Talk:Final Fantasy magic/Archive 2

message: VII doesn't have a primarily moogle summon - the closest is choco/mog which is mainly a chocobo. The moogle does not always appear. Also, I am nearly certain there is no moogle summon in VIII.
However, I think Madeen should be put in the table as he certainly appears in both VI and IX, and possibly more. Heliomance 14:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moogle does appear as a summon in FFVIII. The only problem is the item to summon it is accessible only through the PocketStation. — Bluerです。 なにか? 15:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Choco/Mog counts.  We are counting what summoned creatures make an appearance in the game.  You use the materia, and a Moogle appears.  The same applies to Fenrir/Golem in FFIX.  You summon Fenrir, and Fenrir summons Golem, both count because both appear.  It doesn't matter that he isn't the primary focus of the summon, which I can also argue.  The standard result of ChocoMog is Deathblow, which is the moogle on the Chocobo, the cinematics make it clear that the moogle is the focus of the summon, He even has a close-up!  Fat Chocobo is only an occasional result.  The moogle GF in FFVIII is MiniMog.  Madeen is under discussion in the thread immediately previous to this one.  --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 19:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not Golem, it's Titan. It is confirmed in the official FFIX artbook. Kariteh 08:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I mean Titan.  Either way, my point stands.  --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 15:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. FFWiki lists about 50 summons, and only 13 of them are the XII espers. Of course, FFWiki isn't the best site (completion wise, at least - many times something is linked to and the link says nothing about the context linked from), so it's hard to check and see how many of those fulfill the "3 continuities" rule.KrytenKoro 07:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a side note: it isn't three continuities, it's just multuple, so two continuities qualifies.  This is seperate from the three appearances rule.  --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 00:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Table of appearances 

message: For the summon table - couldn't we just add in the "not usable by the party" sentence something like "FFX-2 features the same Aeons as FFX, but they are no longer usable by the party."? That way, we could get rid of that useless column, and still have the same info.KrytenKoro 22:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is already explicitly mentioned in the prose just before the article.  --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 00:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So we CAN get rid of the useless X-2 column?KrytenKoro 02:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say no, because they still are summons in X-2, regardless that the storyline does not allow the party to use them.  --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 15:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  X-2 

message: Since working on the hidden comment we have continued to remind people to read the comment, and have reverted many contributions to the table such as this one .  I rewrote it so that it was very direct and outlined, and not as easy to skip over as a paragraph.  I'm also hoping that these changes will make the comment more visible to unfamiliar editors, and it should save us a lot of reverts.  It will also make it simpler for us to change requirements should we decide to do so.  What do you guys think?  As usual, tweaks are expected.  --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 16:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the approach.  I especially like the examples of what is or isn't acceptable.  Now, if we can just get people to read the comment. ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 18:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion has never changed, I'm still against the whole table gimmick. What an awfully complicated and precise list of requirements for something which is supposed to be clearcut and neutral. Kariteh 21:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being against the table is a different subject matter entirely.  It's complicated because that is how concensus developed, and the table is clear-cut and neutral, even if the reasonings and discussions behind it are not so clear-cut.  Do not confuse reasoning behind an entry with the entry itself.  In the same vein of discussion, this hidden comment which reads similar to a guideline is a note for editors and not for the readers, thus it should remain hidden, unless you can provide a compelling reason to bring it into the prose.  --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 22:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why we have to put a table here but not in, say, Monsters of Final Fantasy. Kariteh 18:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hidden comment for Table of Appearances

message: Many of the Ships in KH and KHFM, as well as some of those in KHII are named after summons from FF. As KH is regarded as an FF game, according to the Square Homepage, can we include those ships the same way we did for FFXII?KrytenKoro 06:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ships 

message: Why were they added actually? I read the archived discussion but I didn't know it had actually reached some conclusion. Kariteh 14:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No conclusion was ever reached, KrytenKoro just added it on his own.  IMO I don't think we should include any of the Chocobo series as they are not Final Fantasies, and this article is specifically about the Final Fantasy series.  But if we are to consider Chocobo Tales, then none of the cards should count, because they do not operate in any special way beyond regular monster cards.  --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 16:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chocobo series is a spin-off series of Final Fantasy, and the Summons in the two Chocobo's Dungeon games are explicit Summons which are used in similar ways than in the rest of the franchise. This should definitely be covered here for the same reasons why the Chocobo series itself is covered in a small paragraph of the Chocobo section in the "Common themes of FF" article. Kariteh 17:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I had assumed that nobody really cared which way or the other, and they are treated as summons in the game, so I put it in. However, Final Fantasy Fables: Chocobo Tales IS a Final Fantasy game, whether it's a spin-off or no. Hell - all the un-numbered ones are spin-offs to some degree, and FFFCT includes almost all the elements on the Common Themes page - the crystals, the summons, Cid, etc.KrytenKoro 18:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to imply that you did anything wrong.  If no conclusion is reached, then that means that no conclusion against it was reached either.  What you did was fine, it just sparked a new discussion, that's all.  --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 19:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chocobo Tales

message: Okay, I realize that GunDragon is not Bahamut - that's why I asked the community's opinion on what appears to me a wide-held belief (one I personally disagree with). That also means that Bahamut TREMOR is NOT Bahamut - the various "forms" of Bahamut in FFVII are exclusive, and not obtained as upgrades (unless, you say that Bahamut ZERO is an indirect upgrade). The Bahamut in FFVII is a good bit different from the AC Bahamut TREMOR, so if we include that as being an appearance (which, in all fairness, would easiest be handled as part of FFVII), we need one of those little note thingies.KrytenKoro 18:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Say what?  They are all explicitly called Bahamut, therefore they are all Bahamuts.  --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 18:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Δαίδαλος is right. Take Raiden for instance: he's obviously not the same "being" in FFVI and FFXII RW (the first is an upgraded Odin, while the second seems to be a Ramuh Jr.), but they still go in the Raiden line in the table. If two unrelated Raidens can appear in two different titles, why couldn't two unrelated Bahamuts appear in one title? Kariteh 19:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess, it just seems that they are treated as exclusive beings specifically in that game - FE, if there was a summon called Zodiac in FFXII that was, I don't know, a giant ring depicting all 13 zodiac signs, it would not be the same as Zodiark, who is a giant ring with a quetzacoatl inside.KrytenKoro 20:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I see the irony 

message: If FF compendium is not an acceptable source for Madeen's name, where would be? How do we know for certain that Fenrir is named after Fenrisulfr? Or that Golem is based off of the popular culture representation, and not the original myth? How do we know Raiden is based off of Raijin? Or that Alexander is based off of the male name, and not the city?
I know these seem "Oh, so obvious" to everybody, but the Mael Duin thing is just as obvious and accepted by all the fansites, too. Where is the "acceptable" source that says which Bahamut or Alexander these are named after? The link on the Bahamut page claiming its named after the worldfish leads to a blank page, and in that a user profile. I've not seen anyone argue with that theory - and yet we don't have any verification for it.
Sorry for the rant. But anyway - searching on google for "Madeen Name Origin Final Fantasy" (to rule out those with just the username, and info just on the summon or character, instead of the name) gives 152 results - and all of them that are not incidental (like Final Fantasy Origin being referenced by a character name in FFIX, which also contains Madeen) point to Mael Duin. I've not seen any other suggestions, so far.KrytenKoro 04:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay, now this is a bit silly