Talk:Eox

Any relation to Onox? The name and appearance are slightly similar.--Claire 18:10, 2 February 2008 (EST)


 * That's interesting, but highly theoretical. I suppose it may be worth mentioning the broad physical similarity (carefully worded) in the Trivia section? 04:55, 3 February 2008 (EST)


 * Thanks. --Stalkid 19:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the largest bosses? I'm fine with that, but the other bosses on that list... Wasn't Gohma in WW as big as Molgera?--Olle93 20:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Mazaal
If this has the same Japanese name, shouldn't they be merged? They're essentially different versions of the same thing, a warmech construct in ancient ruins.KrytenKoro (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Not really, though. One- Mazaal- has a Bongo Bongo-esque design, is fought by shooting his hands and going inside him to directly atrack his core, and was used by the Wind Tribe. The other- Eox- is a humanoid statue with a complete trunk and full arms and legs, is fought by crumbling his body and hitting his pressure points, and was used by the Cobble and, somewhat, by Bellum. They're literally worlds apart, and the only things they share are Japanese names, the fact that they're machines, and, technically, the fact that they're both ultimately defeated by destroying their "cores". These similarities are definitely worth mentioning, but a merge seems hasty in light of their many differences. Setras (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's relatively nothing in terms of recurring creatures. Look at Gohma (even excluding the TWW version), Gyorg, or the Octoroks in SS vs. any other game. As for Mazaal being "Bongo Bongo-esque" -- again, not really. He's much closer to Gohdan, and the only thing that makes either of them similar to Bongo Bongo is that they have detached hands that you shoot arrows at. Given that both versions of Oisu are constructs, it's fair to have structural differences -- and we have the same difference in origin with the Armos, of which these warmachine bosses are usually depicted as the granddaddy, aesthetically.KrytenKoro (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * They are significantly different from each other. If they shared the same English name, maybe a merge would be appropriate. They are very different. Honestly merging them feels a lot like (though maybe not quite as extreme) as merging Ganondorf and Demise; both are humanoid beings of immense power and evil, and they are both called Demon Kings, and they look quite similar. Might as well merge all of the Fados too as they are all humanoids with the same name while we're at it too. Seriously, as both of these articles stand on their own, I do not see any need to merge the two. Champion of Nayru (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, we need a standardized way of dealing with stuff like this, something more professional than a trivia note that just...makes it sound like we're disorganized. How about something in the infobox or a disambig note along the lines of "other variations"? Digimon Wiki uses something like this for its infoboxes, see Devimon.KrytenKoro (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyone else have any opinions on this? Perhaps we could put a redirect at the top in case they searched by Japanese name? Saying something like "This article is about the boss in Spirit Tracks known in English as Eox. You may be looking for the boss known as Mazaal in English" or something like that. Champion of Nayru (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That would go against policy. I would think it's quite unlikely that someone would search an English wiki using romanized Japanese names.
 * Infobox fields don't allow for explanations, which are necessary for less obvious similarities. Unless it's pointed out to them, most English players are not going to notice that Mazaal and Eox have the same Japanese name.


 * I don't see what's so bad about the status quo. It's a trivial fact. Seems to me that "Trivia" is an apt section name for that information. 09:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, the world is global now. Especially when working off of pre-localization names, people search romanized Japanese names all the time; plus, you could have someone who speaks both languages who is interested in the English wiki. On the Digimon Wiki, for example, we have plenty of cases where two Digimon have the same name, one in English, one in Japanese, and disambigs have definitely been needed. It's...it's hard to describe it as anything but willfully obstructive of the wiki to forbid searching by Japanese name, especially considering this was originally a Japanese series. I mean, we plainly have the policy to take Japanese name into account when merging or splitting versions of an entity throughout the series (ex. Big Baba), so why would it be anything but helpful to include a note at the top pointing out that the original Japanese games treat both bosses as two incarnations of the same type of enemy? It's exceedingly easy to program a "foreign names" field into the infobox (again see Digimon Wiki), and it can even be collapsable -- it would even be a more constructive use of an infobox, meant to be a quick index, than listing gamecruft/storycruft material like the weaknesses and rewards. And that's just one option -- there's also the fact that for most bosses and enemies, the leads are paltry or nonexistant. Why put pertinent indexing information in a section defined as us throwing our hands in the air and saying "we don't know how to incorporate this into the article naturally", when it could easily be placed in the lead in a pleasing manner?KrytenKoro (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ex., from Desert Temple.
 * "*The Desert Temple is very similar to the ALttP: from, which has the same name in Japanese."
 * There is no justification for the wiki to be sticking its head in the sand on that issue. Keep the pages split, sure! That makes sense, since the internal layout differs between games. But when the Japanese game erases any shadow of a doubt that these are meant to be the same building in different eras, we shouldn't resort to "well, they're pretty similar!" They're not just similar, they're the same, and the reader shouldn't have to read through the article and get to the trivia section before we almost stop beating around the bush and halfheartedly acknowledge that fact.KrytenKoro (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You're talking about some pretty big changes in wiki policy. This is becoming a discussion for Zelda Wiki:Hyrule Castle. 06:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, I think you're jumping to conclusions when you say that they're treated "as two incarnations of the same type of enemy." The name could have easily been meant as a passing reference and nothing more. 09:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to move it to there, it sounds good to me.
 * As for the incarnations, if you don't see it, then I'm not gonna try and force you to; but for me, it seems pretty obvious. Oh well.KrytenKoro (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)