FFXIclopedia:AfD Discussions/Besieged Server Records

Article for Deletion
Delete: This article provides no factual data to the wiki. It provides no guide, tips, suggestions or any other sort of data routinely found in a guide. The wiki is not a 'top scores' database. The wiki is not list of individual, group, or server based accomplishments. The Wiki is a research tool for individuals interested in learning how to play the game. This material is best placed in a forums or blog. Not the Wiki. --Mierin 12:00, 17 July 2006 (EDT)

Comment: I'm not sure if I mind having this information in FFXIclopedia. My problem was that it did not belong on the Besieged page because it was taking away from the article. This information is fact, it did happen, but FFXIclopedia is also not an archive for records. If it were, we'd be storing BCNM, ENM, etc records. I think relying on people from every server to continue to update this page will become a problem and it will never be as up to date or accurate as the rest of FFXIclopedia. A page of this type will always be falling behind and I like to think the "FFXIclopedia standard" is better than that. --Ganiman 12:19, 17 July 2006 (EDT)

Comment: Would this be more factual/helpful if it specifically referenced something in the game that effects gameplay? Unlike ENM/BCNM and other event records, Besieged wins and losses can effect how you play in the new areas... The warp taru has different locations, I think Sanction works differently when the cities defense is low, and it effects the kind of missions available. If the article could be changed to reflect some of these informations, it might be suitable to keep, but it may still be too much work to update all the time for it to be worthwhile, as it would require constant vigilance. --Chrisjander 12:29, 17 July 2006 (EDT)

Comment: Not sure of my position yet but leaning towards keep. It is true that it will never be fully up to date, but so long as the records are never reset, the information can be gathered and the page updated. BCNM/ENM records get reset all the time and therefore are basically temporary records. If the besieged records are purged on any quasi-regular basis by SE (i.e. during updates/upgrade) then I think this is useless. If the data is fully maintained then I think it can be kept. --Gahoo 12:59, 17 July 2006 (EDT)

Comment: I agree with Gahoo. If the record is reset during during maintance or an update I would say to delete it. Yet, if it doesn't, I would like to see it stay. I disagree with Ganiman's definition of what this site is about. There are plenty of other sites out there that are better research tools then FFXIclopedia. What I like about this site is that it is more then a research tool. It is an encloypedia of information about the game that goes beyond the numberous walk-through type sites. I don't think we ought to limit ourselves into making this another guide site because I beleive it could be so much more. --Pinkfae 13:24, 17 July 2006 (EDT)

Merge: I think this needs to be merged back to the besiege article. leave it towards the bottom like it originally was, maybe modify the table to make it go "Server Score Server Score" instead of "Server Score" (make it less tall). This is interesting info to have, but it doesn't need it's own page. If moving it back to the main page won't work, delete --feba22:17, 17 July 2006 (EDT)

Comment: I didn't see records resetting with maintenance. This should remain, even if it isn't going to be fully up to date. It is up to each server to keep up with the list, and if one server doesn't want to keep it up it isn't my problem. -- Ayrlie 21:40, 17 July 2006 (CDT)

Keep: I'm new as a contributor to FFXIclopedia, but I think this page should stay. Mainly for the reasons already mentioned by Gahoo and Pinkfae above, but also because I don't think this type of page can be maintained on another type of site; the collaborative nature of wiki is necessary to gather information from so many different servers. I think that something like Wikipedia's current events template might be useful here, warning users that some data is not current, but that by itself is no reason not to attempt to maintain the page at all. Also, I think statements of the form "The Wiki is" or "The Wiki is not" should be used and viewed with caution. Wiki is a community endeavor and should generally be defined as broadly as the contributors collectively want to define it, IMO. Karinya of Carbuncle 15:06, 18 July 2006 (EDT)

Keep: I would like to vote that it stays. While it does not quite match what Wiki is, a respository of infomation, it is about the only place that this information could be. It should not have more than a single link in the besisged title page. This is just my feelings Elfi Wolfe 15:35, 18 July 2006 (EDT)

Keep for now: My vote is to keep it as long as it is maintained with some sort of regularity. If this data was maintained anywhere else, then I might be more inclined to vote for deleting it; however, given that it isn't (and quite frankly, it wouldn't be practical to do it in many other places), I would err on the side of keeping the information available. I think that it could be further enhanced in to a sort of "History of Besieged" record if the wins and losses were documented as described below on the talk page. Perhaps as a full history, it would have more relevance to the Wiki as a whole. If at any time the page falls significantly out of date, we can re-evaluate the possibility of deleting it. Sykes 20:13, 18 July 2006 (EDT)

Keep: I think the page should stay as it is. I didn't like it as part of the main Besieged page, but on its own page it's a handy reference. --Valyana 10:23, 19 July 2006 (EDT)

Keep: This is a highly usefull page for referencing win/loss records, I know now that I have found this page I try my best to keep it fairly accurate. It would be interesting to take data from this and extrapolate the exact bonuses we get for win streaks. From personal experiences, the refresh effect only works under a certain mp% and I noticed that as our win rate went up so did the %, the exp bonus also works this way. As for if this information isn't 'wiki material' then we should also look into if user profiles (since many list accomplishments/levels/etc) if those are wiki material. --Hanyoko 13:20, 19 July 2006 (EDT)


 * Comment: User profiles are not considered part of the wiki.  To think about it conceptually, the wiki is composed of those items that can be reached by hitting the "Random page" button.  User profiles can not be reached that way.  Thus the analogy is misplaced.  --Mierin 07:49, 20 July 2006 (EDT)


 * Comment: Ok perhaps my analogy is misplaced, however what does hold true is that from the material presented here, even though its not complete across all servers, it does lead to an overall threat assesement to the strength of the invading beastmen. --Hanyoko 8:38, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

Comment: While I'd love to see this page stick around, as it is nifty to have and see, I'd say Delete it unless we can get it updated more often. I mean, we have six registered Ragnarok server players according to User on server, four of which have unlocked BLU. I'm sure Ragnarok has more than zero wins and one loss. --Sakaki22 08:22, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

Comment: Considering how the strength of the Sanction bonus affects are supposed to be related to the number of times you have successfully defended Al Zahbi in a row (see Sanction). I see no reason why the Server Records should be deleted although I would like to see some servers update more often.--Perim 11:32, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

Result: Keep --Mierin 13:59, 20 July 2006 (EDT)