Gilgamesh: Enough expository banter!
This talk page is used for discussing improvements to the page "Ultimecia". It is not the place for general discussion or sharing stories about the topic of this article.
Take a good look. Isn't it beautiful?
FF5Crystal Behold! This article has been chosen as the Featured Article of January, 2010!
Even so, if you wish to improve the article, do not hesitate! You can also nominate your favorite articles to be featured here!
Mog (Final Fantasy VI) small

A Possible Contradiction... Edit

Okay, so the personality section says that Ultimecia stated in the Deling Speech, that she was persecuted in her future and other comments that say its possible this is the cause of her seeking out Time Compression and yada yada. Yet, in the Trivia section, there is a wonderful translation from Squall_of_SeeD at that shows that the speech that gives this info is completely different in the Japanese version, at best, Ultimecia states that humans have created this illusion of the "evil witch" but never once states anything about her own persecution. Perhaps this should be edited?Wolf Kanno True Beauty Exists Only in Things that Last a Moment 03:11, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah the English and Japanese versions are known to be different, however, the English version is also "official" at least in the English version of the game. Saying that humans have created the illusion of an evil witch could also be interpreted as something that leads to persecution (stretching?) because it implies that one isn't originally "evil" but people view one as evil regardless; maybe for some self-fulfilling prophecy there?
Ultimecia's original speech: "......It reeks. Filthy fools. Since time immemorial, we witches have lived within illusion. The foolish fantasy you produced. Adorning their bodies in dreadful costumes, the witches who curse virtuous humans by means of cruel rituals. The terrible witch who burns your green fields and freezes your warm homes with ruthless magic. ......Worthless. Now that the witch from the illusion is come to be seen as a friend of Galbadia, you sigh in relief? Who is dreaming fantasy after fantasy?"
I don't think this speech is in direct contradiction, but it is much vaguer than the English version. She does express some unexplained hatred toward the crowd, like she'd have a bone to pick, but I guess it could also be explained with...well that she is just evil.Keltainentoukokuu 12:16, August 26, 2011 (UTC)
I changed the wording of it a bit; better/worse/no difference/too vague?Keltainentoukokuu 14:14, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

I think it works well. Wolf Kanno True Beauty Exists Only in Things that Last a Moment

I want a direct cited source that says the R=U theory is fake. Edit

I have been searching, and searching, and searching and have NOT ONCE found Squaresoft or Square Enix say the theory is bogus.

Where's the source?

At best an Ultimania by a third-party company that went bankrupt years ago saying "Witches have normal lifespans".

Here's the problem: The word "Generation" is an ambiguous term. It can mean anywhere from 25 years into the future to 1000 years into the future. There is plenty of evidence that implies Rinoa is Ultimecia.

Yeah, it's a theory that was never confirmed but virtually everything in FF8 was left ambiguous. We're never told if Squall is Laguna's father so why don't we take that out of Laguna's Wiki page since it's "not directly confirmed from Squaresoft/Square Enix"?

Anyway, there's plenty of symbolism and words that imply the R=U theory has validity.

Rinoa on Ragnorak: "I don't want the future, I want time to stand still, I want to be here with you."

Rinoa when Squall makes his promise: "Will I end up fighting everyone? …Scary thought, isn’t it?” “If I fall under Ultimecia’s control again… SeeD will come kill me, right? And the leader of SeeD is you, Squall… Squall’s sword will pierce my heart… I guess it’s okay if it’s you, Squall. Nobody else.”

Then there's the symbolism with Rinoa seemingly crucified on Adel and later she gains her memories (she specifically says she was inside a Young Adel). Look and compare Adel's look to Ultimecia's. Black wings, sharp claws, and who was it that Ultimecia wanted to get into the past of? Adel.

You're probably thinking "this guy's picking and choosing or just seeing things that aren't there". If that's the case then Laguna being Squall's father is "picking and choosing" and should be taken off because it's just "fanfiction" as there was never a direct confirmation from Square.

Again, show me where Square directly denied the R=U theory. I've asked them myself and only got a "look up what people on boards argue" as a reply.

You'll find there isn't any because a game like FF8 was suppose to be left open to interpretation and not streamlined into being "These are the absolute facts about the story". Therefore, put back the R=U theory or else take out Laguna being Squall's father.

Rinoa is NOT Ultimecia. That's all I'm gonna say. This is an encyclopedia, so speculation goes in userspace. As for Laguna and Squall, I dunno who wrote that, but do they have proof somewhere? If not, we have to figure that out. C A T U S E00:02, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so SOURCE MATERIAL? You people keep saying Squaresoft denied it. Give me the proof. Shouldn't be hard, right? Oh and by the way, the Ultimania saying 'witches have normal lifespans' isn't a denial at all. Nobody knows how far into the future Ultimecia is and a 'generation' can mean 25 years. The Truthful Knight 00:12, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

1. The Ultimania for FFVIII confirmed that Squall is Laguna's son. I do not care if it's a "Third Party" book, it makes sense that he's Squall's dad. The whole point of the lovestory was that they were fufilling Julia and Laguna's relationship. 2. The Rinoa is Ultimecia theory is a crock to me, much like the "Squall is Dead" theory when the ending of VIII (If you actually watched past the credits) confirmed he was alive. It might work in Trivia as a "fan speculation" but I'd keep it out of the main article. AmbieSushi 00:13, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

It's in the MAINSPACE. Mainspace articles are encyclopediatric. Thus, they do not have speculation, except occasionally in the trivia section. So (a) according to Ambie Ultimania proves Laguna > Squall (and Ultimania is not "Third Party", it's a subsidary of Square) and (b) if we allowed R=U we'd have all sorts of stupid theories. I know, how about Laguna is actually the son of that drunk bodyguard you fight in Radiant Historia? Woo-hoo! (Are you Eileen reincarnated or something?) C A T U S E00:16, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Digital comics was a third-party company and not a subsidiary. Furthermore, there's plenty of evidence to suggest Ultimecia was Rinoa. The entire game, even the ending, was left OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. Do you UNDERSTAND what that means? It isn't a stupid fan theory and it's quite substantiated by in-game facts. There's plenty of dialogues and symbolism that highly imply it's true. Purposefully making ones self ignorant when the entire game was suppose to be open to fan interpretation simply shows your foolishness and not those of others. Hardly anything was confirmed in the game. Did you ever even play it, I wonder? Just because YOU can't see it being true doesn't mean it can't be. Plenty of people automatically believed that Rinoa was Ultimecia BECAUSE THEY PLAYED FF8. Ignoring THAT is stupid. The Truthful Knight 00:26, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Digital Comics? What the heck is Digital Comics? I dunno if it's true, but like I said, Guide Books tells me this: "Beginning with Final Fantasy VIII, Studio BentStuff began writing the Ultimania series of guidebooks published by DigiCube, a subsidiary of Square Co. Ltd. and, later, Square Enix, which also published revised versions of previous guides." So it was published by Square's subsidaries. That makes Laguna > Squall canon. It doesn't say anything in favor of R=U. As for me playing FFVIII, as a matter of fact I have. As for my personal opinions, I think it's possible but it doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia. As for calling R=U stupid, I never meant that. What I meant was: while R=U itself isn't "stupid", allowing for speculation not backed up by Square opens the door to allow people to add stupid theories and then claim that if we allow R=U we have to allow for their theory as well, no matter how ridiculous it is.C A T U S E00:31, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Dude, you've already put a fan theory in with Ultimecia's past, if you read what's written on the theory, it goes by pure fan speculation. If you want to be fair and say you can't add the R=U theory then you're gonna have to remove that too because the entire paragraph regarding Ultimecia's past is pure fan speculation from her Deling speech. That isn't confirmed information.

You all seem to be ignoring the fact that FF8 was suppose to be interpreted by fans to begin with. They never said ANYTHING about the ending of FF8 in the Ultimania.

Lastly, people here claim that Squaresoft confirmed the R=U theory is fake but that simply isn't true. No such refutation exists. They've simply stayed silent on the matter to keep interest in FF8 alive. Therefore, it's only fair to put the R=U theory in or take the paragraph regarding Ultimecia's past based on her Deling speech out. The Truthful Knight 00:40, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

I did not see that fan theory, and hastened to remove it. As for interpretation by fans, it doesn't matter what Square was thinking when they made it. We edit an encyclopedia, which cannot be biased and cannot add theories that aren't proven by Square or its subsidaries. You can add it into Trivia section, with three or so reasons for the theory. Lastly, people claiming that Square decided it was false is out of my hands. C A T U S E00:50, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Being willfully blind to how the company that made the game wanted the game seen is a type of ignorance in itself. And I swear it just disappeared... did someone edit it out? Odd...

If I can add it in the trivia section then that's fine. I also added the female definition of Adel's name since it wasn't there (the female version of Adel's name is distinctly different from the male one). The Truthful Knight 01:08, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

"Willful blindness"? The whole point of encyclopedias is that they're unbiased, so yeah, they are "willfully blind". But that's what the Trivia sections is for, and as for Adel, that wasn't a bad idea. C A T U S E01:11, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

You all chill. Knight, this is not a "negative proof" situation. There is a major difference between your theory and Squall being Laguna's son. At the very least, Squall has the same blood as Laguna, since when the Moombas lick it, they mistake him for Laguna. Rinoa has no such strong evidence toward being Ultimecia other than that both have Sorceress power. For that matter, wings and feathers are a heavy part of the symbolism of the game in general. And a generation is far from 1000 years for humans, since a generation is the gap between parents and their children.

The truth of the matter is Square has let several fan theories live, but that makes zero of them canon. This one shouldn't be treated as such any more than any other. Bluestarultor Best-of Stellar Arena sigicon BSA 01:19, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Fan theories are just that, fan theories, they are not fact. I've seen this Ultimecia-Rinoa theory before, and all the evidence is circumstantial or twists facts. Please do not add it to the page. Doreiku Kuroofangu 01:26, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. Stop running in circles and listen to what I say instead of ignorantly posting. I've already discussed this matter. There are plenty of dialogues on Ragnorak, during the promise, and the fact Ultimecia immediately targets Squall to extract Griever from him. This isn't just a 'fan theory' it's implied by the game itself. You should at least acknowledge what peoples interpretations of a game THAT IS SPECIFICALLY MEANT TO BE INTERPRETED BY PEOPLE. Have to say.

I acknowledge it fine. Doesn't mean it should be added. And tell me what you see as implying the theory. Doreiku Kuroofangu 01:35, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough:

There's more such as Squall only thinking of Rinoa while Edea tells Squall of Ultimecia's time compression plan, Rinoa being dizzy and standing next to Ultimecia when she's making the Deling speech, and hell, Ultimecia's face shows up in the ending too.

There was a LOT that many fans thought implied it. You shouldn't just ignore that. It's not one or two people making up wild theories. The Truthful Knight 01:45, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Squall is in love with her and Edea had her hypnotized. The flashes are Squall remembering a whole bunch of things if that's what you mean. What else you got? Bluestarultor Best-of Stellar Arena sigicon BSA 01:48, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: Point being, a lot of this stuff you're referencing is much more obviously related to other things. Truthfully, most of it is enough a stretch it makes taffy wince. The burden of proof is not on us, either. Find something solid for us, here. Bluestarultor Best-of Stellar Arena sigicon BSA 01:52, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
All of that is circumstantial. Rinoa's dialogue is a simple expression of a wish. The fact Ultimecia's castle is at the orphanage could just as easily have to do with Edea and/or the party than Rinoa, or could just be coincidence. And Bluesey covered the rest. You need to offer something concrete. The game being left open to fan interpretation does not instantly mean those interpretations are valid. Doreiku Kuroofangu 01:57, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

You all are just completely conceited in the idea you're correct. Fun fact, objective arguments hold no weight or bearing on fictional games with symbolism and implication in dialogue.

You just don't want to view the facts as valid, that doesn't speak poorly for the facts, that speaks poorly on you. You all have been wrong about the Squaresoft saying the theory was incorrect, you've been making your own self-interpretations on who you think Ultimecia is based on even LESS information given, and you have no respect for anything I say.

You are not above me, do not think you are. Plenty of fans have thought this theory to be correct based off in-game facts. You all have provided misinformation and no substance in any of your arguments besides complaining it's wrong. You're using an argument from ignorance, not me.

The fact you say "just because it's self-interpretation doesn't make it write' shows your own ignorance. You have no understanding of the concept of interpretation. You go against the very definition in arrogance.

I've provided plenty of facts. It's just never directly stated however people can infer on plots on their own. Not everything needs to be stated and one interpretation shouldn't be scorned when it's very likely. The fact someone changed what I wrote to say the Ultimania contradicted it (it didn't at contradict the theory at all) proves you're all using false information because you don't want to be 'wrong'. You can call it circumstantial but so is Julia being Rinoa's mother in that same context or even Squall's father being Laguna until the Ultimania confirmed it. Point beng: Nothing in FF8 was ever directly confirmed and the Ultimania, the source you constantly cite, never refuted the theory.

Stop acting like children. That's all you're doing.

Also, I apologize if my demeanor seems more snappish but that isn't because of your ignorance but instead because of personal reasons. Please excuse it. The Truthful Knight 04:28, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

This wiki doesn't deal with interpretations; it deals with canon. That's the long and short of it. We do leave room to address popular fan theories, but not in the main body of the article along with the canon. Bluestarultor Best-of Stellar Arena sigicon BSA 04:46, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: And in before you say anything; the interpretation of her past doesn't belong in there, either. I believe it was removed now, though, as it should be. Bluestarultor Best-of Stellar Arena sigicon BSA 04:48, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

That's a completely flawed set-up from the get-go if the game is completely self-interpretive. It simply doesn't work. You should acknowledge at least some theories that obviously have a strong basis with the actual plot.

Symbolism and story implications are a strong part of that. There is much evidence that the theory can be correct and if you truly believe that it only can 'exist in canon' then you wouldn't have had the idea that Ultimecia was ostracized by past information since THAT was a fan theory. I've argued this a number of times, and we seem to have agreed it's important enough to stay in the trivia since it's actually relevant. The Truthful Knight 04:51, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

If it's never directly said in the game it shouldn't be directly said in the article either. :) We must keep it as true to known canon as possible. The FFWiki articles are not the final truth on anything or anything that should dictate anyone's opinion, this article is here only for reference. The Truthful Knight, I do appreciate you contesting our information regardless. That is the only way to assure the info is as close to accurate as can be, as opposed to just being someone's opinion.Keltainentoukokuu 04:53, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Would you be against me editing the trivia section to add both fan theories then? It's pretty much left into interpretation anyway and I'm only referring to it as a theory in both regards so it's not against any facts. The Truthful Knight 04:58, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT: The trivia has been modified to present the case NEUTRALLY. The next person to change it should consider I have ban power. This has been an overly petty debacle and my patience is wearing thin from dealing with the edit warring over the past several hours. I've done my best to be reasonable, but to everyone:

@Knight: We deal in canon. That's just how our community works. This is not going to change. The theory has been addressed.

@everyone else: We acknowledge theories. It has been acknowledged. The next person who changes it to something petty is going to be spoken to and possibly reprimanded. Please don't be my first mod action.

This argument has taken a turn for the ridiculous. I'd like things to just be let be, okay? Bluestarultor Best-of Stellar Arena sigicon BSA 05:00, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Nah, it's fine. You're being pretty fair and not just automatically denouncing everything I say.

Anyway, I'm fine with the trivia as it is.

Oh and kinda random but... don't watch the blu-ray Tekken movie. It makes no sense. The Truthful Knight 05:02, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

The Official Square Enix Final Fantasy VIII Ultimania clearly states that Sorceresses live a normal human lifespan. This is proof that unless Rinoa can somehow live for many, many years and still look as young as Ultimecia, it's impossible for them to be the same person.

The Truthful Knight: To answer your last question, the trivia section is meant for quick bullet-point style info, which is not really suited for an analysis. Optimally the theory would have both points that could be interpreted to support it, and points that could be interpreted to go against it, in order to stay neutral and leaving the decision up to the reader. I personally think that some kind of theory space could exist on the wiki, as long as it is clearly labelled as speculative, but I know many other users would be very much against this kind of thing.Keltainentoukokuu 05:09, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

People complain too much, what matters is if the complaints are valid.

As for the "many years". That's simply not specific enough. As I mentioned, the "generations" aspect could mean anywhere from 30-1000 years. Ultimecia honestly could be Rinoa given what little information we have on her and the implied information we have on Rinoa.

Also, I know most people think "Square isn't smart enough to come-up with such a story" as an angle but look at FF7. Cloud was controlled by Sephiroth and believed himself to have lived Zack's life as a SOLDIER. Then you have the fact that FF8 came out right around Chrono Cross's time and both stories relied heavily on interpretations of the plot.

All I'm really asking for here is a bit of respect instead of "no, you're wrong because you're just wrong." That's not very fair or considerate. But it's been mentioned, it's open to interpretation of people just as both sides wanted, AND the fan theory regarding Ultimecia that was on earlier has been taken off.

How about we just agree to disagree, yeah? It's clear we have our differences but we should act sensibly to each other. I'm sorry for being so haughty. I was just annoyed that it seemed no one was taking to time to consider my objections earlier. But thank you for the compliment and changes.

Anyway, it seems this discussion has been decided and kept as neutral as possible and I thank and respect you all for that. The Truthful Knight 05:20, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Well, in one way, I suppose it is all up to personal interpretation. Although the Ultimania speaks of the sorceresses and their normal lifespans, it's not to say that the theory is disproven. My main issue is that there is not enough solid proof for the argument. And to add something that could be wrong might misinform people. That's why it's best not to mention it at all. Whatever you prefer, you should believe in. Thank you for being so civil about it :)

I think we just disagree on that point lol. And yeah, Thanks for being civil too. I've seen way worse arguments in gamefaqs... usually over religion. The Truthful Knight 05:34, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Looks like somebody just nuked the thing that said Square was keeping neutral on the R=U debate. While I agree, let's hope this doesn't start another edit war. C A T U S E 02:30, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that there is no direct source. I may have heard that the "R=/=U" confirmation was vocal, but I'm really not sure. Regardless, the fact that sorcerers have normal life spans pretty much completely shoots down the theory. Although, the fact that the R=U theory isn't even hinted at in the entire Ultimania guide seems almost like official confirmation. -- 21:22, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Problem with that is, there's several things that can be taken as hints AND the Ultimania says Sorceress's CANNOT DIE unless they lose their powers, not to mention Rinoa practically talking about time compression on a ship called RAGNORAK and her bad thoughts about fighting everyone someday because she's a sorceress. Then there's the crucifixtion symbolism when she's on Adel and afterwards she proclaims to have been inside a young Adel's mind. Totally not important when junctioning replaces peoples earliest memories. Also, Rinoa being the LAST sorceress clearly doesn't mean anything! After all, if she's the last one then none come after her in the future. Gee, wonder what that means. In the words of Fuujin: SARCASM. The Truthful Knight 06:23, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

This is about as good as you're ever going to get for proof against R=U: [Official Character Relation Tree]. As you can see, it details every relation every character has to every other character, including such thorny issues as Squall and Laguna's relationship, and even little subjects of debate such as Quistis's feelings for Squall and Rinoa's history with Seifer. There is no line of any kind connecting Rinoa to Ultimecia, not even one with a "?" next to it, like Quistis's ambiguous feelings for Squall. Square will never "deny" it for the same reason they'll never "deny" my theory that Zell's father is a chicken. They don't and can't officially deny every pet theory every fan comes up with, and the wiki shouldn't cater to those theories either. Espritduo 08:59, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

It is ambiguous whether Rinoa is the last sorceress or not. They claim so for Dr. Odine's plan to work, but that also looks like a big plot contrivance. The whole thing what determines who Ultimecia can and cannot possess is never explained; why sorceress power would mean anything to Junction Machine Ellone when that is not a perquisite for Ellone herself... The menu's info database implies it is thought there are more sorceresses than Edea, Adel and Rinoa, but it's impossible to determine the number because they don't make themselves known. Rinoa's fears are not not necessarily foreshadowing, they might have just wanted to explain why she would agree to go to Sorceress Memorial so easily.Keltainentoukokuu 12:41, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

The R=U is worth mentioning simply because it's a largely-known theory. It would be of interest to our readers, especially pointing out reasons for it (so long as it's not long-winded and maintains neutrality).

I don't remember this last sorceress thing. I always thought that Sorceress (3) was meant to be from the future. JBed 18:41, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

The plan to go to future was that after Adel is dead Ultimecia will have no choice but to possess Rinoa as she is the "only remaining sorceress in our time". It is never explained how they come to the conclusion that there are no others, or that Ultimecia cannot possess anyone else. Buuut of course the plan works out as intended.

My interpretation on Sorceress (3) is that it is some kind of manifestation of sorceress power that kind of precedes over all that would work to become a thing that attacks the party is of course rather mysterious... :pKeltainentoukokuu 18:48, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

"only remaining sorceress in our time" probably means exactly what it says. Emphasis on "in our time". Whatever number of sorceresses exist in various future times, Ultimecia, from her time period, can only use the Junction Machine Ellone, which can't reach far enough back to go much beyond the present – incidentally, this tells us that at the very least, Ultimecia's time period is almost certainly somewhere beyond Ellone's lifespan, so that puts some limit on it. So she's forced to use the present, where Rinoa is the only sorceress, because that's where Ellone is and is also about as far back as Ultimecia can get with the Junction Machine. Just thought I'd throw that in; I don't really care to get any further embroiled in any debates on this topic -- Sorceror Nobody Flan 20:21, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

"The R=U is worth mentioning simply because it's a largely-known theory." - then it can get a forum page like the Love Triangle Debate and Aerith Revival Rumors. Doreiku Kuroofangu 20:39, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

If Aeris's page mentions nothing about revival rumours then it sucks. *checks* --Well it's mentioned, but mentioned shoddily.
I'm not saying there should be a place to debate the R=U theory, I'm saying we should acknowledge it as a fan-theory. And where would we do that? On Rinoa's and Ultimecia's pages. How else will interested readers be able to find out about it? 20:44, June 20, 2012 (UTC)
oh, Aerith's page mentions it? Gonna have to clean that out. As for the fan theory, as I said, it can go in the forums with other fanwank theories and nonsense. Alternatively, we need to note on their respective pages the theories that Banon is Duncan, Celes is Maria, and Vincent had an affair with Lucrecia and is Sephiroth's real father. Doreiku Kuroofangu 20:47, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary breakEdit

All information regarding this topic should be or is here Forum:Rinoa-Ultimecia Theory. This is all I have to say. At best, a link to this page should be added to the article. - Henryacores^ 20:51, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

You consider linking to that "best", yet consider a note in Trivia stating that it's a fan-theory but never been confirmed is too far? Really? At least in this instance we aren't promoting debate, we're just being informative. 20:58, June 20, 2012 (UTC)
In fact, we are promoting debate, over edit-warring, ILHI. - Henryacores^ 21:08, June 20, 2012 (UTC)
...That's doesn't respond to what I just said. 21:12, June 20, 2012 (UTC)
And you continue not to respond to what I said, which means this debate you speak of cannot happen. So I'll say it again.
You suggest that the most coverage of the R=U theory we'd ever get is linking to the forum. This forum can be edited by anyone and is not moderated. It is also hosted on our wiki, and therefore acknowledging it shows we endorse it.
But you think this is a better idea then simply informing the readers of the wiki that the R=U theory exists but no comment has being made by SE regarding the truth of it.
So why do you think linking to the forum would be a better idea than simply acknowledging its existence in an informative and neutral way. 21:49, June 20, 2012 (UTC)
Linking to the forum is a good compromise -- and it doesn't endorse the theory in the least. Here-
"The theory's only support was that the Sorceresses have extend lifespans and when SE pointed out that wasn't true and remind everyone that Ultimecia's only motivation was that she didn't want to die ruins the theory."
"It (Kuja = Garnet) would make as much sense (as Rinoa=Ultimecia), for sure."
See, that forum page doesn't endorse R=U, just allows people to discuss it.
Personally I think the most notable of fan-theories (R=U, Aerith=Revivable, Marche=Villain, Squall=Dead) should have forum pages (IIRC they already do) even if they are disprovable and the relevant pages should link to those forum pages. That way we can look at it neutrally and take away the temptation to add stuff that's basically nonsense into forum pages, where people can talk about whatever.
And Drake, if we shouldn't cover fan theories we shouldn't cover fanfics and other fan creations, like 8bit. But 8bit is notable, just as notable as R=U and Endless Nova. C A T U S E 22:01, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Except that notable fan content pieces have achieved notability through higher means than just being well-known - 8BT is one of the most famous web comics of all time. Dion Roger's Rinoa won an official contest. The Spoony One has won web awards. Piano Squall and Kate Covington are musicians who have achieved notability outside FF work, and even then I kinda shift my eyes a bit. And also, FF in particular has scads of fan theories, even beyond the ones we note. To allow them would open the floodgates for everyone to add their own personal interpretation, and it will just create headaches and edit wars. (EDIT - and never heard of Endless Nova, but seeing it now I do wonder why we cover it, what notability has it achieved outside the fandom?) Doreiku Kuroofangu 22:08, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Catuse, Fanon is not the same as fan theories/conjecture/interpretation. It's concrete work. We cover relevant Fanon, such as 8bit, Dead Fantasy, Endless Nova, Piano Squall and OC Remix. And all of that coverage makes or should make use of {{fanmade}}. We do not, or should not make references to these outside specific sections (including trivia, but for example, music articles treat all of these these as exterior appearances). In any case, Fanon coverage should not be discussed here. - Henryacores^ 22:11, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

OK, so maybe 8bit isn't as notable as R=U ("8bit Theatre" returns 257k results on Google, "rinoa is ultimecia" returns 107k), and it's true that fanon =/= conjecture, but conjecture is still part of the fandom, isn't it, even if it's really stupid? WikiProject Final Fantasy isn't fanon, but it's still part of the fandom, so if we look at it neutrally we should at least mention it.
Drake: People will add their own interpretations anyways, if we make it clear to them then that it has to be relevant.C A T U S E 22:44, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Which brings us back to the point, how is three sentences in the trivia section of two articles noting that a widely-known fan-theory exists but has not being confirmed NOT WORTH INCLUDING?

It happened. It exists. People did talk about, people did speculate on forums, there are websites/portions of websites for it. Including it does not break neutrality, it is being informative.

If someone created a well-known hoax that VII was being remade for PS3, it does deserve a mention. Not including it would be wrong. If people heard this then they would come to the FFVII page on our wiki and find no mention of it. Is this because we have not heard the news or because it's fake? The person does not know. But mentioning that it happened and how it was a hoax is informative. The person knows we know and knows it was a hoax.

Now, we have the R=U theory. Fan-speculation that amounts to nothing more than speculation, but it is widely-known speculation. So mentioning it shows we know about it, and acknowledge it's a theory (NOTE: not acknowledge it's correct in any way) and then state the facts: SE have not commented.

It's being informative. I don't even know from what perspective everyone else is looking at it from. It is not covering a fan-theory, it is being informative and acknowledging a well-known fan-theory and giving the facts. 22:51, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

The problem is by putting the theory here at all, we give it weight, when it has no weight on its own. The theory has only as much weight as the fans give it, and unfortunately, there are some really ardent fans of this monster. The only semi-acceptable mention of R=U in the wiki outside of forum pages is a trivia blurb that plainly states in no uncertain terms that the theory, while popular in some circles, has no basis in the game, no basis in any official material, and is completely supported by fans alone. None of this "Square hasn't confirmed or denied it" crap. That's just a sneaky way of giving the theory weight without actually saying anything. You know what people believe when a government official says "I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of aliens?" They believe the government knows there are aliens. This wiki is not the National Inquirer, and shouldn't pander to conspiracy theories, however popular. If it is to be at all reputable as an information source, it needs to keep fanfiction like R=U out of the wiki and keep it on forum pages. We should take a lesson from Square themselves and basically ignore all official talk about the theory. Period. Espritduo 23:22, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I think even calling the theory "popular" is a bit biased. It's not popular, it's notorious. The very reason it is as (in)famous as it is is because of how much hate it's accumulated over the years, not because a lot of people actually believe it to be true. I would guess the vast majority of the people who have any opinion on the subject have a very negative opinion of the theory. Espritduo 23:29, June 20, 2012 (UTC)
The reason it was worded like that was to be diplomatic. If it said "the theory is wrong because..........." or "the basis for this theory is that........" people would edit it to debate the points. So the "SE has not confirmed or denied" is a compromise. I agree it seems off, that statement doesn't mean anything. If they had confirmed it, it wouldn't be a fan theory in the trivia section it would be in the main section, and they don't ever deny fan theories, no company does that ever; they want people to make fan theories, they specifically make stuff vague so people have stuff to talk about and mull over.
If we add it back in, I think we should just make no mention to SE's "stance" on the issue. Just say it's a fan theory and it became well-known.Keltainentoukokuu 00:50, June 21, 2012 (UTC)
"Well-known" I like that. "A well-known fan theory surrounding Ultimecia, usually referred to as "R=U," suggests that Ultimecia is actually a future version of Rinoa, twisted by hate and the loss of her knight. While this theory is never touched upon in the game or other official materials, it is still a common topic of debate among fans, even today." Or something like that. I'm still all for just pretending it doesn't exist. Espritduo 01:03, June 21, 2012 (UTC)
Nice, you win today's diplomacy award. ;) Although people would find ways to twist that "has not been touched upon in the game" with examples of how this and that passage from the game means it could work. That's always the point it becomes too convulted.Keltainentoukokuu 01:11, June 21, 2012 (UTC)
I'd change "well-known" to "active". However, I honestly don't see that the article needs it. Maybe a minor trivia mention would be better put into Rinoa's article. Netherith 09:49, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

Uh, not sure if the issue has been resolved or not, but for the people that want the R=U theory to be included in the article - what about the Necron Theory? Or the Squall is Dead theory? I might be biased because I loathe fan theories, but it's hypocritical to claim that different interpretations need to be heard, yet ignore the theories that you don't support. MateusNamelink Dissicon ff2 Emp1 11:31, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

R=U has some tiny things going for it. I personally think it's stupid but could work, at an extreme stretch. Squall is dead is completely unworkable, so doesn't deserve a mention at all. Necron theory, I presume you mean the Iifa Tree one? God knows that led to many fun discussions -- Sorceror Nobody Flan 11:40, June 21, 2012 (UTC)
There's a Wiki for creepypasta and similar stories. They can go there. Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle 11:43, June 21, 2012 (UTC)
The main issue I see is that it is difficult to determine what is a notable fan theory and what isn't. I don't think the point of fan theories is necessarily the idea that there is some hidden truth in the game that the developers planned all along and you are the only clever one who can see the real truth, but to have an alternate take on the game, like you can have different "readings" of a book. If we were to add rumours and fan theories that were deemed notable, then I think the Squall is dead theory is a notable one...even if it isn't canon...because it's well-known. But if a reader wants to learn about fan theories and rumours I'm not sure the wiki is the best source or that it is even expected for us to cover stuff like that.Keltainentoukokuu 12:58, June 21, 2012 (UTC)
I hate fan theories as well, but I thought they might be good to add because they're a part of the fandom as well, but you know what, after seeing some of the arguments against them, I'm not so certain anymore, other than Sactuary of Zi'tah pages. We can always link to the relevant SoZ page on the top of the article's talk page, that way people argue about it there rather than on the actual page. And link to this discussion every time somebody asks why.C A T U S E 17:19, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

If we want to actually gather up a list of fan theories we consider notable, a "fanon" namespace could perhaps be considered. Could move the other fan productions brought up there too. Doreiku Kuroofangu 13:09, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

Forum:Sanctuary of Zi'tah. - Henryacores^ 16:28, June 21, 2012 (UTC)
Forum:Create_a_new_fandom_namespace. I was one of the original supporters, but now I don't like that idea so much anymore. C A T U S E 17:19, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

Why do people keep saying "Maybe a mention in Trivia"? ... that's exactly what is being suggested.

For the last freakin' time, it's just a short paragraph in Trivia. We're not hosting the fan-theory, we're being informative and neutral about the fan-theory and giving it a mention.

This does not mean user's will come here to look for fan-theories. That would be stupid. It's just acknowledgement of stuff that happened.

I am well aware there is debate over what constitutes a well-known theory. But dammit, excluding everything because something is a little more subjective... if we're really going to debate notability then we can just have a look at what constitutes a notable NPC for an article, then decide it's too hard and then remove all NPC articles from wiki. Good day. 18:13, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

??? that's a terrible analogy, I think we can all agree on that. We aren't going to be removing NPC articles any time soon because there are a lot more NPCs -- and they are far more important -- than fan theories.C A T U S E 18:19, June 21, 2012 (UTC)
Please don't tell me you just compared the selection of coverage of canon elements of the series to fan-theories. That is ridiculous. - Henryacores^ 18:25, June 21, 2012 (UTC)
No, that's not what happened. I am attempting to pull people away from the "but notability is subjective" element when we use it all the time.
It's not about covering NPCs or not, it's whether they deserve a page or an entry on the List of Characters page. Does the likes of Bughe and Hargo deserve a page? Does Nikolai deserve a page?
You're reading into what I wrote wrong. I was just saying that subjectivity happens, and using that as an excuse for not including any mention of fan-theories doesn't understand that subjectivity is a big part of what we include and do not include in the wiki. 19:08, June 21, 2012 (UTC)
Subjectivity is not a part of what we include and do not include on the wiki. It comes into play when people decide what deserves a whole page and what doesn't, but when it comes to simply addressing its existence somewhere, somehow on the, subjectivity is about as minimal as it gets. Every canon element of the series, no matter how small or trivial, deserves a home somewhere within the bowels of the FFWiki. Bughe and Hargo may not deserve their own page, but they damn well deserve to at least be mentioned somewhere on the wiki. They are still canon elements of the series. nothing. It doesn't exist as a part of the series any more than this talk page about it does. Espritduo 20:39, June 21, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, Bughe and Hargo do deserve a mention. But that wasn't the point. Whether they deserve a page is subjective, and we don't have specific guidelines for what makes them deserve a page or not. I am not debating that they should be covered, just stating that there is subjectivity in how they deserve to be covered.
Don't take my comparison out of context, it was only looking at the issue of subjectivity. Giving me reasons why characters are more deserving of mentions than fan-theories does not change my point and only point in the comparison, which was that wiki uses subjectivity.
I could have just used random bits of Trivia on the wiki to make a point about subjectivity, it's not the NPCs that matter, it's just the use of subjectivity. JBed 20:53, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

I noticed there's a FFVI Rumours forum. It's less of a forum and more of an article taken away from the mainspace. You could always write a FFVIII version of the page, then include rumours/theories like R=U, Squall is Dead, and whatever other popular things you can compile. Then just add a link to the forum page from the Final Fantasy VIII page. That way, it keeps the information off the mainspace, while still included in the article, and remains entirely objective. MateusNamelink Dissicon ff2 Emp1 23:27, June 21, 2012 (UTC)


I archived this thing. It locked up my computer when I tried to load this thing. :/C A T U S E 23:29, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

Dang. Edit

I just need to say that this is sexy. ... Not Ultimecia, mind you, the actual page. What, you really thought that I was going to state that on this Wiki, for everybody to laugh at me? Anyway... Being a featured article is well deserved. 14:02, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

Speculation? Edit

"In background, Ultimecia keeps analyzing the SeeDs' thoughts and eventually detects their fear of losing their memory as well, a weakness she tries to abuse by commanding Griever to cast Shockwave Pulsar" - Is there a source for this? I don't own Ultimania or anything like that, so I don't know, but I never heard about this. SetzerLeonhart (talk) 22:41, April 3, 2013 (UTC)

Never heard of such a thing in any book. Sounds like BS to me. And it doesn't even make sense. What does Shockwave Pulsar have to do with losing your memory? Espritduo (talk) 23:16, April 3, 2013 (UTC)
I agree. If Shockwave Pulsar had anything to do with memory loss, Quistis could erase anybody's memory with it. JC Holy Knight (talk) 23:27, April 3, 2013 (UTC)

Espritduo, here's the proof you asked for:

Check 7:20+. Ultimecia's talk here roughly translates to: "Memory Loss? So that's what you are afraid of? Show them a G.F.'s true power, Griever! Make them bleed!" This at least proves that Ultimecia does further research on the SeeDs' mind during the battle with Griever in background. Or why else do you think she begins talking out of nowhere, about memory loss? She has just discovered this fear, like she discovered that Griever is the strongest G.F. in Squall's mind before.

The reason why Griever just attacks with Shock Pulsor after Ultimecias order is admittedly a bit more arguable and I already removed this myself. To me, it still sounds logical though. Griever always attacks with Shockwave Pulsor after Ultimecias findings about memory loss and the attack itself can be rather seen as a "mind attack" than a physical attack, as the name already suggests.

By the way, there are a lot more things on this page that need proof. For example, there is absolutely no evidence in the game that Ultimecia has the ability to give life to a person's thoughts or even magic. It is just a popular belief, especially by opposers of the R=U theory, nothing more. Ultimecia is able to read other peoples' minds for sure (a girl in Deling City near the inn confirms this at some point; she states that Ultimecia - in the form of Edea, of course - was reading her mind), but anything else is too far-fetched and should be removed from the site. And no, the German translation is not irrevelant, in fact it is much closer to the Japanese version than the English version. Rahbeit (talk) 10:40, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

North American version is considered the "canon" version here but deviations in other translations can be mentioned (but it must be mentioned that it is a deviation from the NA version). Ultimecia is implied to have brought Griever into life from Squall's thoughts, so I wouldn't say there is no evidence at all for it.
Funny how Ulti can read people's minds, but instead of reading Squall's mind after capturing him, she sets Seifer to extract info from him. ;) Talk about being inefficient...Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 10:52, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what the German version says, but the Japanese version you link there is translated as this: Ultimecia: "Fufu, Memory loss? Such a thing is not the terror of a true GF. Very well, I will teach you pests the true terror of a G.F. This power, show them! Griever!"
Nothing there mentions Shockwave Pulsar specifically, and it is in fact, saying the opposite of what you posted. She is saying that memory loss, the commonly accepted side-effect that people fear regarding GF's, is not what they should be fearing - it is the strength of Griever that they should be afraid of now. She's just taunting you before unleashing Griever's ultimate attack, nothing more. She doesn't even need to "read their minds" to know this. Memory loss due to GF's is a widely known public concern to the point that their use has been stigmatized by all but Balamb SeeD's.
As for the German translation being irrelevant - it is when it either mistranslates or fabricates information, which in this case (I'm assuming based on your words, since I haven't seen the German version), it does. All translations, including English, are irrelevant if they blatantly depart from the basic intent of the Japanese. Unfortunately, we can't possibly sit here and do this level of comparison with every single piece of text in the series, so we, as English speakers, have to take a good chunk on faith. However, that good faith policy shouldn't extend to all other languages as well. If someone from some other country comes along and injects random info onto our wiki that isn't apparent from the English, we gotta fact check it with the original Japanese to make sure it's correct. In this case, it is not. It is either speculation or mistranslation, depending on what the German quote actually says.
And to be fair, I completely agree that this page in particular is filled to the gills with unnecessary, overly speculative information. If I could I would gut 90% of it. Ultimecia is not that big of a character, really, and a couple paragraphs would more than cover everything that could possibly be said about her in FFVIII. This is why I tend to be very picky about any new info that gets added to this page. It's got enough questionable material as it is. Espritduo (talk) 18:45, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
Come on, why else should Ultimecia mention the memory loss issue out of the blue, in the middle of the battle, besides seeing it in their minds and trying to take advantage of it? The fact alone that her first sentence is formulated as a question ("Fufu, memory loss?") strongly indicates that there must have been a proper trigger - a realisation - for her to say something like this. Saying such a thing for no apparent reason, or just taunting, would be a bit.. strange. Ultimecia is surprised here - positively of course, as her spitefulness suggests.
It also doesn't matter if she says either "That's what you afraid of?" (that's what she clearly says in the German version) or "Such a thing is not the true terror of a true GF", as both phrases basically have the same meaning (both imply the party's fear of memory loss). An 1:1 translation isn't always necessary and often not even wise, as long as the translation isn't out of context. In this case, it is not out of context and valid.
Furthermore, don't forget that in the world of FF VIII, memory loss due to GF is just a rumor, or propaganda, spread by GF opposers. It is no general fear among SeeD. Some might believe in those rumors, some not. Squall and his companions didn't care at all until they found out that they are actually true. We also don't know what Ultimecia knows about SeeD practices and what not (hell, she doesn't even know what SeeDs actually are). We don't know for sure if other Gardens use GF or not either (Cerberus - check). But we DO know that memory loss has become quite a personal concern of Squall's team since they discovered the truth during the orphanage flashback near the end of CD 2.
Really, I don't understand why you make such a big fuss about my little addition to the page. It doesn't make less sense than several other things mentioned here, yet you seem to tolerate anything else. Even absolute nonsense like the "fact" that Ultimecia creates the Apocalypse spell by reaching into her own mind was greatly accepted until I finally removed it myself. If Ultimecia had such an ability, she'd never had trouble to make Time Compression come true, since it is also regarded as a spell (and this is only one reason for why this assumption is highly questionable..).
Well, before I forget, here's what the German version says in detail: "Gedächtnisverlust? ...davor habt ihr Angst? Zeig ihnen deine wahre Macht! Zeig es ihnen, Griever!". This traslates to: "Memory loss? That's what you are afraid of...? Show them your true power! Finish them off, Griever!". That's enough to make my addition valid (without mind-erasing attempt through Shockwave Pulsor, of course), no matter how you see things. Cross references to other versions of FF VIII are allowed, as Keltainentoukokuu said. It is not just any unimportant detail. It illustrates Ultimecia's mind-reading abilities, which not necessarily become clear from her mind invasion on Squall alone. Rahbeit (talk) 14:26, April 7, 2013 (UTC)
I think that both the Japanese and the English lines are talking of the same thing, that Shockwave Pulsar is the "GF's true power". English: "The GF's true power... Allow me... To show you...! Griever! Make them bleed!" In Japanese: "Fufu, Memory loss? Such a thing is not the terror of a true GF. Very well, I will teach you pests the true terror of a G.F. This power, show them! Griever!" The German version is maybe less obvious about of what the GF's true power being referred to is. We have mentioned some bigger changes on the wiki, like that when a person's name is different (Cloud is Claud in French, Rinoa is Linoa in French, Seifer is Cypher in German), but I'm not sure a variation as slight as this is needing of a mention. It is already said in the article that Ultimecia can reach into people's minds. Her skills don't always seem too impressive though, as she seems unable to read Edea's mind and never tries to mind-control the party rather than send them to prison to be interrogated.Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 16:03, April 7, 2013 (UTC)
Huh, wasn't it you who was ok with my information being added as long there's a cross reference? Now you have doubts if it is worth adding at all. Strange. I think this information isn't any less valuable than, let's say, Ultimecia's lines at the beginning of the very last battle or her ability to destroy entire stocks of spells. Quite the opposite - her actions during the Griever battle underline how smart Ultimecia is and reveal what she is actually doing while letting Griever fight in her place. I doubt she is just standing nearby and watch it. The Wiki's description of the final battle is quite extensive already, so why not adding this as well? It can't hurt.
Seriously, you people should think about what you really want, maybe creating a proper "rules" section at least. One says this, the other that. Your editing wars rather prevent newcomers from contributing more than motivating them. And to be honest, considering the English version of FF VIII as the canon is a very very bad idea, at least story wise. Heck, the English version doesn't even tell us that Ultimecia has mind-reading abilities! When reading Squall's mind in final battle, she merely says "The most powerful GF.. you shall.. suffer!" IIRC. The formerly mentioned line from the girl in Deling City is imprecise in the English version as well.
About Edea: Well, I think it's only logical that Ultimecia is unable to read Edea's mind, since Edea can't think clearly while she's under Ultimecia's possession. Her mind is suppressed, there is nothing to read. I also think that Ultimecia tried to read Squall's mind in the past already, to find out what SeeDs are. There is a little gap between the first fight against Edea and the awakening in the desert prison. No one can say for sure what exactly happened in-between. If Ultimecia tried to read Squall's mind during that time indeed, she couldn't get an answer out of him, of course, since Squall and the others didn't know about the true meaning of SeeD at that point. Maybe that's why she left Squall to Seifer in the torture chamber, doubting her own abilities.
Well well, speculation over speculation. But don't worry, I won't add any of the latter to the Wiki. Btw, it's Cifer in the German version, not Cypher ;p Rahbeit (talk) 18:12, April 7, 2013 (UTC)
This is one of the most debated pages on the wiki, hardly any wonder there's edit wars on it. Also, rules.
As for my stance: Cut all speculation, including stuff that the German version implies (especially if German contradicts English, but I don't remember the dialogue from the final battle in the English version). Only exception, IMO, is if we keep neutrality: if we mention that R=U is part of the fandom without arguing for or against it, or if we say 'in the German version, Ultimecia is said to have mind-reading abilities." And most people aren't even willing to mention that. C A T U S E 19:00, April 7, 2013 (UTC)
I think information from other translations can be added if it is relevant, but seeing the translations now it doesn't seem to me that the mention of memory loss is relevant to the scene in either the Japanese or the German version (Ultimecia is just propping Shockwave Pulsar in all versions). Maybe this is why they didn't bother including it in the English version.
Since Edea can learn all about Ultimecia's plan while being possessed I assumed her mind was not suppressed. After all when she wakes up from possession she knows very well what has happened. It appears to be a same kind of thing when Squall inhabits Laguna in the flashback scenes, but is wholly conscious during them. Only Squall (and Zell) are unconscious after the parade scene, at least what is told to us, and it appears it was Seifer's personal decision to choose Squall as his informant as opposed to Quistis or Selphie.
This is the English Final Fantasy wiki, but German and Japanese wikis for Final Fantasy also exist that may have info more specific for those versions.Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 00:19, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to associate Shockwave Pulsar with memory loss. Ultimecia scans their minds to see what they fear most, and shows them a power she considers more terrifying than that, which coincidentally is a GF. All there is to it. If Squall was afraid of bears and she said "bears? No, I'll show you true terror", would we say Griever was based on a bear's design? At best, along with her ability to manifest Griever, all that should be said is that Ultimecia can read minds. Doreiku Kuroofangu 02:27, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Why do you keep mentioning the Shockwave Pulsor/memory loss association? I already gave up on this thought and realized it's too speculative/far-fetched for adding to the page. What I want is just a mention that Ultimecia keeps analyzing thoughts during Griever battle, detects their fears and demonstrates a GF's true power afterwards. I don't think it' enough to just say that Ultimecia can read minds. Isn't it also interesting to know when and where she actually makes use of this ability? Then again, there are so many details on the page already, so why not this as well? For the sake of completion of the battle description. Stop being so nit-picky.
"Maybe this is why they didn't bother including it in the English version."
I doubt it. As I already said, the English version leaves out some important things (Ultimecia's mind-reading ability) and makes certain facts more ambiguous than necessary. What about the death of sorceresses, for example? In the English version, Edea states that a sorceress has to get rid of her powers in order to die "in peace" whereas in the JP/Ger version it becomes perfectly clear that a sorceress can't die AT ALL before she passes on her powers. I actually thought it is quite widespread that the English translation belongs to the worse ones. Looks like I was wrong since there people here who defend it.. Sorry, but this quote is purely euphemistic.
And well, just because Edea is able to witness Ultimecias actions and plans doesn't necessarily mean that there's enough room for her own thoughts. There surely is some disturbance which could already be enough to render Ultimecia unable to reach into her mind. But well, maybe Square just messed it all up back then. This whole story is a bit overcomplex anyway. Rahbeit (talk) 12:49, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
I think we could just say, "In the Japanese/German... bla, bla bla". Don't think it's such a big deal. I asked about this because I didn't know if there was a source. If there is one, then fine by me.. I didn't like the Shockwave Pulsor/memory loss association, but you've already said you also don't think it's a good idea. SetzerLeonhart (talk) 15:34, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
It's not obvious in the English release that she analyses the party's thoughts, so if you want to include it needs to be more specific than what you said there. Just so there is no confusion, as most readers for this wiki are from North America. It may be better suited for trivia in the Griever boss article? If we wanted to include examples of Ultimecia's mind-reading abilities, then I think the bit where she examines Seifer's mind to learn about his dreams and fears and then uses them to make him join her cause, would be the best example? It's less esoteric anyway since it is also present in the English version of the game.Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 15:43, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

I am kinda confused about what the discussion is here. Whatever happens in the Japanese version is what actually happens. Anything lost in translation still needs to be mentioned. We're a wiki. We give content. We don't just ignore the content in the Ultimania because it hasn't had an official translation to taint it. 16:11, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Keltainentoukokuu, I was fine with your edit when you added the cross reference to other versions of the game. I'd like to go back to this + the little changes Espritduo made. Nevertheless, I don't really see why you are so keen on mentioning it. There is no cross reference here either when it comes to Ultimecia's mind-invasion on Squall. Again, the English version completely hides it. The Japanese version should be canon when it comes to story-details. Anything else makes little sense, especially since it's unlikely that the English translation was created in direct contact with the developers. Besides that, some things on the page are formulated as a fact that shouldn't (mainly in the Abilities section). No sources are given either. So what?
Good point with Seifer and Ultimecia reading his mind btw. I've never taken into consideration that this could be a mind-invasion as well. However, IMO this hardly isn't any less esoteric than the other thing. Why not adding the same information to several pages instead of only one? As long as it fits in, I don't see any reason against it. Rahbeit (talk) 17:04, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Ultimecia = Wormwood? Edit

Admittedly this is rather theoretical, but it should be noted that Artemisia is a genus of plants that includes wormwood, a plant used in absinthe. Wormwood is also the name of a star appearing in Revelations; so does Ultimecia's name imply poison and destruction as well?

Image Edit

Just one question (sorry if my english is bad). Is there any reason why the main picture of this article is a screenshot and not Ultimecia's artwork? --Con Carne (talk) 19:35, September 18, 2015 (UTC)

Why would it be her artwork?Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 23:24, September 18, 2015 (UTC)
Look all the other articles: villains, non-playable characters, monsters... most of them have their respective artworks as the main picture. (The ones which doesn't have it is because that character doesn't have an official artwork). --Con Carne (talk) 01:50, September 19, 2015 (UTC)
There is no general rule on what the intro pic should be for NPCs (orany character that doesn't have an info box), so anyone can set it to whatever. The artwork that exists for Ultimecia on this wiki has never been used by SE to promote her, unlike with most artworks. It's just a little extra from the 25th Anniversary Ultimania.Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 16:59, September 19, 2015 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.