|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the .|
Article for Deletion
Delete: This is getting ridiculous, items that do not exist do not have a place on FFXIclopedia. There is no exception. This category is as pointless as keeping them on the wiki in the first place. --Talk 19:59, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
Comment: Well I don't like it, we do not need unnecessary categories for things that DO NOT EXIST. Period. Just because 1 person likes it doesn't mean others will, there wasn't even a proper discussion to create categories for stuff like this. --Talk 20:02, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
Comment: It was erroneously added and it was properly removed because it was not supposed to be there in the first place, FFXIclopedia is about factual information. FFXIclopedia:Prohibited Articles specifically says items that do not exist in the game will be deleted. It also says they are subject to speedy deletion of the DAT in question is removed by Square Enix. --Talk 20:06, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
Comment: Wasn't numerous pages of items no longer located in the DAT files deleted on the presumption that they are no longer located in the game therefor invalid and shouldn't be on the wiki. Why is a category/template being made for ONE item? --Birgitte t/ c 20:11, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- It's more than 1, just have to find out which all articles the template/category belongs to. --Wayka †Talk† 20:27, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
Keep: I think there's value in saying "this item used to exist in the dat files". For one, just because the item in question has been removed from the dats does not mean that the discussion of said item has also stopped, and it seems relevant to have a page (or category!) that would explain the history of the item, including when it no longer appeared in the dat. There are plenty of resources here that reference previous mechanics (see: TP formula change, signet bonuses change, etc), and it is important to keep them because they serve as a point of reference for what used to be true.
Is having a small, concise, and relevant category to retain otherwise-deprecated items such a big deal? --Aurikasura 20:16, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
Comment: It is a big deal, it was never meant to be there in the first place. It specifically mentions items removed from the DAT files are subject to speedy deletion. Several other items were deleted due to being removed from the DATs, these 8 rings are no exception. --Talk 20:27, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
Comment: How do you know the Vulcan's Ring was never meant to be there in the first place? --Aurikasura 20:28, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
Comment: Please calm down with the zealousness of this. I only created this and the template per the discussion that Gahoo thought would be ok, I only created the one entry at this time for Gahoo to review it and put his input. Because it is in the rules right now doesn't mean the rules cannot be changed, that is why I created the template and category and put it within the on going discussion and noted it on Gahoo's talk page for review. I would prefer not to have anymore war over this until admin has had a chance to review it and see what they would think is best. Thank you. --Wayka †Talk† 20:46, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
Comment: Gahoo must have overlooked the Data Files section of Prohibited Articles then. --Talk 20:48, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
Comment: Someone is being Wishy~Washy...
- Please see:: Article for Deletion - Onion Doublet, Article for Deletion - Onion Bandana, Article for Deletion - Blue Ribbon +1, Article for Deletion - Crowbill, Article for Deletion - Flame Boots, Article for Deletion - Killer Bow, Article for Deletion - Purple Cape, Article for Deletion - Purple Ribbon +1, Article for Deletion - Spangenhelm. It has been practice and policy for a bit to delete Items no longer located in the DATs even if substantial proof has been there that they were originally in the DAT files. Now, if y'all want to be reinstating the items that were originally in the DAT files - then you need to be re-approaching the guidelines that are currently in effect and therefor would need to re-look at all the old files that you had previously deleted based on the your previous stand point. Otherwise, you would be going against your the rules and policies you put in place. So I suggest a discussion take place on the Talk Page of the actual policy regarding this rather than having it spread out over 2 pages of useless banter where nothing is really getting resolved and people are getting heated. Just a suggestion... --Birgitte t/ c 20:50, 14 September 2007 (CDT)