Gilgamesh: Enough expository banter!
This talk page is used for discussing improvements to the page "Magic (term)". It is not the place for general discussion or sharing stories about the topic of this article.

Namecalling[edit source]

Isn't magic called different things in some of the games?

No, only the spelling changes like in Final Fantasy XII magic is spelled magick.

Cleanup[edit source]

Eventually, this article should be cleaned up and broken down. It should definitely be broken down by type, and beyond there, I don't know whether or not to break it down by spell or by game. As for naming conventions, I think we should use the old-school names. Crazyswordsman 19:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I kind of disagree about the use of old names. The problem I see with this is when something is clearly supposed to be named "Lightning" and it comes out as "Lit" because of bit contraints, thats kind of frustrating. It was not even the original intention of the creators. Really what we're doing is conforming to the limitations of antiquated technology. Ultimately, I'm a fan of redirects... so all of them would be just fine with me too. I don't have any favoritism for the old Final Fantasies. I think they all ought to be treated as equals. --TacticAngel 05:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason the old names are being used because Blizzard and Thunder are actually different things in the old games. In FFVI, for example, Blizzard is an enemy spell. I'm still not sure on how to do this. Crazyswordsman 06:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, another thing in the old names' favor: categorization. "Thundaga" would come before "Thundara." We don't want that to happen. Finally, more people are familiar with the old names. Not just the old school gamers, but FFVII fans as well. And trust me, I've come across A LOT of those. Crazyswordsman 06:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I started playing Final Fantasy I Dawn of Souls (which is why I haven't been around as much). I notice now that they have renamed a lot of the spells which only strengthens my resolution with using all names or modern names preferably. If Lit is truely what the creators had wanted it to be named, they would not have changed it in the rereleased version. As far as FFVII goes, I think it was called Bolt, was it not? --TacticAngel 02:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I say use Fire, Ice, and Bolt. I KNOW they had room to use the newer names in the older versions because of what some of the other abilites were named (in fact, I've said this before, FFIIIus HAD Blizzard, and FFIIus had Blizzard AND Thunder as separate abilities!) Besides, Fire 2 says a hell of a lot more about the spell than Fira. Crazyswordsman 03:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Think of it this way: If someone wants to know about Blizzard, the enemy spell from FFVI, and they get redirected to the Ice page, wouldn't that be a little frusterating? The problem is we need to avoid ambiguity. The old names are easier to understand for the lesser trained eye, and they do not pose a disambiguity problem. Crazyswordsman 03:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Probably no more frustrating than those of us looking for Blizzard from X, XI, etc and being fed information about Final Fantasy VI enemy abilities. In the case of Blizzard, I think it has actually appeared in more games as a player spell than an enemy ability. I think it would be fairly silly to have it listed as only an enemy ability unless you create sidebar disambiguation template. --TacticAngel 07:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Magic‎ (3 changes; (-36,833) Page history)[edit source]

Wow... And that was done by a sysops =P --TacticAngel 19:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I did most of it, CSM just helped tidy things up. Couldn't leave it in that state, far too long lol StijnX 19:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Magic Type Suggestions[edit source]

I think that the magic article should be broken down into the description of the mechanics and not be bogged down the specifics. Cover the divisions of magic (black, white, blue, arcane, ext), and give appropriate links to the micro articles. Describe the mechanics of the magic level system (fire - a - ga - ja) Briefly describe the elements (I am pretty sure that they are covered in another article so just link to it). Then give a header that describes spell that transcend type (haste and slow are some examples). I think that it would give it a more scholarly (not the job class that sucked) feel.

Nature[edit source]

Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Dev:Arguments' not found.

Category:[edit source]

Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Dev:Arguments' not found.

Magic![edit source]

Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Dev:Arguments' not found.

Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Dev:Arguments' not found. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Dev:Arguments' not found.

Linking oddities[edit source]

I'm seeing constant use of |Magic, with a random extra | in there. Is there some significance to this? I figured it was a mere typo at first, but after seeing and fixing literally dozens of |Magics, I'm starting to wonder...Dazuro 19:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Emboldening[edit source]

I couldn't think of a better place to put this, but in addition to the first mention of a spell on its particular page, do we bold every successive mention of that spell in each game section? For example, Watera and Bio are boldened in each mention, but most other spell pages, such as Thundara, are not. 8bit 22:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It is inconsistent. I say we don't; we mention most other translations of a name at the top of a page in bold and that should be it with the triple apostrophes.  ILHI 22:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I vouch for emboldening in each section, but consistency foremost. So let's decide o.o 8bit 01:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: I notice there are lots of people online right now. So I'm bumping this... please give your opinion. 8bit 22:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't care. --BlueHighwind 22:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Emboldening each new naming as they appear. - Henryacores^ 22:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Each new name should appear at the top of the article. Most common name (and therefore the name title), also known as [other used name], [other used name] or [name from an old translation], is a recurring *.  ILHI 13:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

FFCXI magic[edit source]

What about the enfeebling, arcane, etc. magic of FF XI? TheMasterFighter 06:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Term "Magic" in citation[edit source]

My point is that on some spells' opening quotation states, e.g.: "Your magicks shall be twofold." (Auron, Final Fantasy X) Term "magick" does only apply in games placed in Ivalice and nowhere else. In other FFs it is simply called "magic". Isn't it something like wrong citation?—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) 22:36, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Auron actually does say magick with a k. It's unknown why.Keltainentoukokuu 00:28, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

Page Image[edit source]

Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Dev:Arguments' not found.

Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Dev:Arguments' not found.

Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Dev:Arguments' not found.

FFVII[edit source]

I notice the materia system is used as one of the way game's divide magic. VI's section just says how they split entries to the Magic command into Healing, Attack, and Effect.

FFVII's section tells of how they split ALL ABILITIES in the game. Like how in VIII character's rely on GF for commands, it's the same in VII. Materia is a system that INCLUDES Magic, and isn't the Magic system itself.

So what I'm trying to say, is the Magic of VII aren't divided into different groups. Command Materia is not magic, and is therefore irrelevant. Support Materia is for Auto-Abilities and suchlike, and is therefore irrelevant. Independent Materia adds boosts and isn't really magic. Summons aren't mentioned for VI and VIII so I don't see why it would then deserve to be mentioned in VII's.

VII has no Magic classification system. It's either "Magic" learned from a Green materia, or it isn't Magic. 17:22, June 30, 2011 (UTC)

Crystal Chronicles[edit source]

Do Crystal Chronicles titles make a clear distinction between magic schools? - Henryacores^ 01:00, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, RoF made no distinction between magic schools at all...then again, I think it had Black and White Magic, as the Black Mage clothing stuff increased Black Magic damage IIRC...or something like that. Either it was Black Magic or just overall Magic damage. Hmm... Xenomic 01:03, November 16, 2011 (UTC)
Nope. Not in the titles I've played (RoF, EoT, TCB) There are just...spells. - +DeadlySlashSword+ 02:59, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

Remodelling[edit source]

Continuing from Talk:Magick (ability) since this is the proper place to discuss it. Last discussion was about the possibility of splitting magic as a gameplay term and magic as a story element. I didn't agree until I looked at this page, now I definitely do. So, we either go with "Magic (story element)" and "Magic (gameplay term)", but we can also go with "Magic (term)" and "Magic (ability type)" that's been suggested, and that might be the best way to do it. The Ivalice Magick could probably be merged into both of those.

Furthermore, if we go with the story term thing, I think it's worth discussing merging sections in the same subseries under one header. So "Ivalice Alliance" and "Compilation of Final Fantasy VII" since they basically use the same thing anyway. I think it's worth discussing doing that for lore pages and amending policy pages to allow for that.--Magicite-ffvi-ios.png Technobliterator TC 17:22, January 28, 2016 (UTC)

Where would "Magic (command)" sit in all this? Magic (ability type) sounds like the better option to me. Currently the article tries to define magic as any supernatural element, but it's not really "supernatural" in most games where magic power is just another "force of nature" that exists, so the real world definition doesn't work so well. I don't think we need to talk about Ninjutsu or Limit Breaks or anything along those lines.
The problem with using "Compilation of FFVII" and "Ivalice Alliance" as headers for the FFVII world and Ivalice is that they were just marketing terms. The original FFVII is not in the compilation, and neither is the original FFXII in the alliance (I think the Zodiac Job System is). There might be enough story to make Magick (Ivalice term) article or something similar to other games though. The magick in Ivalice doesn't seem to be the same thing in every game though... In FFXII Mist = magick, but in Revenant Wings it seems anima = magick instead (guess Lemures doesn't have Mist). In FFT where magick comes from seems a bit mysterious, but has something to do with the zodiac signs and the date in the calendar and when one was born and Faith, like the more you believe in "the gods" the more magick you can cast.Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 16:11, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
RE: CompVII and IvalAlli, ikr? It's awkward because we want to use official terms but they don't use the terms to include all media taking place in that world. Have to stick with "Final Fantasy X series". "Ivalice series" will have to do in cases of consistency between the Tactics Advance series and XII (I hear FFT's Ivalice isn't the same as the other game's, right?).
The h3/h4 method found in Scope, where e.g. CCVII comes under VII, was done because the Magic in CCVII will likely be closely related to the Magic in FFVII than any other game for world-internal consistency.
However I have also believe that in story/lore cases it would be easier to use series headers if the things are certainly related. If we need subheaders than "Final Fantasy VII" can be a h4 under "Final Fantasy VII series". (In gameplay I think we should never use h4s because things like abilities only matter to the mechanics of its own game.) JBed (talk) 16:39, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
FFT is still the same Ivalice but way in the future after all the other races than humes became extinct and airship technology failed. Tactics Advance was a "dream world Ivalice". They're all a bit loosely connected. In FFT Ivalice is a kingdom rather than a continent also.Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 16:58, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
"Magic (command)" would be for any skillset just titled magic. For instance, that can list things like FFVI, FFVII and FFVIII because they all use one skillset titled "Magic", whereas it would not list FFV uses as it uses multiple different skillsets titled "White Magic", "Black Magic" and "Blue Magic". Only difference is the (ability type) page is for the types of magic abilities themselves seen in the game, and the (command) is for the Magic skillset they are all selected under (note the capital letters used)...hopefuly that makes senses.
I'm totally cool with just using "Final Fantasy VII", just using "Final Fantasy X" etc as lore headers for those since it's not like Crisis Core and Final Fantasy X-2 changed what magic was in those games. The problem is Ivalice. We either include a Final Fantasy XII header on its own and appear to be missing Tactics, even though it's covered under XII, or we include both a Tactics and a XII header and it dupes content. Now I guess duping content isn't the end of the world, but it'd appear to be preferable to just group them under one, hence why I thought that might be the way forward.--Magicite-ffvi-ios.png Technobliterator TC 19:31, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
I think Magic (command) would be good for listing all magic commands in a game, although it is true some are more specific than "Magic". They go to their own articles anyway though, so... Guess it could be difficult to define, but to me the commands called Blk Mag/Wht Mag are basically the same as the Magic command. Ninjutsu etc then are different. In FFXIII all abilities are just in the same menu though, Attack alongside Ruin, strikes alongside spells...Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 20:03, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.