Talk:Final Fantasy magic/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Huh?

"Ixion and stuff appear in X-2 _as Summons_ by all criteria, though they were not useable; KOTR is not Crusaders; Maduin is not Madeen (diff Japanese names and even genders))"

I thought that Ixion was a fayth in X-2 - as much a summon as any fiend was.

For "Knights of the Round" - aren't they essentially the same summon?

And for Maduin/Madeen - how does gender matter? The summons are different characters in each game. In any case, they have the same general appearance in the games, except that FFVI Maduin is more humanoid - he still has the horns and general leonid body, though. In the Japanese version, however, it was spelled Madin, which is pronounced Ma-dee-n. Hard e sound for "i" in japanese - so they are the same name.

" - The Eidolon, Madeen, is mis-Romanized as well. It was meant to invoke the name of Final Fantasy VIs Maduin (which, in the original Japanese versions of both games, was written as マディーン, or "madiin"). Incidentally, the slightly-nonsensical name of its attack, "Terra Homing," was also intended to be "Terraforming." "

The "Maduin bit was added by the translators.

I kind of get the rationale for Knights of the Round - the link isn't explicit enough. For Ixion, I still disagree that it was any more a summon than fiends or Zanarkand were. But for Madin, it's definitely the same summon.KrytenKoro 15:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is Ixion an argument? It is an Aeon, not a fayth. An aeon is a dream of the fayth (incidentally it can also be argued that because of this Jecht, Tidus, Every version of Sin, and everyone within the dream of Zanarkand are also aeons, but that's neither here nor there). Fiends are the unsent who remain in Spira. Dream of the Fayth...unsent. Aeons are not fiends. Ixion is an Aeon, not a fiend. What's the confusion? --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 16:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say that just being a dream of the fayth, especially if that would also include Zanarkand and its inhabitants, would kind of point to Aeon not necessarily being equivalent to summon. ESPECIALLY with your "it's about game mechanics" thing.

Please do not post in the middle of someone else's post, It breaks apart the text, and causes confusion with signatures as to who is saying what, it also breaks the flow of the discussion. Aeons ARE summons, this is unambiguous. Fayth are NOT summonable, but their dreams are. Example: You can never summon the Fayth known as Soothsayer, but you can summon Soothsayer's dream, which is the Aeon known as Bahamut. This is also unambiguous. Aeons are the dream of the Fayth. The Fayth are not summons. Aeons are Summons. A Summoner prays to the Fayth so that they can Summon an Aeon. This is explicit. This is just the way it is, there is no arguing about it. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 18:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You posted while I was in the middle of adding my bit. It said to incorporate what you had changed - would you rather I had deleted it?

In that event, you should have added your comment after my complete post, and addressed my points but not in the middle of my post. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 19:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Knights of the Round is based on Arthurian legend. Crusaders is the same summon (albeit a different name) ONLY if they are also based on the Knights of the Round Table. That sort of statement needs a source. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 16:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that - that's what I said, is that their isn't a clear enough source.

As for this: "(... it's an out of universe article dealing with gameplay, not in universe metaphysics)" That would exclude Ixion, wouldn't it? As well as Alexander within IX. Either it's counted if it's at all summonable within the game, or it's counted only if it summonable in gameplay. It seems quite biased to pick just one.

And, as a side not - Adrammelech appeared in TA, which may be "based" on FFXII, but it is NOT the same continuity, and thus that argument doesn't really make sense.

I mean, if you want to really get into it, many of the games mention others (FFIX references I and II as having elements in its "history", and I think II references IV with Kain Highwind, for example), and so if referencing counts, then the number of continuities is drastically reduced.KrytenKoro 16:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether usable by the party or not, Ixion and Alexander are EXPLICITLY identified as being summonable, whether the storyline allows access to using them or not is irrelevant. FFTA takes a different approach to it, but it still takes place in Ivalice and is still a part of the series. Please note that this is according to Square Enix: The Ivalice Alliance will include RW, FFT Shishi Senso and FFTA2 thus creating an OFFICIAL tie of all of the Ivalice games (except Vagrant Story). If SE says it's part of the Ivalice continuity, then who are you to say otherwise? --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 16:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• The Maduin/Madeen thing is pure original research. The only established fact is that we have a male summon called Maduin in VI and a female summon called Madeen in IX and TA. Square Enix remade FFVI for the GBA and had the chance to correct or even retcon the English script; they did it for Madonna for instance (changed her name to Madeline) but they did not do it for Maduin. So in the end we don't have anything concrete to assert that Maduin and Madeen are intended to be the same summon. Kariteh 17:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• As for Ixion, ΔαίδαλοςΣ is right, it's explicitely a summon (Aeon) even though the party doesn't get the chance use it. Also I'd like to note that Adramelk in FFT for instance is a different case, since it doesn't appear explicitely as a summon. Totemas in TA are identified as summons; Espers in XII are identified as summons; but Lucavi in T are not identified as summons (they're not called Summons, Totemas, or Espers). As fans we can put two and two together and know that Adramelk is the same creature in all three installments, but as far as this table is concerned Adramelk should never appear in the FFT cell. Kariteh 17:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

So FFX-2 does say that someone is summoning Ixion in that case? Then you need to be somewhat clearer, because as I read it, it seemed that it was the FAYTH calling up Ixion, not a summoner.

As for the "Ivalice Aliance" - does it include FFTA? FFTA2 is not the same game, and they very well could still be different continuities. Especially since the GAME ITSELF says that the world is an illusion, and only based on Ivalice, it seems weird to claim that it is the same continuity as the other Ivalice games.

The Maduin thing is NOT original research. I can give you the links if you want, but the fact is that in the original japanese games, the name was the same.

"they're not called Summons, Totemas, or Espers" - so GF's, Aeons, and Eidolons are not summons either? The games give different names to the types of summons in each game, and even have two different types in FFTA itself.

As for the phrase summon not being applied, this is claimed in a related article:

"Hashmalum kills himself to summon Altima into Alma's body."

"He concludes that the centuries of bloodshed since when Altima was last summoned were still insufficient to resurrect St. Ajora"

and "It's unclear whether Ajora summoned the Lucavi or vice versa,"

Unless you guys need to overhaul that article, it seems pretty clear that the Lucavi were summoned.KrytenKoro 21:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"マディーン ＦＦ６＆ＦＦ９ ＦＦ６ではティナの父。また、ＦＦ９ではエーコの召喚獣としても登場" from http://www10.ocn.ne.jp/~zenobia/motoneta.htmlKrytenKoro 22:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As well as http://www.google.com/search?q=%E3%83%9E%E3%83%87%E3%82%A3%E3%83%BC%E3%83%B3&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-aKrytenKoro 22:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So, yes, the japanese names ARE the same for Madeen. It needs to be added back into the table, because it appears in three seperate games.

Okay, Madeen is the same as Maduin, I'm satisfied with that. Lucavi being summons, I'm still not convinced either way, but I'm leaning towards "They are summons". FFTA being part of Ivalice's continuity: Undoubtably so. The game handles it differently (as a dream), but SE themselves include it's direct sequel in the Ivalice Alliance compilation along with the direct sequel to FFXII, you can't argue with that. FFTA is part of Ivalice, period. It doesn't matter that the storyline is different, it doesn't matter that Ivalice's existence is in question, it doesn't matter if the geography is a little different, all that matters is that it is the same world concept, with the same gameplay elements, and is considered part the same series by the creators of the game. Are you going to argue with the creators of the game? --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 16:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Lucavi are definitely not summons. Did you even play the game?? Kariteh 17:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't played it, that's why I'm "still not convinced," both arguments sound logical. But I have an idea, since we are not including summons from one continuity only, it doesn't matter! Lucavi wouldn't be in the table anyway! So until a game is released outside of Ivalice that has a summon who has appeared as a lucavi as well, this shouldn't matter. And if they do appear out of Ivalice, then they will probably have more than 3 appearance anyway, so they will still be on the table even if we don't include Lucavi. So in the meantime, regardless as to our decision as to whether or not a Lucavi is a summon, the end result is the same. So why are we having this argument? --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 19:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My previous post was a bit confusing, I just realized. How about this for a clarified compromise:

To be included in the table, a monster must appear explicitly as a summon in at least 3 games and in at least 2 different continuities. ALL Ivalice games (including FFTA) are considered part of the Ivalice Continuity as identified by SE themselves. This automatically disqualifies Lucavi (even if they are considered summons) because they only appear in Ivalice games. However, Lucavi are not considered Summons. If, for example, Adremmelech appears as a Summon in FFXIII or FFXIV or whatever non-Ivalice games are released in the future, then he will at that time be included in the table, because he will then have 3 appearances as a summon in multiple continuities. If he is included in the table, then and only then could we include a white box saying "Lucavi" under FFT as his fourth appearance in a similar fashion to the ships in FFXII. It is important to realize that neither the Ships in FFXII nor the Lucavi in FFT count as an appearance as a summon.

How's that sound? --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 17:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• "SE themselves include it's direct sequel in the Ivalice Alliance compilation" - Wait, I thought it was just the second Tactics game for the advance, not an actual sequel. Are you sure that it's being handled as a sequel of TA, and not just another Tactics sidestory?
• "Lucavi are definitely not summons. Did you even play the game??" No, ironically, I'm relying on the words of reputable fansites and wikipedia itself, which calls them summons or says they are summoned multiple times.KrytenKoro 23:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, FFTA2 is a DIRECT SEQUEL to FFTA. It even has the Gran Grimoire that transports the main character to Ivalice and everything.
• You haven't played it? Then let someone who has played it determine whether they are summons or not.

--—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 15:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just my $0.02, I played FFT, and it's best to say the Lucavi is not a summon, if you're looking at the way summons are handled in the main series. The Lucavi are summoned by the antagonists using Zodiac Stones, and the Lucavi stayed with their host and died with them, like demon possessing. I don't regard them as a summon the way summons are in the main series. and FFT has a summonner job complete with summoning beasts of its own. in my book, they're definitely not summonned by the player, so not a summon. my two cents. :) — Bluerです。 ^なにか? 15:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've not gotten very far into the game, no. But I do know that Zodiac, who is a Rukavi, is a summon, and that we allowed "summons" who were called outside of gameplay, such as FFIX Alexander, or FFXI Bahamut (who is a non-summonable Avatar, and not summoned by any PC, cutscene or otherwise). The Zodiark situation is why I believe that they are still summons, along with the Tactics article on wiki calling them summons over and over.

• Could you give me a source for the FFTA2 thing? I've not heard anything about it besides it's existence, and it's not clear besides a reference (the grimoire) that they are true sequels. And in any case, Square has only put Revenant Wings, Tactics Shishi Sensho, and A2 in the Ivalice Alliance - they never even put XII in there, much less Tactics Advance, so it's misleading to claim that Square has declared the five games to be part of the same metaseries, since they've only put 3 together so far.KrytenKoro 20:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you are adamant to require a source for something as basic as this, here are the fruits of a 5 second search and the first site I clicked on: [1]. If that's not enough, then you can perform your own 5 second searches for more. "...they never even put XII in there"? You must not be paying much attention. Revenant Wings is titled "Final Fantasy XII Revenant Wings", and it is a direct sequel to FFXII. It takes place a year after the events of FFXII. Vaan is now a sky pirate and Penelo is his navigator. Ivalice Alliance is not meant to be an all-inclusive series, it is a compilation of new games in the Ivalice series. Fact is, you are wrong. FFXII:RW is a direct sequel to FFXII, FFTA2 is a direct sequel to FFTA, FFTSS is a port (remake) of FFT. Therefore, FFXII, FFXII:RW, FFT, FFTSS, FFTA and FFTA2 are all part of the Ivalice series. Please do some research on what you are saying before you post. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 20:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Zodiac is not a Lucavi, it's a perfectly normal summon as far as FFT is concerned. If it were a Lucavi, FFT would not count as an appearance for it. In FFXII, the Serpentarius Esper happens to be Zodiark instead of Elidibs or Zodiac. We can assume that Zodiac is Zodiark (I don't know the Japanese names, but even if they are different it's a much more clearcut connection than with Maduin and Madeen). In any case, it's only two appearances at most and one continuity, so it can't appear in the table. And to clarify a little detail about Bluerfn's comment on the Lucavi (a perfectly fine one IMO), the antagonists "summon" the Lucavi only in the sense that they allow them to take over the antagonists' bodies, in a pact-with-the-Devil sort of way. The term "summon" is never used in the game's script to refer to these Lucavi. "Summon" used by Bluerfn is the common word, like "call upon", "invoke", "conjure", "ring up", etc. It's not the FF sense. Kariteh 20:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

...Yeah, I did. While Revenant Wings is part of Ivalice Alliance, Square has not yet made the step to even calling FFXII part of the same meta-series - just like they say that FFVII is not even part of Compilation of FFVII. So while it may seem obvious to us, the fact that they claim it is not part of the same series (while it is obviously part of the same continuity) makes the whole continuity issue very fuzzy - could they have put other games in the same continuity (setting), without making them part of the same series (story - for example, FFX and FFX-2 tell the stories of the same people, but FFXII and FFTA only share the same "setting", not the same story or characters). It is misleading to claim that SE has said it is part of the same series when technically, they haven't.

As for Zodiac (which is named the same in Japan, if I remember correctly), it was not normal, you had to learn it Blue-Mage style. And I wasn't talking about putting it on the table, I was just using it as an example of when Rukavi are linked with summons.KrytenKoro 02:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You can learn any ability in a Blue-Mage style (you get hit by the ability and... have luck). Zodiac just happens to be one of the two abilities that you can only learn this way (the other being the spell Ultima). Also, I think you're missing the point about Ivalice Alliance. It's not simply a "series of games", it's a series of games comprising a sequel to FFXII, a remake of FFT, and a sequel to FFTA, which was itself a spin-off of FFT. The fact that FFXII, FFT, and FFTA are not part of the Ivalice Alliance is obvious, perfectly normal, and irrelevant, since Ivalice Alliance is not a "standalone" series but a series of sequels/prequels to these titles. Kariteh 07:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the Blue Mage thing - I still think that that would make it not a "normal summon". As for the Ivalice Alliance thing - while I certainly agree that the connection is obvious, the fact remains that Square itself has not named it a separate or same series (like they didn't with the equally obvious FFVII), or in the case of FFTA, continuity. This is why I feel that the "multiple continuities" rule is misleading and improper, because as little as it is, OR is still required for us to make judgments that were not presented by Square. Thus, I feel that as the rule is not applicable the way we would like it to be, it should be removed, and perhaps the appearances (as summons - the non-usable appearances really seem trivial to me, especially since many of the ship names are only available if you bought the deluxe guide) requirement should be upped to four or five.

Because, either we make it so that Square decision on the "series" bit is not the endall on decisions relevant to which continuity it is, and we decide for ourselves (and then, references to other games in the series, at least ones made in the main plot, must be taken more seriously), or we simply make it appearance based.KrytenKoro 04:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Square's decision MUST be the endall, but we must also acknowlege that a summon that only shows up in Ivalice is not representative of the series as a whole. If you feel the word "continuity" is misleading, then please suggest a word to better describe it. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 14:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I know this is out of the blue, but I just saw the artwork for FFTA2's Gran Grimoire, and it has a completely different appearance [2]. Has Square actually said that this is the same book, and thus FFTA2 is the sequel, or is it merely a book with a similar function (the design is so different that unless Square says it is the same book, it is not fair to assume that it is)?KrytenKoro 01:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Check the article that I linked to earlier, or do a quick search of your own. It is a sequel. End of story. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 00:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the two Gran Grimoires don't have to be similar or the same. Don't forget that the Gran Grimoire which appeared in Vagrant Story was the entire frigging city. Kariteh 21:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Which would kind of add to the (yes, I'll admit it) interpretation that just because something is named the Gran Grimoire doesn't make it the same thing as other things named the Gran Grimoire - it may be like calling something the Bible - same name, but it may have different contents, and is likely a different physical entity. FE, saying soandso Bible was burned in 1927 doesn't mean that if you see a book named the Bible, it was burned in 1927.KrytenKoro 01:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The point you are missing, is that no one ever said that it is the same book and thus it is a sequel. Rather it is a sequel, thus it is the same book, not the other way around. Whether it actually is the same book or not is irrelevant. The game is a sequel, that's all there is to it. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait, doesn't this discussion borders to speculating? To answer your question, Square had said nothing so far on the book in FFTA2 being the same as the one in FFTA: the director Murasawa said in an interview with Famitsu that the book is not FFTA's Gran Grimoire: "..これはグラン・グリモアではないんです。" Translated: ...because this is not the Gran Grimoire." article in Japanese. Plus the book is not yet named, it might not be named the Gran Grimoire. The only information given is FFTA2 is a sequel to FFTA, but nothing so far as to what makes it a sequel. — Bluerで す。 03:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Table of appearances

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)

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)

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)

It's not Golem, it's Titan. It is confirmed in the official FFIX artbook. Kariteh 08:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean Titan. Either way, my point stands. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 15:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a need to create a column for Final Fantasy XII Revenant Wings? — Bluerです。 ^なにか? 04:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

X-2

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)

It is already explicitly mentioned in the prose just before the article. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 00:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

So we CAN get rid of the useless X-2 column?KrytenKoro 02:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Hidden comment for Table of Appearances

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 [3]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Death

In many of the games, the Grim Reaper actually appears when the Death or Doom spell is cast (I know of VIII, X, and TA as examples). Would this count as a summon?

Also, can anyone remind what "summons" were not usable in the games they appeared in? I know of

• VII: Chocobo - Moogle, Zirconiade, Omega WEAPON (are there any other summons in Before Crisis or Dirge of Cerberus?)
• VIII: Tiamat, Griever, Pupu(?)
• IX: Alexander, Titan
• X: Sin, Jecht
• X-2: All (do the special dressspheres count as summons at all?)
• XI: Bahamut, Phoenix, Odin, Alexander (Are the Summoner's "Spirit's" summons, or just parts of the reg. avatars?)

Thank youKrytenKoro 03:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because something is summoned, doesn't make it a Summon Monster. The appearance of the Grim Reaper during a Death or Doom spell is basically just a visual effect of the spell, otherwise we would count the dolphin that is summoned when Tifa uses her "Dolphin Uppercut" Limit Break, and that's just ridiculous.

I can understand why you would question the dressspheres. Though they strategically act in place of a Summon system, dressspheres are not Summon Monsters, but rather are special character classes. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 04:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's just that it is used in both Death spells (of any nature) in those games, and at least in TA, it's animation is quite similar to the true summons (appears over the field, then affects certain players).KrytenKoro 04:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Unlimited Dragons

Like Meteor Master, the main dragon summons of Unlimited are commonly regarded as previous summons, and draw clear parallels to them.

GunDragon is commonly regarded as a version of Bahamut, SwordDragon is clearly parallel to Mist Dragon, and KigenDragon is clearly parallel to Leviathan.

Should we in any way accomodate this view? It is in evidence on many of the good FF sites, such as FF compendium or the FF wiki, but I'm not sure if it's ever given any ground in Unlimited itself.KrytenKoro 06:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, since Kupo was such an important part of the magun summons, and in fact soil is usually made from moogles (according to After), should we include Moogle as per the "if their part of it" thing?KrytenKoro 06:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No to your first question, we cannot make such comparisons ourselves and fansites are not WP:RS so we cannot cite their comparisons either. If you can find a WP:RS that makes those comparisons then by all means, include them at that time.

And no as well to your second question. Soil is made from Moogles, and soil is used to Summon with the MaGun, but the end result of the Summon is not a Moogle. It's like Gasoline. Oil is made from Dinosaurs, and Oil is used to produce Gasoline through refinement, but the end result of refinement is not a Dinosaur. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 16:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? We can compare Black Mage to Odin but we can't compare Sword Dragon to Mist Dragon?? Kariteh 16:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say we couldn't, I said we need a source, and Black Mage/Odin has a source. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 16:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

...Where is Black Mage compared to Odin? That seems one of the least obvious comparisons at all.KrytenKoro 18:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy character classes#Black Mage. There was a long discussion on it. The idea is Black Mage is almost identical to a typical wizard, and a typical wizard is confirmed to be based directly on Odin as it's inspiration. Forget the Odin in the armor that you see in FF summons, that's not what he looks like according to Norse Mythology. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 18:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ships

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)

Chocobo Tales

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I see the irony

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)

Say what? They are all explicitly called Bahamut, therefore they are all Bahamuts. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 18:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Okay, now this is a bit silly

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)

Summon Table getting big

Could we maybe up the requirement to 5? That seems to be the cutoff - most of them either appear at what could actually be called frequently, or are the other half which only appear 3 or 4 times.

Do we really need AC or LotC, though?KrytenKoro 06:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It would look something like this:

Summon	III	IV	V	VI	VII	AC	VIII	IX	X	X-2	XI	XII	RW	T	TA	LotC	U	CD	CD2	CT
Alexander	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Ship	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No
Bahamut	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Ship	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Carbuncle	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Ship	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Chocobo	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes
Ifrit	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Ship	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Leviathan	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes (GBA)	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Ship	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes
Odin	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Ship	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Phoenix	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Ramuh	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Shiva	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Ship	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Sylph	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	Yes	No
Titan	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Unicorn	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes

My comment: Recent discussions have inserted spinoffs, films and anime into the table. My stance was to actually cut this table out, because despite it's seemingly informative nature, it goes by the same vein as the voice cast which had been in certain FF articles, which is trivial. And I've noticed most discussion about the FF Magic article only center around this Summon table, and less regard to other magics that exist within the FF universe. Isn't it time we move our focus on this detail and concentrate on factualizing said article as a whole? My two cents. — Bluerで す。 07:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Or we could have a seperate page for Summoning Magic, since it usually functions very differently from the other kinds of magic. That should draw off some of the interest in this article.KrytenKoro 07:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

We can't up the appearance requirements to 5 and we can't ignore "spin-offs", because it would be POV to do so. Also, I said it above but maybe it was lost in the maze of sections: I don't understand why we have to put a table here but not in Monsters of Final Fantasy. How come Monsters of FF function perfectly fine with sections and prose, while Summons don't and require a huge, complicated table which is almost impossible to understand for new people if they don't read the hidden comment? How come we spend paragraphs describing a simple rooster monster but we can't have any prose describing Bismark for instance, which results in uninformative and misleading linking instead (he's linked to a German Emperor or a disamb page and it's written nowhere that he's actually a whale)? What makes Summons more trivial than Monsters? Who's got a whole spin-off game dedicated to him, Bahamut or Flan?? Kariteh 07:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying getting rid of spin-offs - I'm saying that including them means we need to up the requirement, because there are quite a lot of summons that appear just a few times, and aren't really common.

Compromise! How about the links lead not to generally unrelated or misleading pages, and instead lead to the FFWwiki page for that summon? Eh? Eh?

Personally, I think that FFWiki would handle the enemies thing a lot better, too. Maybe have a short sentence for the enemy's general appearance, and then a link to the FFWiki article via a "more here". Neither the summon nor enemy info, in my view, can really be made "wiki" enough to be here.KrytenKoro 08:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Upping the requirement to 5 would be POV as demonstrated by Daedalus before[4]. Kariteh 08:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean this?

"If we decide to keep the table, then I'm prepared to bridge that gap when we get to it. Obviously, the system must adapt when the system no longer works. I'm not saying the system is perfect, nor am I saying that the system will work after more games are released. I'm only saying that it isn't POV."

Wouldn't that, you know, point to it being okay to up the requirements if the table is getting out of hand?KrytenKoro 08:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I was thinking about this:

"By showing summons that appear in 3 games and up and showing in a clear way what games they appear in it allows the reader to decide for themselves what is and is not a prominent summon. If they choose to consider the whole list, then that's their decision. If they choose to only count 5 appearances and up, then that's also their decision. For example, how does this table press the idea that Ifrit is more Prominent than Diabolos? This table displays them in the same, unbiased list without discriminating between them. It merely displays how many games they appear in, and it's up to the reader to decide for himself that Ifrit is more Prominent, the table makes no such claims. Presenting facts exactly as they are and discluding trivia is not POV and never will be."

Let's wait for Daedalus to clarify his reasoning, but personally my opinion is that upping to a random number chosen only for "convenience" is definitely not a neutral point of view. 3 is neutral because it's the minimum of what constitutes recurring (2 isn't really recurring). Kariteh 14:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

KrytenKoro has it right. If you were to replace the number 3 in my quote with the number 5, then the logic remains identical. I did not say that 5 appearances is POV, in fact my whole point was that picking an arbitrary cut-off number (ANY arbitrary number) is not POV. What specific number is chosen is irrelevant. If we chose to set the cut-off at 9, then it still wouldn't be POV, but it would reduce the table by quite a lot. That being said, my vote is to set the new cut-off at 5. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 15:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. That would be POV because it would be hiding information from people for no reason apart from "Sry, the table was too big, we sacrified some entries". If the summons are notable, we must mention them (and assert their notability with sources). If they're not notable, we must not mention them. But what's this stuff with mentioning or not mentioning them only for beauty and convenience's sake?? And you have yet to explain why a mute table is needed there but not in Monsters of FF. Why we spend 3 paragraphs describing a rooster monster but not a single word describing what "Bismark" represents. If no explanation comes, I'll be forced to make a similar table in Monsters of FF. That would be ugly, but apparently unopposed by the wikiproject. Kariteh 16:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• "...hiding information from people for no reason apart from 'sry, the table was too big, we sacrified some entries'"? I'll give you three reasons: If there are that many different Summon Monsters who appear in so many games, then Summons that appear in only 3 are trivial. If the table is too big, it detracts from the article as a whole. This table should be used as a guide to give the reader a general idea of some of the most prominent Summons, it should not be an authoritative index.
• As far as why a table is needed here and not in Monsters of FF, I am still ambivalent about this table. I am uncertain as to whether it should be kept, or deleted as trivial. In fact, if you read all of my posts about this table, I have never claimed to have come to a decision on this matter. Keep it as a usefull at-a-glance NPOV guide to what Summon Monsters are the most prominent, that makes sense to me. Delete it as trivial, that also makes sense to me.
• As far as creating a Table of Appearances in Monsters, no. Just no. There are several things wrong with that. (1) We have implied consensus to keep the table but no responses yet to the concerns about the table, so it might be best to wait until there is a voiced concensus. (2) Summons are far less diverse and numerous than Monsters, it may be harmless to display a table of the 13 most common Summon Monsters as selected by an arbitrary cut-off, but using a similar method for Monsters would invariably produce a much larger table. (3) Even if it doesn't produce a much larger table, it still would be far more open to cruft and incorrect edits than Summon Monsters is, and we would be doing a large amount of patrolling and mopping that we otherwise wouldn't have to do. In short, it would destabilize that article much worse than this table here has destabilized this one. (4) The Monsters article already covers the most prominent Monsters with comprehensive information. A table of appearances would add nothing to the article that it's table of contents and prose doesn't already have. This is not necessarily the case for this article because it does not have sections of prose devoted to individual Summon Monsters, and individual Summon Monsters do not show up in the table of contents. (5) What occurs in one article, is not necessarily best for another article. Each article should be considered seperately, especially in situations like this where we are discussing something that is in no way a common practice. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 17:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If others are for deleting the table, then I will support them. A much simpler method would be to have a simple top 10 or 5: Shiva/Ifrit, Bahamut, etc. If even that - this is an article about how magic works, not the intricacies of the spells themselves, right? We have nothing like this for Firaga or such, yet those are much more important to the series. Right now, this table neither really helps explain final fantasy magic, nor the summons themselves - by trying to compromise, it subverts both efforts, making it worse than if there was nothing there. Throwing in the "ships" thing, if I understand it right, was an attempt through reverse POINT to illustrate how bad the table is becoming.

In short - I would happily support moving this table to FFWiki (if those guys even want it), as its alleged purpose would be appropriate there. And archiving all the discussion about the table on this page.KrytenKoro 03:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that a lot of time has been spent tweaking the requirements, reverting additions, and arguing with those who want to know why their favorite isn't there. I believe deleting the table would greatly reduce the effort required to maintain this article, and I will cheerfully wave good-bye to it as it goes off to find its fortune. ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 05:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So that's four in favor of deletion (with me wanting the FFwiki to see if they want it), and one ambivalent. Shall I go ahead and delete it, then?KrytenKoro 05:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume consensus and delete the table - on another note, I don't know how to archive, so someone who does should archive all the discussion on the table, since it's no longer relevant.KrytenKoro 18:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)