Talk: Notability

Why hasn't this appeared at any forum? - Henryacores^ 02:37, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

and why does this contradict the Manual of Style in several ways? For example: "[parent pages are] limited to enemies that had appeared at least in five titles within the series". This calls for 6 in some cases or 10 in others. ._. C A T U S E 17:15, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

To explain, I was going to create this and then clarify each matter individually.

The reason it was not sandboxed or anything else first was because things discussed don't come to be very often and we needed something like this.

So I just put this straight into project space. But instead of starting discussion on specific points, I decided to wait for someone else to comment on this first. The policy was posted in projectspace (by an IP no less) and no one did anything. Which is really disappointing yet morbidly amusing.

@Catuse: Policies change over time but the MoS is rarely updated. Also whenever an enemy has five appearances people always say "this can be an enemy parent". In the past these were often turned down for not being significant enough. In other words there are many other enemy pages that could be created. Of course, this is one of the things that needs to be discussed. 79.69.206.105 20:34, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

things discussed don't come to be very often and we needed something like this.

Policies not discussed shouldn't come to be. This is a wiki, not a one-man army.

But instead of starting discussion on specific points, I decided to wait for someone else to comment on this first. The policy was posted in projectspace (by an IP no less) and no one did anything

This was given absolutely no visibility. Not all editors are omnipresent or even omniscient. If I wanted to do the right thing, I would have given this no tolerance and deleted it on sight. That's not how you do things.

Also, this thing is completely inconsistent with the official Manual of Style, which is even makes it worse in showing that this is all fruit of one's ego. - Henryacores^ 21:24, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

"Not all editors are omnipresent or even omniscient."

This wiki isn't exactly a small wiki. There's usually a handful of user's watching RC at any one time. I would also expect users to check back over edits made when they aren't watching RC. The fact that no one does anything is ridiculous. No wonder talk pages almost never get seen to by SysOps.

"If I wanted to do the right thing, I would have given this no tolerance and deleted it on sight."

Yeah, because deleting a policy page that aims to write the rules no one in the past has ever bothered to write is definitely the right thing.

"Also, this thing is completely inconsistent with the official Manual of Style"

No it isn't. You've been told one inconsistency. The MoS isn't even for article creation, it's only supposed to regard formatting and structure of the different articles.

And trusting the MoS to be up to date and accurate? For characters it has Gallery, Etym, Trivia, and for recurring enemies it has Trivia, Etym, Gallery.

I didn't base this on the MoS, I based this on how the wiki actually covers content. Some numbers were created on the spot and hadn't previously been discussed, but I came up with sensible numbers based on the scenario.

Of course, this doesn't entirely replicate article coverage. And the reason for that is there is inconsistency.

For example, this page states that all sub-categories of inventory goes on the List of Items page, but that is not true. For some reason Loot gets a page, and there also other scenarios from other games, and there isn't any specific rule or reason why the exceptions are there and they can't just be sub-headers on the List of Items page.

And these are the things that need to be discussed. 79.69.206.105 21:41, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

A discussion which you failed completely to promote. It even sounds hypocritical that you suggest it. - Henryacores^ 21:45, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

I know that I failed to promote it. I said that I did that on purpose to see if our userbase pays attention/cares. 79.69.206.105 22:01, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT: Okay, so, what you're saying is that you decided to leave the section of the community that doesn't keep watch on the RC in the dark as an experiment. You know, JBed, that's really not helping anything at all >_>

I saw this when it first got created, and I balked a little, but I didn't object, because let's be real, here; the community needs a set of rules clearly defined in order to help users see when to create a new page. I can think of several pages I was unsure of whether or not to create before that this has (or would have, had anyone but JBed agreed on these things) cleared up. I agree completely with the "what", but I disagree about as vehemently as I can with the "how". Shame, JBed, shame on you for doing this completely alone without even giving it to others for a glance or anything. Are you trying to make a point here? Teach us a lesson? There are better ways to go about this, I mean, seriously.

Also, admins, I would like to take the opportunity to ask where you guys were on this. I mean, it didn't even come to any of your attentions until Cat and I were discussing it on the IRC. What happened? I mean, Scathe is in Indonesia right now, so he gets a pass; how about the rest of you guys -_-?

Having said that, I frankly do not care what happens regarding any of these rules so long as when you guys get done arguing about it, there are rules in place and a clear-cut policy for this. JBed is right in that rules for this do need to be in place, and one thing that I do love about this is that his rules are about as clear as they can be, and it's very nice. Multiple possible requirements for many page types are listed, exceptions are noted where relevant, it's really quite nice. Just next time, JBed, maybe consider talking this through with someone before you do it? Anyone? Nobody likes a headstrong loner, and if you have to wonder why nobody would trust you with SysOp or Bureaucrat rights, come back here and think it over some. Jimcloud 00:53, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean "how about the rest of you guys?" What other admins are there to read it, besides Henry, who isn't an all-seeing and all-knowing god or whatever. I miss important stuff in RC all the time, which is one of the reasons a wiki this big needs multiple admins.

Reality check: never even seen Hecko, Mymindislost, Crazyswords, and Shane edit and I've been here for a while; Bluesey's busy with work or something; Fae, 8bit, and Yuan are reachable through IRC in the early-morning but otherwise mostly inactive; Scathe is on vacation (?) in Indonesia, and ... is that everyone? I guess so.

Now I hope a potential vandal doesn't see this page, get it into his head that he's unbannable, and go vandalising-spree-a-go-go on us. Of course, Sactage and the VSTF would bring the banhammer down on his head pretty fast, but yeah, that wouldn't be very fun :\ C A T U S E 01:33, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

I meant Fae and 8bit and maaybe Yuan (I think she's still busy with general stuff though). So, just Henry, then? Well, that's.. lovely :\ I mean, I suppose I knew on some level that we had one actively editing admin, but, well, yeah :\ I guess Scathe will be back by the end of the month, though, so we'll just have to hold out until then I suppose. Jimcloud 01:38, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

If I were to write a response to this I don't think I could do it without being very extensive, and I do not wish to do that here. If you care for a response, nudge me on User talk:JBed.

But for here my response is: "An IP did it." JBed (talk) 12:01, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Not reading all that because I'm a bit busy ATM (though I'll try to read through it when I have some time), but two points:

But instead of starting discussion on specific points, I decided to wait for someone else to comment on this first. The policy was posted in projectspace (by an IP no less) and no one did anything. I know that I failed to promote it. I said that I did that on purpose to see if our userbase pays attention/cares.

...I dunno why nobody noticed it (I was out of town that day -- maybe Shockstorm and Esprit buried it under their massive editing sprees? I have file edits turned off of RC for that very reason, but not everybody does.) but it did spark a long IRC discussion after Shockstorm mentioned it Talk:Claustrum. Again, surprising more people aren't showing up on this talk page (since a lot of people were involved, including BlueHighwind, who wanted to know why we even bother with policies. Another complaint with this page is that it was written by an IP. Nobody will take an IP's walls of text seriously unless they know that it wasn't actually an IP, just somebody signed out.)

You've been told one inconsistency. The MoS isn't even for article creation, it's only supposed to regard formatting and structure of the different articles.

There are other inconsistencies. It wouldn't be that big of a deal, but it's darn confusing. Once again I cite Talk:Claustrum where there's another inconsistency. To make Claustrum into a parent page or not? Nobody knows.C A T U S E 00:33, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Originally equipment was three appearances. There was a discussion later on that increased this to four. There was a discussion later on that suggested increasing this to five... and I was fairly sure that that was where we were with repeatedly increasing numbers. Or maybe five was the last suggested and it was the discussion where I said repeatedly increasing the number is pointless. I think Xeno was involved. I might see if I can find it but it is unlikely.

Every time "the wiki" decided to increase the number it was on a random talk page however, and it wasn't really with large amounts of input though. I'll change the page. 79.69.206.105 00:40, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake, it was four being discussed. 79.69.206.105 00:48, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

		Xenomic TALK - 01:29, July 12, 2012 (UTC)
		I do believe that was on Template:Navbox weapons or something of the like that I was discussing it with I believe Henry or Scathe? I don't know, I don't have time to look it over. 4 I think, as stated on Claustrum's talk page, should be the standard, as if we went 5 then we'd have to axe out a lot of articles that we already have (not to mention other things). I won't get into this with this particular article since I'm not good at debating and such (plus I'm no admin so my input is probably moot anyways).

Leitmotifs

		Catuse says at 18:36, December 9, 2012 (UTC) "Somewhere a zealous god threads these strings between the clouds and the earth, preparing for a symphony it fears impossible to play. And so it threads on, and on, delaying the raise of the conductor's baton."
		Kaimi recently pointed out that Paradox (Theme) exists solely because it is remixed throughout the game. However, this policy page doesn't take this into account -- otherwise we'd have, among other things, Theme of the Empire. Personally, I think if a song is remixed enough times in one game, it deserves its own page. Obviously the devs and artists care about it.

Support. Makes sense. --Shockstorm (talk) 19:18, December 9, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, geez, please don't get Henry started on Final Fantasy XIII/XIII-2 track articles, there is just no way that will end well. I have experienced his opinion on the subject, and he has informed me that the entire section needs major, major cleaning out when he gets to it. (When that will be is anybody's guess.) As for this policy, eh, kind of apathetic. That said, Theme of the Empire already qualifies for a page. Original appearance, Dissidia, Theatrhythm, and Piano Collections: Final Fantasy XII makes four appearances, three outside of its original appearance. Jimcloud 21:16, December 9, 2012 (UTC)

On a short note, Paradox doesn't need its own article. Everything in it can very well be at the OST page, including any of the samples. But as Jimcloud pointed, the revamp began with FFXIII and FF and I'll only touch it after I finish the rest of the series.

There are many other leitmotifs throughout the series that shadow Paradox that lack an article. - Henryacores^ 03:15, December 10, 2012 (UTC)

Which is because policy says they aren't allowed to be an article. I'm sure if the policy said they could than those that overshadow Paradox might have an article.

I'm pro recurring letimotifs in one appearance-- with like four/five tracks with the leitmotif in one game. That said, I stay well away from music policy and am not going to argue this. 79.69.195.61 15:15, December 10, 2012 (UTC)

It's not that I oppose this, but there's so much stuff of greater importance to create and improve, that I think that's completely superfluous and secondary. And it's obvious that the new games have important stuff to cover, but there are motifs with a legacy that still don't have an article, (Kuja's Theme is a brief example), and at this level the newer games have been given less importance.

That and there are also many important leitmotifs that need an article, with a diminute quantity of exterior appearances (Paradox has none) that don't have an article yet. - Henryacores^ 18:13, December 10, 2012 (UTC)

Splitting superbosses

We have a rule where members in the final boss gauntlet don't share their page with other enemies, like Kefka (boss) and Kefka (final boss), and also Ultimecia (boss), Ultimecia (Griever form), and Ultimecia (final boss).

We currently have Kaiser Dragon (Final Fantasy VI) and Kaiser Dragon (Final Fantasy VI dummied enemy). It is not officially policy to split superbosses.

I have heard differing opinions on the matter. So the question is: Do we want to give superbosses their own page?*(and if a superboss happens to appear as a superboss twice, then they would be split from each other-- that could stretch to two forms since that's what happens with final bosses. idk.) 2.102.231.165 18:11, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

Jobs

Could any reference to jobs be changed to "job/class"? Technically FFXIV uses a class system predominantly, but sometimes has jobs. On the subject of FFXIV, this sounds like FFXIV jobs should get pages.-- Technobliterator ^T_C 22:56, February 20, 2015 (UTC)

Rewritten

Rewritten this page. It's mostly redesigning the layout to make it easier to read, and making the language just more concise and less harsh; no policies were changed. Any problems with using this version?-- Technobliterator ^T_C 21:17, December 23, 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Would mention merchandise in out of universe section, although I'm not sure we actually have any defined rules on covering official merchandise.Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 22:05, December 23, 2015 (UTC)

Mhm, there weren't any rules on the original page for merchandise, so I didn't add any new ones. I don't know what the rules are either.-- Technobliterator ^T_C 22:09, December 23, 2015 (UTC)

Added to the page. Feel free to make any other adjustments.-- Technobliterator ^T_C 02:12, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Series'

This page says that a series gets an article if "It is any series within first or second tier scope", but we don't appear to have a definition for what a series is. Like, what criteria does a set of games need to meet before we consider them a series? Does it need an official title, like Compilation of Final Fantasy VII or Ivalice Alliance? Or does it just need to exceed a certain number of related releases, like Final Fantasy X series or Chocobo series?

Personally, I think anything with 3+ related releases is deserving of a series article, which would mean we'd need new series articles for FFIV, Dissidia, Theatrhythm, Legend, Bravely, and Unlimited. Thoughts? --Leon95 11:08, July 7, 2016 (UTC)

# of Appearances for an Article

		Xenomic TALK - 06:02, July 25, 2016 (UTC)
		I'm really bored. So bored, in fact, that I'm thinking that for articles with at least 3 appearances (for equipment at least. Abilities...I'm not sure on yet) should get an article. Yay or nay? I mean sure, it'll bloat the hell out of templates, but templates are getting to be super huge anyways because of multiple appearances and the like that it doesn't really matter at this point.