Template talk:Summons

From Final Fantasy Wiki

Contents 1 Horizontal? 2 Colours 3 Revenant Wings 4 TA 5 Yummy. 6 Ivalice Summons 7 Summon Abilities 8 Oath is not summoning

[edit] Horizontal?

Is there any way we can give these templates a more horizontal feel? Crazyswordsman 23:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but in this case, it is a bad idea, since another template, which includes a picture, is depending on this one to remain the way it is. And to put it simply, trying to stretch out a template to 100%, when it includes a picture, is just plain stupid. The entire purpose of having "side bars" is allow the user to see, and have access to, related articles, without having to scroll down to the bottom of the page. In some instances, it is an advantage to have a 100% width template at the buttom, but that is usually for relatively short articles, where the template is just a list of names (meaning no images) relating to only one thing, that isn't divided by game. In another sence, this template, nor Template:Summon fall under the category of templates that should be stretched to 100% and put at the buttom. They should remain Side bars. --Hecko X 10:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colours

I think some colors on this would be nice. Since it is so gargantuan on a page on which it has been used. Yes. --Auron Kaizer 22:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions --Lycentia

Also, edit the lnik for Chocobo, or something. In some games, it's not just a Chocobo, like in FFVII, it's Choco/mog.--Puck Udroc 00:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revenant Wings

Diablocon - No, the question is; who art thou, ham planks? Shanks! I meant shanks TALK - 17:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Check here for all the summons in Revenant Wings. As I thought, a lot of summons are now bumped up to recurring because of it, although some I've still to move until I get more news (like Tonberry and Bomb). It's interesting to note that Zeromus and Adramellech aren't in Revenant Wings, technically making them the only non-recurring summons from FFXII (but since RW is part of FFXII, I'm not bumping them to Recurring).

Ser Blue says at 17:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Questions: 1. Who are Sagittarius and Aquarius? 2. So Cu Sith is a Summon? 3.Isn't Shemhazai represented by Sagittarius? 4. Isn't Famfrit represented by Aquarius? 5. 51 summons is a lot of summons (not a question i know)

[edit] TA

Lycentia - Veni, Vidi, Visa I Came, I Saw, I Shopped - 18:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Shouldn't we add the Totema to this?

Diablocon - No, the question is; who art thou, ham planks? Shanks! I meant shanks TALK - 18:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC) There's debate whether they're summons in the tradtional sense. The Totema already have their own exclusive template too.

[edit] Yummy.

Crazyswordsman - Final Fantasy VI, because Drake says he wants to link to FF7 every day, which is bad because that game is so far inferior to FF6. TALK - 02:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC) It feels soooooo good...

Mymindislost - You made me forget my dreams when I woke up to you sleeping... TALK - 02:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Hooray for collapsible templates! Why does this feel like the dawning of a new era to me? Weird... O_o The templates are still awesome, though! ^_^

Lycentia - Veni, Vidi, Visa I Came, I Saw, I Shopped - 02:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Now if only we could get some of the tables of contents to do that too. ^_^

Diablocon - No, the question is; who art thou, ham planks? Shanks! I meant shanks TALK - 12:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Should I go ahead and apply it to other templates, like the FFVI and XII ones, both giants compared to this one.

[edit] Ivalice Summons

Diablocon - No, the question is; who art thou, ham planks? Shanks! I meant shanks TALK - 10:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC) To make life easier, mostly due to FFXII, RW and FFTA2, I've put all the Ivalice exclusive summons under the one banner. So while Belias is recurring, he's only recurring in the world of Ivalice. Thoughts?

[edit] Summon Abilities

With pages like Mega Flare, Zantetsuken and Big Bang floating around, should we create a section for summon abilities?  ILHI ^(W/B) 22:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

 ILHI ^(W/B) 15:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds resonable. Diablocon 15:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. - Henryacores^ 16:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Xenomic TALK - 03:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I'm also curious if we shouldn't have a "List of Summons" articles for each game as well, seeing as we have one for spells, items, enemy abilities, and so forth?

16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC) List of Summons suffices. There aren't as many summons in a game as there is spell/items/enemy abilities.

Just a note for this, future pages for Summon Abilities should be limited to abilities that are used in some capacity beyond the summon's attack. Like, Zantetsuken and Mega Flare are examples where the ability has a profile beyond the summon that uses it, but an ability like say, Rebirth Flame, does not have such a profile. And if we create pages for abilities with no role beyond a summon's attack, the pages will just end up reiterating the same information as the summon pages. Drake Clawfang 04:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Xenomic TALK - 04:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Agreed. I like the idea of that, since it is useful.

09:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Disagrees. Although the pages are always monotonous, THEY HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF INFORMATION AS SPELL PAGES. Fire is always a weak fire-elemental spell. Yeah. Judgment Bolt is always a powerful lightning-elemental spell. The things that change are MP costs. And we can add those, I didn't. Although, summon abilities can talk about which summon uses it. There are two summons which have Judgment Bolt. So, yeah, disagrees.

You miss my point, ILHI. An ability like Zantetsuken is both a summon attack, an enemy attack and on occasions a weapon and an ability for the party. But something like Rebirth Flame (Phoenix), or Earth Wall (Golem), has no such role, it's a summon's attack and that's all it is. They have no significance outside the summon, and if we were to create a Rebirth Flame page, it would likely end up being a list of "in this game, Phoenix Rebirth Flame revives all party members" - ie, just reiterating what Phoenix's page already says, simply with a narrative focus on the attack instead of the summon. Drake Clawfang 19:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

TenzaZangetsu 11,965   -   "But what does it mean to be "correct" or "true"? Merely vague concepts...": Yeah, but they are recurring, such as Mega Flare because is the signature attack of that summon and adding a description is a good idea but not in the template.

20:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Talkboxes are annoying because you can't use the colon format to show who you're replying to. @Drake: YES! I try to create articles that are enemy abilities and summon abilities. Therefore a true parent. So I created Chef's Knife and Big Bang. Not because they were summon abilities, but because they were AS WELL. And then I created Hellfire because it was a summon attack and appeared elsewhere. And then I created Diamond Dust because it was a counterpart, and Judgment Bolt because it's the third one. Judgment Bolt is the summon attack of Ramuh AND and Ivalice summon. That's good, isn't it? Really, I hoped for more, but Ramuh doesn't appear in Crisis Core, or FFX/X-2. Which means he misses out on the enemy abilities. Still. I want to create a "Rebirth Flame" article. Probably a little redundant with the Phoenix article, but Phoenix appears in Crisis Core, so I assume his attack is Rebirth Flame there. I'll look into it and make a decision based off the variety. I still think it should be made though. We have a page for Big Bang and Chef's Knife, but not for the more popular ones.

20:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Also, note, one benefit of these articles is PEOPLE ACTUALLY RECOGNISE WHAT THE SUMMON ABILITIES ARE CALLED IN EACH GAME. I expect to know all of their attack names by looking at the summon articles, BUT I DON'T.

[edit] Oath is not summoning

I came to the conclusion of removing the monsters called by Necromancer's Oath-ability in FF V, since similar abilities include the Archer's animals and Relm's sketches, but they are not listed in the template either. This template should only mention the proper summons listed in the List of Summons -article, and I hope we can all agree on this.SamSandy 08:15, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

We've been discussing this, and no concluison has been reached. Primarily because of certain user' stubbornness. I for once don't think they should be there either, but a consensus should be reached before taking decisive actions. - +DeadlySlashSword+ 14:34, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

This brings up a good point - Is Relm's "Sketch" ability considered summoning? It uses monsters to attack. The obvious answer is "no"; the Sketch ability is covered on each enemy page and this is more like Blue Magic than Summoning. It makes us think what the parameters of summoning are, though. Oath is.... more summon-like that Sketch, IMO, because it does not rely on encountered enemies. 8bit 17:16, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Fuck you. That's not why we haven't come to a climax, the reason is because this is always what happens on the wiki. We never decide anything. There's a discussion... and that's it.

"stubbornness"? Fuck you. I've stated many points, and I can keep my argument going. And when you make comments like the one you did above... well that shows it then. You don't attack my points, you make pointless comments that add nothing.

They stay until an admin says something. But none of our admins do anything like that. But of course, the admin's decision has to be educated. "To end an argument" is BS.

I actually don't know what any of your problems are. So if we created all these other pages, would you have a problem? I never said we shouldn't. I said we can make an article about an Oath summon (because they are called into battle, and that's what makes a summon a summon: Crisis Core doesn't have a command. Crisis Core doesn't give you a choice) and make it long enough to match any other summon article. Of course, are one example of such a thing is still at a degree of fail, just like everything else on the wiki is.  ILHI ^(W/B) 17:18, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Why is it so hard for you to admit that you're wrong on this, ILHI? There are many examples of skill sets similar to Oath in the series, such as Archer's animals, Relm's Sketch, Setzer's and Cait Sith's slots etc., yet you aren't campaigning to get them added to the template. Oath is not equal to summoning any more than the rest of my examples, and there's a concensus on this with every one else except you. Having the skillset in this template is nothing but disturbing, it should really belong somewhere else.SamSandy 20:55, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Admitting to what? You ignore my comments.  ILHI ^(W/B) 16:46, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Oaths aren't even listed in any Summon's pages. Why add it to the Template? And honestly.. who cares -- Kyrel 21:14, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

And... your point is? We haven't got a template for Final Fantasy XV. We should never make an article about Final Fantasy XV because we don't have a template for the game.  ILHI ^(W/B) 16:46, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

I thought about it,and I have to agree, why Oath considered a form of Summoning? It seems to me it's just like Animals, and that's not Summoning. Drake Clawfang 22:19, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Because of what I have said. You people are blind, I swear.  ILHI ^(W/B) 16:46, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

We disagree with you, and we're blind and you're right? Drake Clawfang 17:24, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

This is similar to what was on the Animals page, though. Even though the only occurrence of Animals was in a V skillset, the page had random references to almost any ability that involved animals. There's a difference between Slots and Oath; Oath simply calls a monster to attack; Slots relies on a system that may not call a monster. But I can see where people may say that Animals, etc. should be included if Oath is included. I think that unless we limit the Summons template to traditional summons,, Eidolons, Aeons, Espers, etc., or anything called upon by a Summoner class, the Oath's collection of monsters will not be the only ones joining the template. It is either exclusive or subjective. 8bit 17:36, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

I say don't include them. Just because an ability summons a monster to attack does not instantly mean it's a summon. Drake Clawfang 18:19, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Just because an ability summons a monster to attack does not instantly mean it's a summon.

Which explains why a couple of users have expressed dislike for the term "summon" as a noun to describe these creatures. "A summoned monster is not a summon!" Kays. Let us then define summons as any entity called by the Summoner Job Class, or one labeled as an Aeon, Avatar, Eidolon, Esper, Guardian Force, or Yarhi, and those called upon by a Summonstone, Summon Materia, or any similar item. Do you all likes? 8bit 18:25, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that summons can be defined by relations. FF8's monsters are never specifically called summons, but they are summon-able, most of them are Summons in other games and share the names of summons, etc. I like to think our userbase is smart enough to tell when something is and is not a summon, but I guess not if we have to set a definition. So yeah, agree with your definition 8-Bit. Drake Clawfang 18:38, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

19:18, November 19, 2009 (UTC) Because people always fail when using Wiki to show a discussion, I'll just make the discussion one string. We disagree with you, and we're blind and you're right? No, you're blind because I present an argument, and then you don't read the argument. How can Oath be considered a form of summoning? Because the monsters are called-forth, because the monsters are summoned. That's how. Okay, right, those called forth via the Oath command don't actually have to be monsters. The criteria was "an undead creature", right? I imagine so anyway. But they didn't create new ones, they just reused names and sprites from already existing enemies. So I don't think you can really say what enemies are called from the Oath command are "just summonable enemies". Because that's what Bomb, Cockatrice, Mindflayer, and Goblin were. I've been told that you might not be able to choose the monster when using the Oath command. If this is actually so, take a look at how the DMW works in Crisis Core. You can't choose which summon. And then the command isn't called "summon", "call", or something similar, but Crisis Core doesn't have a command at all. Actually, it's pointless arguing here until I actually know what you guys are trying to argue. Is the problem that these are featured on the "Summons" template? Because I don't see that as much of a problem at all. Or is your problem that they get pages? Because I can think of a million other minor abilities that get pages. Take our entire spells collection for example. Each spell is a member of a skillset: Black Magic, White Magic, and the rest. These can all be covered in their respective pages too: So at a "[colour] Magic (Final Fantasy *)" article. But we don't. So I want to know what the real problem is.

The problem is they aren't summons, any more than Animals, Slots, etc. Calling a monster to attack does not instantly mean it's a form of Summoning. Animals calls animals to attack, is that a form of summoning? Do we create pages for all the creatures called by Animals now? Drake Clawfang 19:21, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

The 'problem' here is considering Oath monsters summons. I think you misinterpreted SamSandy's and DSS's wanting to remove the individual Oath monster pages from this template, ILHI. They weren't opposed because they were individual pages, but because they were not considered Summons at fit to be on this template. Yes, individual ability pages will be made. This is known, I think only Xeno disagreed with that. I also now do not think that the individual Oath monsters' pages should be on this Summon template. 8bit 19:25, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

No, there's been two arguments going at the same time that are very similar, and then I got a little lost. Cuz originally it started here, where I was arguing two things.  ILHI ^(W/B) 19:32, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, these discussions have been spanning multiple talk pages o.O Basically, on this page, it's been mostly "Keep Summon Template pure from ebul Oath monsters", while on Flamemancer, it was the creation of those individual pages themselves. I think I will remove the Oath monsters from this template, unless you have any further objections, ILHI? 8bit 19:36, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

...But... but then the "wanted pages" will be far less visible... and... and they won't appear high up on the wanted pages list because they haven't got support from every article sporting this template. ;_; --Sure, y not. Anyway, my initial justification for wanting the articles created was because "they work just like summons, and summons get articles", and then this sprung up the question "but why are they?" which I think I expertly answered.  ILHI ^(W/B) 19:41, November 19, 2009 (UTC)