Wikia

Final Fantasy Wiki

Talk:Summons

15,900 pages on
this wiki

Back to template

Horizontal?Edit

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)

ColoursEdit

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)

Revenant WingsEdit

T4HoL-Kuore
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).
occu-27.png
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)

TA Edit

Lytalk rydia
Lycentia - Veni, Vidi, Visa
I Came, I Saw, I Shopped - 18:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't we add the Totema to this?
T4HoL-Kuore
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.

Yummy. Edit

CSM
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...
Celes Chère menu
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! ^_^
Lytalk rydia
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. ^_^
T4HoL-Kuore
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.

Ivalice SummonsEdit

T4HoL-Kuore
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?

Summon AbilitiesEdit

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

 ILHI 15:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds resonable. Diablocon 15:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Ditto. - Henryacores^ 16:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


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

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)

ACRudeBox
Xenomic
TALK - 04:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I like the idea of that, since it is useful.
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.  ILHI 09:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

TenzaDrakeKain(black)
TenzaZangetsu 17,957   -   "Give you a couple of severed heads and a pile of dead cows and you're Mr. Sunshine…":
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.
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.  ILHI 20:09, 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.  ILHI 20:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oath is not summoning Edit

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 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 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 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 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)

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.  ILHI 19:18, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

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 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 19:41, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

My Life As a Dark Lord has no summons either Edit

Like in the case of "Oath" -skillset, I have removed the Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: My Life as a Darklord creatures from this template from the same exact reason: they are not "summoned monsters" either. Sure, they are called to do battle for Mira if I've understood it correctly, but they are corporeal monsters, not spirits or avatars or such. Plus, they are not even mentioned in the List of Summons article, so they do not belong to this template either. Thanks! SamSandy 21:29, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

As long as nobody says Yahri aren't summons, I don't care. - Henryacores^ 22:16, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
So they are actually summons? That's like saying the Bomb summon in FFIV isn't a summon. 88.108.103.120 13:13, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
Yahri are summons. They are called from the world of illusion. Bombs can or could be found at the Feymarch in FFIV. All of them are summons. - Henryacores^ 17:43, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, they are found in the Feymarch, which splits from my "they're monsters which are summoned" thing. Anyway, my point is the summon mechanism of MLaaD is these corporeal monsters. It doesn't matter if they are literally summoned monsters, monsters which are summoned, because they are the summons of the game. The "Oath" skillset was shot down for a different reason. It was not the key "Summons" mechanism of FFV, it was a secondary one, just like Critters (Animals in Advance, isn't it?) was. Now, I've never played MLaaD, so this is just an assumption. But since your argument is they aren't a separate entity from the monsters of the world... it doesn't matter because the developers thought they would fit best in a summon system... apparently... maybe. 88.108.103.120 17:51, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Shadow Dragon - Tiamat - Griever Edit

Strictly speaking we could mention them here, they are technically Summons even if they aren't usable by the player - Shinryu's here ain't he? The Lunar Summons, I think could warrant a collective page perhaps, which could be noted here, but linking all of them may be a bit much. Doreiku Kuroofangu 21:50, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

Then what about Braska's Final Aeon? Isn't he a summon too? NeoZEROX 21:54, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
In the strict sense of the word, yes, he is. He is an Aeon, if a special case. Doreiku Kuroofangu 21:56, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

What is the definition of "Summon"? If we're going with "A creature that is consciously and knowingly selected by the player to perform an action during battle", then I'd have to say no. At least, that's what I would define it as. - +DeadlySlashSword+ 22:06, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

Except that it isn't that simple. In FF8, Summons are called Guardian Forces, and Tiamat and Griever are both stated to be GFs, which makes them summons. Same with Braska's Final Aeon - technically speaking it is an Aeon and therefore is a Summon. Doreiku Kuroofangu 22:10, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
If we cannot group them together because they have different names even though they have the same functions, then make seperate templates for Summons, Eidolons, Guardian Forces, and Aeons, I suppose. - +DeadlySlashSword+ 22:23, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
Hm...you know, I don't hate that idea. Not sure if we have enough non-player summons to need such templates, but maybe.... Doreiku Kuroofangu 22:27, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
A summon is a creature/object that can be summoned, by definition. The question is: why should we not mention them? What makes them so different from others? As Drake mentioned: We have Shinryu here, so why not the rest of them? Likeacupcake 01:38, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. "Summon" is ultimately a vague umbrella term - GFs are listed, Griever is a GF, therefore he should be on the template. Just because he isn't playable doesn't mean he isn't a GF or a summon. I think making separate templates would just be unnecessary and surplus to requirements. - Paramina 01:44, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
As Cupcake said. The definition used is simple and wide, and the point of a navigation template is to do just that: provide links to all things under that umbrella. — YuanSalutActa 01:45, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
I would agree, however Cupcake's definition I don't believe is entirely correct. Would you say the normal definition of summoning is the same as Summoning in FF? I feel there's a slight difference; that Summoning in FF should be limited at the very least, to the Summon command. - +DeadlySlashSword+ 02:51, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say no. We are looking at summons from two different perspectives here. We have storyline and gameplay. According to storyline, Tiamat, Griever, and Shadow Dragon are summons. According to gameplay, they are not.

Now, the section above claims that MLaaD doesn't have summons, since the summons are normal enemies. In storyline, this is true. But in terms of gameplay, these enemies make up the summon system of the game.

So there are contradictions. A summon system doesn't necesarilly have to link to a storyline set of summons like what exists in IV, VI, VIII, and then onwards.

Okay, so if we think about storyline, the fal'Cie are the summons of XIII. So we'll have to list all the fal'Cie too. The Dark Aeons of XII also exist, and then there's Paragon. Selphie also had an unnamed GF. I assumed that was Tiamat just because of the slight similarity with her surname. Probably not.

To my point, if they go in the template, I'd suggest there is a clear distinction between the summonable, and the not-summonable. Also, I don't like this template. I think there should be a "recurring summons" section, a "summon abilities" section, and then a "game lists" section -- which would involve us changing the article system we currently have. In those pages, there would be mentions of what summon-like things appear that aren't technically summons so there isn't a need for them to be on the template.

Meh. Under the current system I'd personally say just leave it. 80.42.251.192 15:50, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

What about a section at the bottom for "Other Summons," where all the summons that aren't player-usable go? Doreiku Kuroofangu 04:07, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
That's so logical, I'm kind of ashamed we didn't think of it sooner. ._. - +DeadlySlashSword+ 04:46, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
I thought of this, but this leaves XIII non-summonable fal'Cie, and VIII's Tiamat. Of course, I'm personally perfectly fine with this, putting Tiamat in recurring summons, and "Tiamat (FFVIII)" in the "Other summons".
Or you might want to not do this, and only put never summonable summons there. Whatever. As long as these non-summonable summons aren't put with summonable summons from the game because that would only lead to confusion. 80.42.242.212 14:55, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'm gonna try making the section. As I'm working, question - how are the fal'Cie technically summons? Doreiku Kuroofangu 16:38, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
They're not. It would appear I have confused myself to how XIII works when reading articles, but not playing the games. ಥ_ಥ JBed 17:14, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

ValeforEdit

Valefor is listed twice: as a recurring summon, and FFX aeon. We need to make up our minds. The "Valefor (Summon)" lists FFXIII appearance as well and there's no mention of it being an allusion if it is (I can't remember the whole Polpa Sancta scene, but if Valefor is used to represent a Cocoon Eidolon which was supposed to resist the attack o Ragnarok this could be seen as allusion to Yuna who wishes to protect the world from great evil: in FFX it's Sin, while in FFXIII it's Ragnarok).—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) 11:14, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Yikes...Edit

ACRudeBox
Xenomic
TALK - 22:09, April 15, 2014 (UTC)
What happened to the template here? o_O
Technobliterator
Technobliterator - Fear my Light of Judgement!
TALK - 22:12, April 15, 2014 (UTC)
I got tired, and I dun goof'd hard :D and did that thing where I forgot to preview my edits again. Should probably take a break now to avoid making more mistakes, lmao. Thanks for pointing it out :D

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki