I dunno, but personally I would like to see information regarding FF7 and the different games divided more evenly. I don't like people telling me that what I saw was all a lie because of something that came out many years later, and I imagine those people that enjoy those changes don't like having them removed or too said it never happened. I noticed there does seem to be a degree of that already with the various articles and their sub-categories on FF7 related pages, yet at the same time I see a lot of FF7 information re-written to fit the later things. Why not instead leave FF7 information to be FF7 information, and in sequels/pre-quels/etc. just point out 'However, this game gives the explination that blahblah, opposite of what FF7 said'? A lot of times it feels like there is no voice or place for anyone who likes the original content but not the later additions, instead they just get heckled and ignored. Told to 'deal with it'. I don't think that's really fair, why can't we just co-exist? What prevents me from just blotting the opposite out and telling them to 'deal with it'? In a place as full of information as this, that is what I'd like to see. Everyone who wants a particular this or that can still find the information on it and not have it all muddled up. It is most pronounced with FF7 due to the abundance, but I could see it gradually increasing for others over time. There is already FF4: The After, and I don't think it'll be the last of all this. | |||
Allow me to explain to the rest of the Wiki, what you mean - this user believes Rufus Shinra died in VII because they don't care for his survival in Advent Children, and they've tried to add that he died to the Weapon article.
This has nothing to do with "a divide", Crntn. We use the most recent and up-to-date information here on the Wikia. Now, VII's plotline may have been remixed more than One-Winged Angel, but that doesn't give us the right to disregard those updates and give a false recount of the events. Things are updated, changed, retconned. It's not our fault that VII's story has been changed so often, and it shouldn't be our problem that you don't like it. We use the most recent information available. That means, storywise, Compilation > VII when the two give differing counts of events. Deal with it. Now, you'll also note in some cases, the retcons are noted, and in others they are not. For example, Genesis Rhapsodos isn't mentioned on the VII page as taking part in the Nibelheim incident. But he did. Fact is, he did, because the creators say so. Again, we do not have the right to add in/take out what retcons and information we do and do not like. | |||
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 - 02:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
Bah, quit your whining Crntn and wake up for life: it's made of changing... | |||
Right, but why can't we say Rufus died in FF7 like it's implied and Advent Children is the alternate take? Why does one have to over ride the other, going either way? You can still preserve the most recent information in the articles pertaining to the recent releases. The original information can be preserved in the original released. Why should it be my problem that you like it? Like I said, it's annoying how I am marginalized just because I disagree, like there is only one way to appreciate something here. Why not both, when it's so easy to achieve? How is it false if it actually occurred? I'm not saying remove anything, just keep it separate so nothing is lost for either group of people who value the information on their circle. And thank you, Henry, for proving the point of heckling. Yes, I am terrible person for holding an opposing opinion. | |||
Check Rufus' article before you make your claims. The article does note Rufus was presumed dead in VII, but Advent Children and Dirge of Cerberus retcon this to him being rescued.
What you're asking us, is to compromise the integrity of the site to fit your personal beliefs. That is selfish, ignorant and rude. Say for example, I believe that Sephiroth's last name is "Hojo". Shall we make notes on all the pages that it may be? No. Keeps your beliefs and opinions off the mainspace. | |||
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 - 02:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
EDIT CONFLICT:"Why does one have to over ride the other, going either way?(...)Why not both, when it's so easy to achieve?" Because, as Drake Clawfang said, Compilation > FFVII Storyline...so no Compilation = FFVII Storyline or FFVII Storyline > Compilation. And I didn't say you're an horrible person, you're either misinterpretating or giving your opinion. | |||
And what you are doing is throwing your personal belief over mine. The Sephiroth Hojo example is a bad example because it isn't founded on anything. What I am saying, and the entire point of this topic, is for sequels and remakes to have their information categorized under their names and divided from the original games, so information on the original games is not altered or deleted, favoring one thing over another. Instead I would like both to exist equally. Again, I don't see why I have to be marginalized just for having a well founded opposite belief. I am not saying I want original games to override the later ones, I am saying I dislike that later games override the originals. How is that even? How is it fair? How does it help integrity to lose information or claim it never existed? | |||
|
Again, I don't see why I have to be marginalized just for having a well founded opposite belief.
Because we are not going to acomidate every single little opinion just to shut people up! We give the facts, here, not opinions. Your opinion is that Rufus died. Your opinion is false. Your opinion is that the later games don't matter. Your opinion is false, because the three big-heads of VII - Nomura, Nojima, Kitase - have been behind the rest of the Compilation! If they retcon something said in VII, they have every single right to do that. What you are doing when you say Rufus died, is that the designers of the game are wrong and you are right. | |||
EDIT CONFLICT:The point being that the information is mentioned already, just that the more recent information takes first priority. Why? Because the information in the newer games is more up to date, and Square obviously has a reason for putting it in/changing things. | |||
I'll admit that, but I was writing entirely for Final Fantasy 7. I am slightly annoyed it was brought up, because it's shifting focus away from the issue. Again, I am not saying the original overrides the later, but why does the later get that inconsistency? Why do we have to lose information, to a system that is out of our control? It's an issue I see in spots, and that is why I made this topic - to challenge it. I am also looking forward to later releases, as I think this will be an increasing issue. I would like a co-existence of information instead of "Nope it didn't happen because I said so" vs. "Nope it didn't happen because I said so" | |||
Yet we can easily accommodate your opinion? That is what I am getting at. This is really unbalance and unfair and people use the fact it's an opposite circle as leverage against it. Why does it have to be like that? The information of later games isn't going to disappear. It isn't going to be invalid. But I do not see why things THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED get that treatment. Why can't they both be present???? What I am saying is not that the designers are wrong. I am saying that Rufus died and they later changed their minds. That is what actually happened there. What you are saying is he died and nothing ever happened in the original game, nope, and everything you saw is a lie and it's not worth keeping that information because when you reach that point in the game the screen just fades out and nothing ever happens. | |||
Because we use the most recent information. If a retcon happened, it takes priority, it's the way we've done things on the Wiki for a long, long time now. We are not going to move Holy to Fade because that was its original name, we are not going to rename all the Job classes to suit their original titles. Differences in information is noted when appropriate, as the case with Rufus, which you totally ignored.
EDIT CONFLICT: RUFUS' ORIGINAL DEATH IS NOTED ON HIS PAGE. I've noticed you've yet to say anything about that. And yes, when you believe the original information is more valid than the new, you are saying "Nomura doesn't have the right to change his mind. He originally said Rufus died, so he died, to hell with what he said later". | |||
EDIT CONFLICT: Because they are present? Most of the articles I've checked (although FFVII isn't my specialty), have differences between installments. Like the page on Last Order. If it's not there, make a note, don't delete the information from later games.
Anyway, it's never actually said that Rufus died. I think the designers would know more about it than you, no? | |||
Are you not reading what I am saying? I am NOT SAYING "to hell with what he said later", I am saying it's unfair for others to say "to hell with what he said earlier". What I am saying is why can we not have both? I am not saying revert everything. I am saying providing information on the original details, or dividing them when it's entire games is the idea. TO HAVE BOTH. NOT ONE. NOT THE OTHER. The IDEA OF THIS THREAD is to challenge the standard, because I can see it getting worse as time goes on, and to balance this all out. I understand that for his page, but what of other pages? What decision to make when someone adds information to an original game that was later retconned? I am saying why not give BOTH EQUAL PRIORITY? Priority to one over the other, IN EITHER WAY, just leads to a loss of information and is a slap against either group which favors either circle of information. Why does the other group get downsized? How is it fair? How does it retain integrity to remove things and say they never happened? | |||
|
We note the original, if changed, details where appropriate. As for other pages, it would be outright stupid. There's three or four versions of the events that happened at the Nibelheim Reactor, it would be cluttered and unprofessional to give an account of all of them. So we note what changes were made to the incident where appropriate to do so, not on every little page that mentions it.
| |||
What I am saying is why can we not have both? Have you ever heard of the law of the excluded middle? Use Wikipedia. That is why we cannot have both. Edit: It may appear complicated. In a nutshell: Either something is right or something is not right. There is no other possibility. | |||
Rufus' death is an aside from this. This is about a larger issue. For Nibelheim Reactor, what is stupid about including the 4 different versions on a single page, with each divided between their games? What makes it so much better to condense them and lose information? How is losing information professional? How is telling people "nya nya, you're wrong" professional? | |||
EDIT CONFLICT: "Are you not reading what I am saying?". I could say the same to you.
"If it's not there, make a note". You are welcome to do so. Priority should be given to the more recent information though, as it is most likely to be accurate, and we want consistency. | |||
The fact it's a user wikipedia is a large part of why I think we can have both. When a user goes to look for information on a previous or recent release, which is better? To provide one user only one, or provide both users what they are looking for? | |||
What makes what happened previously less accurate? Is what I experienced now a lie? An element out of my control is controlling my thoughts, apparently. I am saying why not give priority to both? New and old. Create a division and keep them equally. That way all information can be present. | |||
I am saying why not give priority to both? Because they contradict each other. | |||
Forget this. You're wrong, alright? What we have done on the Wiki has worked for years, and no one has complained about it. And all you're doing here is showing yourself to be a blind fanboy who believes the Compilation is irrelevant to VII. Retcons are a part of any media that is re-released. It happens. Deal with it. Yes, what happened previous is less accurate, because the people who made the game SAID it was inaccurate by providing more accurate accounts.
Now, you're clearly not listening to anything we're saying, so this is my last word on the matter. If you'll excuse me, my disciple is having some trouble on his game. | |||
"Either something is right or something is not right. There is no other possibility." I disagree. Polarization like that does not seem to be beneficial in any sort of way unless you're the group in favor, again bringing me back to the topic of marginalization. The concept of "what is right" will differ between both and it all comes down to personal preferences. I don't see how one can claim correctness over the other when both can claim each other wrong. All I want to see happen is EQUALITY. You continue to ignore that, Drake, and now you leave the argument. Again, you heckle me and marginalize me just because I disagree with you. What keeps you from being a "blind fanboy" to your preference? You use this as leverage for your personal opinion. I AM NOT SAYING EITHER IS LESS RELEVANT I WISH I COULD PUT THAT IN GIANT BLINKING TEXT SO YOU WOULD READ IT. I am saying NEITHER is less relevant. | |||
"2 + 2 = 4, right?" "I don't know, it depends. Why can't it be 5?" | |||
That would make sense if what I was arguing for wasn't equality of information with foundation. | |||
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... ._.; - {{{time}}} | |||
Edit Conflict: I think that, in cases of pages like Nibelheim, the accounts from all the games are meshed together because they make the storyline flow more easily. The narrative that gives the full story in a chronological, complete order is better than breaking it up into chunks by game title. This would force us to say, "Well, in VII this happened, but it this sequel something else really happened, but wait, in this prequel, we find out more stuff!" | |||
Here, I've got a better idea that might end this:
I dunno. I think it could work, just present the information as it was for each release. Then people can find what they want and not constantly be slapped around and told they are wrong. Nothing is lost, nothing is overwritten. | |||
That would make sense if... ... | |||
Poll[]
Should we keep things the way it is, or follow crntn's requests?
Keep it the way it is[]
- --SCM 03:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Pablo618: I like Waffles :P
- Drake Clawfang
- YuanchosaanSalutations! 08:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- HexedTourney
- Krystal Tomlin: Compilation rules...100%!
- Quetzal8788: Canon is as Canon does.
- 2127: I don't see what is wrong with this way.
Do what crntn wants[]
- Just for shits and giggles -Henryacores 03:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Faethinverba volant 03:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- User:Crntn
- For Lolz I Lion Heart I
- PietroFF
- TacticAngel: Whats with Drake going all crazy about Rufus?
Comments[]
This poll does nothing, as the majority is clearly against crntn. 8bit 03:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to prove a point here; that being that nobody cares about crntn's request. --SCM 03:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The summary of my argument is I just want a division between individual releases, most especially original games and the later additions. Neither overriding neither. Call be fanboy, but who is the one blotting out information just because it's in their favor, and is something they like? It's easy to call names and villainize the people you disagree with, yet I fail to see how that is correct or equal. I just want all information to be present and represented equally. If I didn't care I wouldn't be arguing for it. What makes me less important that yourself? | |||
- I can't believe you people are actually going to vote for this... Of course I think the guy is wrong. But my vote up there exemplifies how stupid I think this is.Faethinverba volant 03:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- crntn, you're not voting, so obviously you don't care at all. --SCM 03:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, my disciple has been assisted. So, a quick comment - you want all information to be present and represented equally. Well, all information is present, but fact is, it's not all equal. We here have always taken the more recent information over the out-dated information as priority. Drake Clawfang
THE KEYCARD IS NOT YET FOUND!!!! WHERE IS THE $@#$%#* KEYCARD!!! Actually, I haven't gotten on to VII yet, Drake, I'll do it tomorrow morning. Thanks for your help :)
Back to the topic: Breaking up information game by game does indeed make the information presented equal - by game. Allowing them to come together in a comprehensive, through dialouge accomplishes more in literary outline than chapter-by chapter accounts. Out of many, one; what they could not accomplish seperate they accomplish together. 8bit 03:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I like that idea, but why not do a run down of the situation branched over the individual games... i.e. 'first events - version that occurs before', and so on. So you can go straight to the point of information, have it equally presented, yet also have a flow. | |||
Right now I am trying to discuss instead of add my name to a list which I did not instigate. I will consider it, if it ends up being needed. Why can't we have equal information, though? Why does one have to be 'bad' and one 'good'? Why not both 'good'? This place is a source of information for many diverse groups and I would like to see that flourish. | |||
There is no good and bad information. There is reliable and accurate and more reliable and accurate. I repeat, we have always given priority to the most recent and up to date information. Why should we change this policy now just to appease a single user? Drake Clawfang
The change I ask for is not for me, but for the information, and for future scenarios. | |||
As we've said countless times, the information is given when appropriate. As for "future scenarios", we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. In a "future scenario", Sephiroth's last name may be given as Di'Marconi. Shall edit all instances of his name to accomidate this possibility? I think not. Drake Clawfang
Right, but it is also an issue of consistency. Some could argue situations like that have already occurred. Still, an inequality exists. Present all information equally instead of one over the other. | |||
Such as...? I'm a Mod, and Faethin is a Mod, you've got two Mods watching this debate, if there are any problems you've noticed that you'd like to bring to light, share them and I'm sure we can provide feedback. Drake Clawfang
EDIT CONFLICT - and, again, not all information is equal. Changes of information are noted where it is appropriate to do so, but otherwise the most recent changes take priority. As I've said, it's how we've done things here for years.
Well, why not change things? It is likely it's been that way because nobody has ever contested it. Just not override things, but instead give everything proper places. The main thing I find unfair is when I go to seek information and something is overwritten entirely, like it never existed. I did not keep tabs on those situations, and just tried to ignore it, but I keep bumping into it and being told I'm wrong because I like something different. I was hasty with my Weapon edit, yes, but I was writing with it contained within that game. Things is just kinda... one sided as it is. AS for some information being unequal, that is kinda subjective, and one thing I am trying to reach at here. What seems useless to someone else, can be useful to another - someone of a different circle. | |||
Well to be fair, if no one has ever contested the way we've done things, obviously we're doing things fairly well, wouldn't you think?
As for the Weapon edit, I'll state it here - if you had mentioned Rufus' death was retconned, or altered the edit to say "the weapon ensured the fall of Shin-Ra" or something to that effect, I would have not minded. Now, if there are areas where you feel information is not represented fairly, then edit that information in in a manner appropriate for the context of the article and in a manner fair to any retcons towards that information. This is a Wikia - you're allowed to edit whatever you like. Your edits may be removed or altered, but you're still free to make them. How valid those edits are, we cannot say now because we have nothing to go on but the Weapon edit. Drake Clawfang
That is a fair response, but at the same time I am trying to get some sort of approval for equality so chances like these can be supported and not stomped on, or information removed/skewed. It can be batty at times. Changing the 'new is always better' to 'new is a brother to old'. | |||
I'm personally of the opinion "new is more important that old, but old is also important". Our enemy templates are good examples, as they note all the changes in the enemies from the various remakes, including name and Steal changes, and we're considering how to note stat changes between versions as well. Drake Clawfang
Here's what I think, because I missed all this.
On pages outlining an incident, such as Zack's death, we use the latest version. After it, we outline changes throughout games. So we give the Crisis Core version where he fought many soldiers before he was defeated, and in his dying words entrusted Cloud with his sword and said other blah. After that, we note that in FFVII, he was shot by some Shinra troops, died instantly, and Cloud stole his sword.
As for Rufus, there was no proof he died, there was no lifeless corpse. In canon Advent Children he was discovered not to have died. Now had this being attached to FFVII, there wouldn't be this debate. Well it is attached to FFVII, it's the canon sequel.
Everyone should know that if they are not confirmed dead, then it is simple for them to come back. And it is also to be noted that even when dead, they can still be revived, as long as there is an explanation. Rufus and Tseng never died, however it was implied. Do not say they died, say they were thought dead. ILHI 13:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Quetzal8788 - Blindly groping my way around the community. Do not be alarmed! TALK - 15:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
Hey there, Crntn. I'm Quetzal, and I apologize for all the shit you're getting right now... I think there's just a bit of a misunderstanding going on. Think of it this way: Imagine that FFVII is a big novel. We'll call this novel "The Canon of the World of FFVII," or "Canon" for short. I think we could all agree that the folks who put their time and effort into writing this Canon know more about it and have more of a say than any of us do over what's in it. Now, if they choose to add chapters, or revise previous chapters, it's their decision. Sure, if a revision contradicts what we previously thought to be true, i.e. Rufus' supposed death, we should take note of it. However, we now know that Rufus is not dead, because we have seen him alive again after the fact. Really, the assumption is that for the World of FFVII, or of any other game, to be a believable, complete world, it must be founded on fact, that fact in found in the Canon, and the Canon is created and maintained by those who create the games. This assumption is necessary. Ignoring their revisions or assuming that contradictory informations are both true or both possibly true is to break down the credibility of the entire FFVII universe, and those who report on it. Hope this clears things up. | |||
Yall kno what the funny part in all this page is? Is that I dnt undrstand a word U guys sayin. Its confusin with Rufus's dead/alive tinggy. | |||
Retcon: The common situation in fiction where a new story "reveals" things about events in previous stories, usually leaving the "facts" the same (thus preserving continuity) while completely changing their interpretation. For example, revealing that a whole season of "Dallas" was a dream was a retcon. We're not changing anything, these are retcons, and official story material. Rufus didn't die, get over it. | |||
@Leon: Rest assured. We don't understand a word you are saying. "I no! Ill use wutever letters seem ta spell actual wrds! Tthat wai Ill look baddass!" Yeah. Badass. | |||
It's simple, mention both versions of events. We have room. | |||
Or, we use the most up to date version; the one Square are obviously most happy with and agreed upon; and use it. Then below mention version differences. It's easier, rather than going through different events of the Story, pausing and repeating it with differences. ILHI 10:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Crazyswordsman - Final Fantasy VI, because Drake says he wants to link to FF7 every day, which is bad because that game is so far inferior to FF6. TALK - 01:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
Retcons suck. No one likes them. But we have to deal with them. Believe me when I say that no one is more upset than I am with Nintendo tossing out my beloved Koopa Kids for a generic and pointless Bowser Jr. And of course we're all upset with the things George Lucas did to Star Wars in the past ten years, especially the idea of midichlorions and the idea that Greedo shot first. But I deal with them. I, to this day, continue to praise and talk about the Koopa Kids, about how I believe Han was right to shoot first, and how impossible it could be for Rufus to get rescued. But that doesn't mean I go and write these accounts into articles. The creators decided to basically ruin everything and we have to respect that right of theirs. If you want to preserve the traditional way it was told, write fanfics (and I'd love to read them). But don't change the mainspace because that's for the creator's account, not ours. You have userspace, forumspace, and walkthroughspace for all of your personal opinions, which are very welcome here (freedom of speech is a right I hold in highest esteem). | |||
|
It would make sense if you paid attention to the topic at hand.
| |||