice) thing. What if it needs a page from FFV or VII? We don't have explicit terms for those worlds. We can't use fan terms like Odin (Gaia). In fact, the only world I can think of with an explicit term is Ivalice. That won't work. But Jeppo pretty much said what I was gonna say, except for all these f*cking edit conflicts. | |||
Boss pages seem to be made the same as enemy pages. Malboro (Final Fantasy VII) not (Final Fantasy VII Enemy). Boss is only added if further distinction is needed, like if Malboro was also a boss. | |||
The nearest example to "Boss" is "Enemy". When we have a parent page for an enemy (say Goblin), The enemy pages don't use the "enemy" tag. They just use the tag of the specific game. For example Goblin (Final Fantasy), Goblin (Final Fantasy II), Goblin (Tactics) and so on. Let's use the same logic for bosses. I'll use Chaos as an example.
| |||
"What if it needs a page from FFV or VII?" - but Ivalice is different Crono, it's the only world/universe/whatever to span multiple games and continuities. Like say, Minerva (Final Fantasy VII) - as was brought up on the talk page there it has that tag because it's from the Compilation. See also Biggs and Wedge (Final Fantasy VII). Ivalice is much the same way to me. The specifics of Zalera vary from game to game, but in every game it is some variation of the same creature in the same universe.
| |||
8bit BlackMage - Beyond the Sky TALK - Why do chemists call helium, curium, and barium 'the medical elements'? Because, if you can't 'helium' or 'curium', you... um... ._.; - 21:40, January 5, 2011 (UTC) | |||
I think that despite the recurring nature of many of these entities in Ivalice, Jeppo's logic still holds. Chaos, Adrammelech, Zalera - their general appearances as summons throughout Ivalice are covered by the (Summon) tag. There is not enough material to constitute a character article for these entities, so the Lucavi Zalera is covered by Zalera (Tactics), while the Scion Zalera is covered by Zalera (Final Fantasy XII Boss). There is no need to append "Boss" to these tags as no other page would take the place of the normal (Final Fantasy Tactics) or (Final Fantasy XII) tags. | |||
What if boss pages were subpages of the relevant character articles? Note that on a page like Cloud of Darkness we have a link to Cloud of Darkness (Boss), in which the first words are a link back to the character article, and Cloud of Darkness/Dissidia (PSP), in which a return link appears automatically beneath the title. Why have two different implementations for sub-articles of this nature? If consistency is a concern, would it not be more consistent to have "Cloud of Darkness/Boss"? It would standardize the style of return links if nothing else. Though some work would be involved, the boss tag could be abandoned entirely in favor of subpages. We'd simply have "Bad Guy (Game)" in many cases and "Bad Guy (Game)/Boss" where required. | |||
Because it takes simply too long to fix it. It's not just the pages you have to move, but also the links you have to change. It would be impractical to do for a wiki this size. | |||
Henryacores - "É que esta noite vou lançar ao mar/A bruma que houver em mim./Vou beber e cantar este luar/vou dançar até ao fim." TALK - 22:18, January 5, 2011 (UTC) | |||
Subpages are something entirely different from enemy pages. Subpages hold additional information to the main page, while enemy pages are as if independent. For example, Cloud of Darkness/Dissidia (PSP) covers CoD's appearance in Dissidia, and its info is held on a subpage because it would make Cloud of Darkness way too big. On the other hand, Cloud of Darkness (Boss) covers its appeance as an enemy, not as a character, covering its stats and its strategies, and relates less to the original. This is why enemy pages are tagged and are not subpages. They have a different type of coverage. | |||
The problem with treating bosses the same as enemies is that almost no enemy has a page for its appearance separate from its page as an enemy. Many bosses are both characters and bosses, requiring two pages. Enemies don't get that luxury. | |||
Henryacores - "É que esta noite vou lançar ao mar/A bruma que houver em mim./Vou beber e cantar este luar/vou dançar até ao fim." TALK - 22:26, January 5, 2011 (UTC) | |||
The problem with treating bosses the same as enemies is that almost no enemy has a page for its appearance separate from its page as an enemy. Many bosses are both characters and bosses, requiring two pages. Enemies don't get that luxury. Say hello to Malboro, Behemoth, Gilgamesh, Magic Pot, Adamantoise, Zombie, Guard Hound, Ahriman, Mandragora. Enemy pages are also entirely different in structure from character pages. (See Manual of Style) | |||
If the Cid Raines boss article uses (Boss) the Seymour one probably should as well? The key problem here I see is that article like Cid Raines (Final Fantasy XIII) would be a weird name for an article because it sounds like a character article, but then the use of Boss in tag isn't unified across the site; most bosses don't have "Boss" in the tag. | |||
Apparently Seymour was a boss in Final Fantasy X-2 International as well, which is why his is Seymour (Final Fantasy X) and not Seymour (Boss). ...well, at least it should be Seymour (Final Fantasy X). It seems somebody squeezed the word "Boss" in the title. EDIT: But I do see what you mean. "Seymour (Final Fantasy X)" does look like a character page from the title, but it would have to be like that for consistency. | |||
Well, we have Sephiroth (Final Fantasy VII Boss) (which I apparently moved an eon ago, news to mew *shrug*) for the same reason. But yeah, with Seymour we can't use the "Boss" tag alone because he's a boss in two different games, and the "FFX" tag by itself makes it sound like a character article. I could see how the latter would make sense, but it doesn't sit right with me is all. The "Boss" tag makes it more clear we're referring to his enemy encounter.
| |||
Well how about we make an exception in that if the parent page of the boss is a character page, the sister page must have the word "Boss" in the title. So Sephiroth's boss pages will be Sephiroth (Final Fantasy VII Boss) and Sephiroth (Crisis Core Boss). I'd be happy with that. | |||
That should be detailed in the Manual of Style. Who can edit the MoS anyway? Just the admins? | |||