Forum:Spells and other abilities

Forums: Index > The Labyrinth of Time > Spells and other abilities

Okay, I don't want to just argue with people here. I want to come to conclusions. The wiki doesn't do this a lot. Things on the agenda include the annihilation of the "Spell" tag in place for the "Ability" tag. The article justification in terms of spells and abilities. The List of articles for Spells and Abilities. Since there are three topics on one article, I'll split each subject into it's own h2, so topics don't get mixed and confused and it still makes sense. If you want to comment on more than one problem, write under more than one section, simple? 79.64.142.83 13:17, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Bumping for great justice! (I just want conclusions really) 88.108.97.77 (same woman behind the IP as above) 13:50, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Spell-Ability tags

There has been some discussion about this here, and I think it's pretty much confirmed, but there has only been one admin interest, and no changes going on in the wiki. The current rules are anything that comes up under a Magic skillset gets the "Spell" tag. Other abilities that aren't in the Magic Skillset, or enemy abilities get the "Ability" tag. Bearing in mind that spells are a division of abilities.

Blue Magic use the "Spell" tag. In my opinion, they're not really spells, more a skill they learned from other enemies. If this were not a Blue Magic, the tag would be "Ability". Some Blue Magic articles have been moved to the "Ability" tag during the Enemy Ability project, since in some games it's not Blue Magic but is still an enemy ability.

But in games where it is both an enemy ability and a Blue Magic, technically it should be at the "Ability" tag since it's still an enemy ability and a Blue Magic spell.

The easiest way to resolve the problem is to not use a Spell tag since it's just a division of the Ability tag anyway. So the proposal is we use "Ability" tag in all cases. If there is ever two articles at a disambig, two different abilities, one using a "Spell" tag and another using "Ability", this will be decided on a case-by-case basis. The general rules should be if they can't be merged, and both names are the most up-to-date, and they appear in more than one game or series, only then is "Spell" used, assuming it is only ever an ability in a "Magic" skillset.

Confirm proposal? 79.64.142.83 13:17, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed by me. — Yuan^Salve!_Acta 01:04, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Article justification

Something discussed lots of times, but it's just the same argument really. Currently every spell gets an article. And it has sort of been decided that every ability needs to covered in an article. Except in the case of XI, where an article is only created if the ability is used by more than one job, or enemy genus. If not then there is a redirect to the appropriate job or enemy genus.

There still needs to be a decision on how to divide up abilities in skillsets. Final Fantasy X treats it's Skills and Specials just like White Magic and Black Magic. With that justification, Template:FFX Abilities covers each of its abilities. Some of the abilities share an article though, in terms of Attacks and its Buster partner.

Discuss. 79.64.142.83 13:17, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify your point. What, exactly, do you want us to discuss? — Yuan^Salve!_Acta 01:04, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, there isn't a point as such. It's just the whole "what do we make an article for in terms of abilities" cropping up again. What we have so far is:

• XI is excluded from the other rules and is already decided on
• Every menu ability is covered
• Every menu skillset is covered
• Every White Magic ability is covered
• Every Black Magic ability is covered
• While summon abilities aren't technically covered until they recur a lot and serve purposes in different places, the Summon Monsters are covered
• Every ability in Final Fantasy X's Skill and Special skillsets are covered.

I just want to know if we're actually going ahead with the whole "every user ability ever (except in XI because it's too big)" thing. Which means we'll have to make a "Gale (Ability)" article for the two Ninjustsu abilities and the XII enemy ability; and the abilities like Sky that currently redirect to a skillset will get an article.

I'm not in full support of this. But that's because the magic = any other ability debate is too confusing for me. I don't mind either way. But I don't know what's going on. 79.64.183.254 14:31, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

List ofs

This topic just came up in a conversation -sort of- on Template talk:Magic. Well really it's just me talking to myself.

Currently all White Magic, Black Magic, Blue Magic, Other Magic, and Summon Magic (we do this because I chose to, no admin decisions of course >:3) is mentioned on the List of Spells article. All other abilities are on the List of Abilities article. I was going to use X as an example, but that's been fixed. By me and some other users working under the radar avoiding admin discussion. Yeah, that's how we roll.

So I'll use Final Fantasy IX as an example instead. We have List of Final Fantasy IX Abilities, which has main links to List of Final Fantasy IX Spells. Yeah, okay, every other skillset is also mained, but then we should call the articles "Black Magic (Final Fantasy IX)", "White Magic (Final Fantasy IX)" and "Summon (Final Fantasy IX)" (we could put them on Eidolon (Final Fantasy IX), but the commands called "Summon" at most times, the articles are about the command. This can then be mained on the Eidolon article still) --Anyone who wishes to bring up the fact that we used to have a White and Black Magic article for Final Fantasy IX before they became redundant as we had a List of IX Spells article, and it was my decision to remove the Black and White magic articles in-place for this one List of IX Spells article has no need to bring it up since I've just told you. If I foresaw the problem of "hey, spells are just glorified abilities" earlier, then this wouldn't have happened.

Grr, the biggest problem with the List of Ability articles is we have no consistency. For the most part, we've split Command and Support abilities. Games like Final Fantasy IV and Final Fantasy VI list all the commands on the menu screen (so, the commands and skillsets) but don't go into the details, all in a table. And Final Fantasy IX does a header for each character, and then tables (or mains to) all their skillset data. But in this game character's don't have menu abilities, just skillsets. Final Fantasy X-2 has a support abilities article, but they don't have one for commands. Which implies that there's no commands in that game which is a lie. They're just all on the individual job articles. But Final Fantasy V manages to do it alright. Is is because there are far less abilities? Well, it's more likely because all of X-2's jobs have massive skillsets. But then we can just use mains, or links in the tables. There doesn't need to be duplicated information for there to be a Command abilities article.

So X-2 treats spells and other abilities equally essentially. Black Magic is the skillset of the Black Mage, Gunplay is the skillset of the Gunner. And yet we have a List of Final Fantasy X-2 Spells article. Which just doesn't make any sense to me. Why these skillsets are on an article and things like Gunplay aren't.

I suppose Abilities just work differently in every game, we have to work around that. What I think?

Every skillset gets a page, and is then mained, or linked to on a table on the List of Abilities article, and then mained on the character or job article. Alternatively, we could just put them on the character and job articles, and main to them from the abilities article, and redirect to them/link to them on parents of the name. (So Gunplay redirects to the "Gunner" article (unlike it does right now))

We have no List of Spells article. These are all divided up and placed in their own skillset articles (or on the job and character articles if we choose that route).

No matter Command, Support, or any other ability, they go on one article.

Discuss. 79.64.142.83 13:17, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

What about Red Mages, and other classes that use multiple types of magic? Either way, you're going to have duplicate information. How about games without skillsets? — Yuan^Salve!_Acta 01:04, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Red Mages use Black and White Magic. If Magic is treated as two separate skillsets, then we have a "Black Magic (FF*)" article and a "White Magic (FF*)" article. On them, we list who can learn them: Okay, so Black Mage will be on all of them, and Red Mage on less, but still.

If, like in FFI, they're all "Magic", then we create a page called "Magic (Final Fantasy)". On that page we divide them by Black and White Magic. Then we'd list who can learn what.

Or alternatively, these lists can go on a "List of Final Fantasy Abilities" page; and then a cut version of the table can go on the job articles. Basically, the column with which job class can learn them will be removed, and any notes about differences between users if applicable. I'm personally fine with there being duplicate information to an extent. I'm mainly thinking up ways around it for all the haters out there who have used it as an excuse.

As for games without skillsets, most games have skillsets. All games have skillsets if we say "Magic" is a skillset. Games like IV mix them up, so we have the "Summon", "Black Magic", "White Magic", "Ninja Magic" skillsets (there may be more)-- currently on List of Final Fantasy IV Abilities we link to "Black Magic" instead of "List of Final Fantasy IV Spells#Black Magic" (where we should since that's where it's covered). This could be changed so we link there. And not cover the individual skills on the page. All of the skillsets are magic skillsets, and are currently on [[List of Final Fantasy IV Spells]] (oh, we also have the Twin magic on there as well, which could easily find a place elsewhere). This article can be split up and move everything to their own skillset articles.

Something I didn't mention earlier, I once did a parent article, and I accidentally stopped thinking, and I merged the "Bushido (Final Fantasy VI)" and "Bushido (Final Fantasy X)" article into Bushido. Table and all. If this is something the wiki wishes to pursue, we don't have to make "Black Magic (Final Fantasy IV)", "Black Magic (Final Fantasy IX)", "Black Magic (Final Fantasy X)", but instead make "Black Magic (Skillset)" and feature everything on there. Or just on "Black Magic". But I was just thinking that might serve better as more of a storyline/overview purpose whereas the Skillset article will just be about the skills. But it's not like that now, so it doesn't really matter.

And I've just seen "Black Magic (Final Fantasy)". Apart from the fact it doesn't cover PSP names (Japanese can easily be removed, have Origins and DoS moved along and then PSP put at the end, then all the names rowspanned 2, and FFIa classed (sorry, this is irrelevant, but it's wrong). This is covered better than it already is on List of Final Fantasy Spells. I'm wondering if we should actually merge "Black Magic (Final Fantasy)" and White Mage (Final Fantasy) or not now. We should merge the BM and WM FFI articles. 79.64.183.254 14:31, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to create pages for every single skillset out there (the Tactics, Tactics Advance, and Tactics A2 jobs and skillsets make that... a lot), plus I think the current Tactics series lineup of placing skillset tables on the job pages is nice. FFX-2 does that too. We do currently have FFV skillsets on their own pages (such as Dark Arts (Final Fantasy V)), that I think could be merged onto their respective Job pages.

I disagree with combining different skillsets from a certain game onto one page. It should be either a List of Abilities page covering all abilities in the game, a page for a single skillset, or a recurring skillset page with tables listing all the abilities in each game. Maybe we don't need to do the same thing for each game? Let me organize how these are set up with sections below.

Oh, also, the skillsets section on the [[Template:Abilities|Abilities template]] lists all (most) of the skillsets that stand on their own pages. Creating a page for each skillset would flood that page. Perhaps we could come to an agreement that recurring skillsets (3+ ?) be compiled on one page and less recurring ones redirect to list of abilities pages or be left on job pages. 8bit 03:28, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Disagweees. There should be a List of Abilities article whether the skills are on job articles or not -- just to unite all the skills somewhere. Secondly, I disagwee with your statement saying we shouldn't make an article for every skillset. Wasn't it said that every skill can get an article? We're backtracking here. Okay, "Template:FFX Abilities". There are four core skillsets in this game (item counts as one too though, and character's overdrives) and each skill in these skillsets are covered. This was done on a consensus of everyone who gave their opinion. And now you're saying we shouldn't even cover every skillset? Skillsets are the containers of skills, and are therefore more important and merit articles. If you're saying Hell Thundaga merits an article more than a skillset from Tactics Advance, why?

If we're not going to make pages for each skillset, we still need the list of abilities to parent all of them though. To find all the skills in the game, you have to traverse all the job pages at the moment and that's annoying. But no one notices these gaps in the wiki because they always view it from the perspective of an editor, not of a reader.

Why would you disagree to combining skillsets onto one page when they don't have a home at their own article? Again, "List of"s need to parent them all. Each skillset gets a "main" link, but if there's nothing to main too then why shouldn't the table go on there? Also, I think it looks untidy to have to main to the abilities section on a job or character article.

Or if you're referring to merging "White Magic (Final Fantasy)" and "Black Mage (Final Fantasy)" you should probably take a look at what the skillset is called before you say that. Black Magic and White Magic are one skillset and should therefore go in one article. We should define whether they are black or white in that article, but they should still be in one article.

Maybe we don't need to do the same thing for each game? Each game is practically the same in terms of how it works. Instead of characters there are jobs in some games however. There's no reason why FFV should do it one way and Tactics should do it another- since "it's how we do it now" isn't sufficient justification. Our current structure isn't logical. People do it one way with one game because another game does it that way, or because it's what they think is right.

• Individual pages for each skillset: This is what I'm going for.
• Skillsets on job pages: It looks nice on the job articles, and I think we should do this. It's what we do for characters. You have to treat playable characters and jobs the same. But we need the "List of" article, and it doesn't seem right linking to the section of the job article, for me anyway. Secondly, you mention different names in different games. I noticed that. If the skillsets are comparable enough to say they are the same skillset with different names, then parent under most recent name.
• Other: This doesn't count. No doubt, there will have to be parents. If there are two skillsets which are very similar, or have the same derivation, then there should be a parent. It's whether we decide to make child articles, or keep them both on one article. Bushido could be one article, or it could be four. We could make "Bushido (Final Fantasy VI)", "Bushido (Final Fantasy X)", and "Bushido (Final Fantasy X-2)", move all the details to them articles. On the parent it is then discussed what the basics of the skillset, and how it compares to the other skillsets in the series. (The X-2 section has no main link, why don't people think? Those two sentences don't help someone who wants to find about the Bushido skillset) 88.108.137.169 14:15, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Er, so you want to use all three methods? I wasn't disagreeing with covering all abilities on List of Abilities pages regardless of where the skillset pages are (sorry if I made it seem that way). You said you like individual pages and skillsets on job articles, when it can just be one or the other: "There's no reason why FFV should do it one way and Tactics should do it another".

So which one do we like? If you like the idea of skillsets having their own pages, we can conform the Tactics series to have individual skillset pages. Parent pages needed, especially with the White/Black/Time Magicks. I would like to have similar skillsets all on the parent page, with tables, and not have the Bushido (Final Fantasy VI), Bushido (Final Fantasy X), etc. It would help a lot with getting similar Tactics Advance and Tactics A2 skillsets on the same page and not have short, table-less parent pages. 8bit 16:48, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

I've just remembered something. There are two pages that require the skillset information (either linked to, or actually on) - the character/job article, and the List of Abilities article.

If the skillset doesn't have an article, we usually have a table on both articles (in games that have a List of Abilities article anyway), or if not, we have it on one or mained on the other. Or we have the skillset article, and both main to it. Two tables seems fine, but the data should be connected. Also, on the character/job page, there is no text comparison of the skillset to similar skillsets in the series. And on the abilities page there is only a text comparison to other skillsets in the game, not in the series. The place for comparing to similar skillsets in the series is on a parent, or its own article.

If we put the table on one, and main the other to it, it makes one sound more important than the other, since I can't think of a justification strong enough that says the full-information should go on the list-of or character/job article.

OKAY- so I believe we should put skillsets on designated articles

To decide whether we should put them on subpages or not, you have to think about the amount of games that have the black magic skillset (so not Final Fantasy, although it would get a mention on the page, maining the "Magic" skillset article), and the amount of black magic spells in each game with it.

So, the Tactics series are built up of small skillsets, right? How about a row limit? If a skillset has more than ten abilities, it can have its own article. Bear in mind each entry should have an image. But that doesn't seem right because it makes some skillsets look more important than others, when the difference is they might have one more skill. We could do it on a case-by-case basis, but then what do we decide it on?

So, we could justify it by saying "if more than one character can access the skillset it can get its own page". It shows it's more important, there are more likely to be more skills too.

So is 8bitz fine with that? And if he is, is other admin fine with that? (technically we should work on a consensus controlled by admins, no one really cares) 88.108.137.169 20:46, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

By "more than one character", you mean it is not a skillset exclusive to a single character? So, the Flintlock's "Ballistics" would get its own page, while Adelle's Instinct would not. That sounds good. We can cover a character-exclusive job on one page and keep its skillset on that same page. I think I would rather just cover all other skillsets, even if they have a little less than ten abilities. Because then we get into passive abilities and reaction abilities, which Tactics, TA, and TA2 jobs feature.

Sometimes the List of Abilities pages do not organize abilities by job; instead, they organize alphabetically. So the job page can definitely link to the skillset page. Every ability in a game should be in the respective List of Abilities page instead of linking to another page, IMO. That would Perhaps we could have the LoA pages list alphabetically every ability, and then have a separate section that links to skillset pages? "Two tables seems fine, but the data should be connected." - sure, maybe just organize them slightly differently. Maybe that's going too far for now. Are you okay with everything I said before "perhaps"? I do agree with maining the skillset article from the job page on non-single-character-exclusive jobs, though. 8bit 04:41, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Yes! Although, the XI "List of Abilities" page is excluded from these rules. Everything is mained on that since we'd have to have a billion subpages otherwise, Boy, can't wait for XIV :3 88.108.120.183 12:52, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

So, [[List of Final Fantasy XI Spells#White Magic]] will be moved to "White Magic (Final Fantasy IX)". This article will also be linked to through "main" on a White Magic article (see:below), and it would be linked to on List of IX Abilities (however, the table would be present somewhere in there too) --skillsets are on an equal level to other commands. So Edge's "Throw" command and his "Ninja" skillset. Look at List of Final Fantasy IV Abilities (i hate this page btw), this one doesn't cover the individual skills in skillsets. Instead there are links to the skillsets (or there should be, I haven't checked). A game like IX which works mostly with Skillsets (OMGz, the IX Abilities article has been changed to have its skillsets removed (and not mained), but anyway) Gawd, I'm re-realising how much I actually hate this wiki.

Wants sandbox but does not want to make account. Anyway, what I'm saying is I think we should not have skillsets tables on the List of Abilities articles, instead I believe we should treat the skillset name as another command, like List of Final Fantasy IV Abilities does (but not really) - if you want the abilities pages to all merge into one like that. If you still want to seperate by characters (like IX), then mains.

On the character articles, like Garnet or Eiko, we could then display a cut table, which removes the "user" column, and then removes all the other character exclusive abilities, also removes the equipment only one can equip (I can't remember but there's got to be some) -- or, we just use main instead and forget the table

As for the "White Magic" article... I think the "White Magic" article should be about White Magic in the series, and it could also reference storyline importance in particular games. And then on this article should be a section for command (/skillset), which mains "White Magic (Command)", which has each individual appearance.

After we've decided everything, we need an abilities policy page... all of this is really confusing. 88.108.120.183 12:52, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, FFXI and eventually FFXIV abilities will be contained on job articles.

So you do want to do the individual skillset pages? Er... makmdksakdjslkajdlksd. But then I read the rest of that paragraph and it makes sense. FFIV goes the extreme skillset way, which I also dislike. List of Abilities is a list of abilities, not skillsets.

"I think we should not have skillsets tables on the List of Abilities articles, instead I believe we should treat the skillset name as another command" - asdkjas. It would seem nice to main everything to skillsets, but I still think the Lists of Abilities could do things alphabetically, or in another way different from skillset by skillset. Not like FFIV.

Main would work, I think there's no need for a cut table. That's just my opinion, it might actually look nice.

Well, it works for big things like White Magic and Summon, but we're not going to get anywhere with stuff like "Ballistics" or "Elemental Magick". Or maybe...?

I started to alter the abilities section of the MoS but then I forgot and now it looks failish. I'm bad at these things. 8bit 20:41, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Disagwees! You linked to Black Magick, I assume you meant Black Magic? - and Status Effect. Both these articles are awful. Because they give no indication of which statuses in which game. I hid the VII status table (directly from the manual, there are more statuses) in "Status Effect" a while back. And I started a discussion on the talk page. I don't know what happened. But the Status Effects article helps few people. Yes, people can just click on the links to find out the appearances, but no.

We need a proper "Appearances" section. And in these sections we can add all the tables we have scattered over our inconsistent wikis, or the main links in certain cases. (X, not IX, I (though the link should be to "Magic (Final Fantasy)" as that's the name of the skillset), IV (just examples))

Currently, the Black Magic page helps no one. "I want to see what the best Black Magic spells are in the original Final Fantasy". So I'd type in "Black Magic". "Do I look in game-specific, or recurring? I don't know, I only own FFI."

Now I realise that's not a very good example since we have the see also section. But we only have the "See also" for FFI, FFV, and the Ivalice alliance. So if we were to use another game as an example, our userbase would be lost. That's what wikis are for. Easy navigation to content. That's why we have links everytime we have an article on a matter. 88.108.120.183 11:34, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Current Skillset Structure

Individual pages for each skillset in the game

• Final Fantasy IX (examples: Skill (Final Fantasy IX), Dragon (Command), Seiken)
• Final Fantasy VI: (examples: Blitz (Final Fantasy VI), Magitek (Command))
• Final Fantasy V: (examples: White Magic (Final Fantasy V), Dark Arts (Final Fantasy V), Combine (Final Fantasy V))

Skillsets listed on their respective job pages

• Final Fantasy Tactics: examples: Black Magick on Black Mage (Tactics), Priest Magicks on Celebrant)
• Final Fantasy Tactics Advance: (examples: Pandora on Gadgeteer, Spellblade Tech Gladiator (Tactics Advance))
• Final Fantasy Tactics A2: (examples: High Magick on Seer, Sparring on Gladiator (Tactics A2)) Notice how the Gladiator skillset in Tactics Advance and the one in Tactics A2 have different names.

Other (Mostly skillset lists of multiple games, maybe?)

• Bushido