Talk:Toad enemy line

From Golden Sun Universe
Latest comment: 5 October 2013 by Erik the Appreciator in topic Consistency in some general-game categories

Just wanted to let you know about the Poison Toad, a monster in Crossbone Isle that seems to be in the same monster line as Toadonpa. I guess it's like the Manticore monster line and Hydra monster line. Just thought it should be mentioned. The world's hungriest paperweight 17:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the Devil Frog, a monster line member fought in Mars Lighthouse. Guess this means I should work on Toad monster line as my next "big" page. :P Erik Jensen (Appreciate me here!) 05:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Consistency in some general-game categories

Okay, so just now I changed the individual "Golden Sun enemies" categories from the Toadonpa and Poison Toad sections to one "Golden Sun enemies" categories on the bottom of the page. This is because when I look at Category:Golden Sun enemies and Category:The Lost Age enemies, it appears that on all the other enemy line pages, when more than 1 enemy from the overall GBA version of the line is in a specific GBA game like Golden Sun, that causes the whole page to receive the general "Golden Sun enemies" category. So far things seem to be going smoothly...

But I'm noticing that there are a lot of cases in the TLA category where a page is getting the general category for The Lost Age enemies even though only one of the GBA variants is featured in TLA, whereas certain other enemy line pages do just the opposite. For example, Siren enemy line's page doesn't get the category generally and Nightmare gets the category specifically because Nightmare's the only GBA variant of the Siren enemy line appearing in TLA. And yet the Grand Chimera is the only variant of the Chimera line appearing in TLA, but the whole page is receiving the "The Lost Age enemies" category right now. Unless I'm forgetting some of what was agreed on during those extremely long discussions a long time ago, shouldn't this be changed into something more consistent? Erik the Appreciator (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2013 (CDT)Reply[reply]

My apologies for that (and for the delayed response). There were a lot of articles and a lot of categories, so I'm sure some things got mixed up while I was reorganizing everything. As for the problem at hand, I don't remember what we decided back then either, although I do agree we should be more consistent. Do we put an entire article in the category or just the individual redirects? I really don't care either way, but putting the main article in the category would probably be more convenient (for us, anyways). P.S. This probably still shouldn't apply to cases where only a single enemy appears in a game. The World's Hungriest Paperweight (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2013 (CDT)Reply[reply]
It does seem this is an oddity happening only with the TLA general category, and the GS1 general category is complete and as it should be right now, if we're going with the proposal I'm making. (It's interesting that there's not a single case in GS1 where one of the introduced lines has only one of its variants appearing in GS1, which therefore prevented this from being an issue with the GS1 cat - standalone bosses and characters are the only one-shot names that could possibly be in there according to the rules.) To me, the simple solution is to do what Manticore enemy line currently does - put the general TLA enemies category under the specific, lone monster section in that overall line, while putting the category on the bottom of the overall page for every GBA line that has 2 or more TLA-appearers in it. It's fairly easy to justify making Category:Golden Sun enemies and Category:The Lost Age enemies more "broad and vague" this way than all those specific weakness categories and unique-item-dropping categories we were handling last year, since the broadness sort of gives the general categories their own benefits - seeing "Ghost enemy line" basically informs that "multiple variants from the Ghost enemy line appear in this game", and it's nice and easy to read, at least. Erik the Appreciator (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2013 (CDT)Reply[reply]