I guess, sure. If we find an actual citation, we can make it inspired by again.
I seem to have a sort of vaguely admin-esque seniority here, but a lot of things like that can be easily done by you guys if you feel its important. Worst case scenario, we can edit it back because whoops someone tripped and deleted the entire page (go look at the history of Materials :3). The character pages are a mess anyways.
Still, I do appreciate that you took the time to ask about it, thanks.
Hey! My name is Atvelonis, and I'm the Fandom Wiki Manager for the Epic Battle Fantasy Wiki as well as an admin on Elder Scrolls. I'm here to help you and the wider community, and act as a liaison between you and Fandom Staff. If you ever have any questions or issues related to the wiki, its features (editing, templates, bots, etc.), or whatever else, feel free to reach out to me on my message wall or on Discord (Atvelonis#9495) and I can help out! —Atvelonis (talk) 16:29, May 6, 2019 (UTC)
The plan is to cut most (mis)information from them and leave them as more or less simple lists with occasional trivia, rather than full explanations of all relevant foes. Just saying that to avoid wasted effort in case you was going to rework them.
I'm not really ecstatic about these new pages. While I respect your initiativity, I'd like to ask you to check out a few similar articles to what you're creating, and preferably follow their format. It should give an idea what's expected from your article, as well as simplifies article organization (e.g. so you won't need to come up with section names and just do them like the other article did).
Let's take one of your articles as an example, and compare it with this recently created one. At this point the comparison ends. The whole article is just two sentences that barely explain what the foe is and how it looks like, let alone describing its stats and attacks. It's gonna take more effort to actually help the wiki (rather than fill it with tiny articles of no practical use) and make something to be proud of.
Now I think it'd be for the better if you would stop with creating new articles and take time to improve those you've already made. Again, you're free to use existing articles as guidlines for what should be in the article; myself, I'd recommend checking out Fire Elemental, Wooly Mammoth and Mad Cactus for a start.
Thank you for your advice. I've been making mutliple articles to try to fill in big gaps and then go back and fill in what I have already made. I SHOULD have looked at other articles for reference for sure, and as soon as I am done making pages for Jellies I will stop and go back and provide far more indepth information.
Well, it is definitely better than before, but there's still a lot to improve. See Red Bush, before and after.
While I'm not going to criticize Appearance and Overview sections much since I have troubles doing them myself, I'd have a word or two for foe stats tables. As much as I see you try, some information just cannot be retrieved from in-game interface. It's that point where it's necessary to dig into game files and find the stats there, otherwise the table is doomed to hang around with no almost specific numbers (besides EBF4 resistances and loot list), defeating its purpose.
The same goes for foe attacks, though these are harder to do as instead of all information being in one place (on foe's personal script), it's scattered around foe's script, foe's animation script and the list of common spells (which in turn is split into two scripts in EBF4). All this stuff requires time to get into. But listing foe's attacks is crucial for a good foe article. You could try doing it like there, simply listing their attacks' effects by words. It'd be less descriptive than the Template:AttackListTable, but it's still something. There's also an option to leave the section empty and put the Template:Stub on top of the article.
Also, do you have a Discord account by any chances? We've got a group in there for discussing wiki stuff, might wanna join. While Discord is not perfect by any means, it's definitely better than the chat thingy Wikia provides.
I am afraid I do not have the time for finding the names of attacks or digging up game files, so I generally will not do the info for the stats. But I have nearly completed the game on Epic Mode (full Epic run actually) so I can easily make overviews and appearances.
I don't have a discord account, but I may make one.
As there is only one water elemental attack that can be easily used (barring water elemental weapons), Black Clays should be dealt with through either Seiken, Air Strike, or Judgement.
What's the logic connection of the first part about water-elemental attacks and the second part about suggesting skills at seemingly random? It does not mention what makes "only one water elemental attack" (what is that even) a worse way to fight the enemy, neither why are those 3 skills a better way to.
Any reason that a very specific combination of equipment even deserves a mention? It looks like it comes out of nowhere. And the part about immunity doesn't seem to make sense. How is 200% resistance supposed to nullify a 25% elemental attack?
They possess a broad arsenal of dark elemental attacks, ranging from Dark Shot to a flurry of blows from the axe (this may also end in a Dark Shot).
> claims its melee attacks are Dark-elemental, even though they're non-elemental
> claims its multi-hit melee attacks may end with Dark Shot, while (I think...) it only happens for single-hit ones
> claims Dark Shot to be also used separate from melee attacks, but it isn't Now that was bad.
Black Clays also enter battle with Brave in effect
Which only happens on Hard and Epic difficulties, while the original text suggests it's a thing on all difficulties.
Any specific reason "priest" is capitalized? Is that a name of a character?
While the Black Clay is more likely to kill you, White Clays can cause a game over just as easily if they are not dealt with.
Yet another random shout-out that doesn't really add anything to the article. Every single foe in existence can cause game over if you don't deal with it. There's no need to mention it for a specific foe.
Wind Sprites have 4 attacks. They can blow a plume of clouds, hitting a single target for non-elemental damage and potentially syphoning and reducing the magic attack of the target. Wind Sprites can also headbutt players, dealing non-elemental damage. Finally, they can cast Whirlwind and perform a Wind elemental multi-target attack which is capable of dispelling targets.
What's the reason to write all of that, when it's followed by proper attack list template which lists the same but in a more descriptive way? It's the essence of redundancy. Though I'd also like to mention that, besides this paragraph, the overview is good and touches about as many aspects as it has to.
Unfortunately, most units that would have Weaken-inducing attacks (besides Random Status Inflicting Attacks) used against them will either Resist or Absorb Dark
What's the deal with random capitalization? I don't see a reason this whole "random status inflicting attacks" needs a single capitalized letter. This strange style makes it difficult to understand the text.
I don't have any specific advice formulated this time, but I could suggest to re-read the article before publishing it, and see if anything looks out of place, repetitive, or not reasoned enough. Perhaps it would help to avoid the same issues showing up again and again. In a few days I'll try to get attack lists done for bushes and clays, though seeing how many articles I now need to go through, it might take longer.
I still don't know what to do with the current situation of per-status articles being a repetition of a specific part of the Status Effects article. The same is with foe group articles and per-foe articles. Wiki structure organization really went off there.
My apologies. Most of the stuff I did make a mistake (like the ranodm capitilaztion, definetly should not have done that). Redundancy is not as much of an issue in my opinion if it is being described in two sections; if there is an attack list, that is good, but it doesn't nullify the value of having the most volatile attacks being mentioned in the overview. It is an overview, and doesn't need to only have information found nowhere else. I was trying to help, but if I am doing so much wrong that I am almost being detrimental to the Wiki, then I will stop.