Article for Deletion

Delete: This page is simple self glorification. While it is very nice that so many people have obtained these highly sought after weapons (and shield), the wiki isn't the place for it. This doesn't even qualify as a guide. The besieged server records are a bit iffy too, but they at least don't put the spotlight on specific players, it's more of a server prestige thing (still iffy). This page has been nothing but a headache for me, and is becoming the target of unnecessary drama. I've had to revert numerous changes from vandals who think it's amusing to change the external picture link (verification for one player that had the relic shield) to some half-brained MS Paint "creation" that's no more than a glorified, juvenile "we hate you <player>". I will also quote a few more users who may very well agree with my standpoint (above). --Chrisjander 18:45, 25 April 2007 (EDT)


I didn't want to go and mark this article for deletion just yet, but I don't see the point to this page. FFXIclopedia isn't in the business of "fame" like this. Personally, I could care less who has a relic weapon - it means nothing to me for advancing my own character. This page serves no purpose other than putting some people in the spot light for obtaining a fully upgraded relic weapon. This page will meet the same fate as the Besieged Server Records article - it falls way behind and is out of date, and serves no purpose other than showing which server has the "best" record - in the end it doesn't really mean anything. Articles describing how to obtain fully upgraded relics would be more welcome than this. I say we leave the bragging to the user pages. --Ganiman 14:32, 27 February 2007 (EST)


Ganiman, if you feel it should be deleted, be my guest. Hell, that would save me a lot of checking. I wouldn't have bothered putting it here or helping to update it in the first place, except like Aurik said, it seems like there's a good deal of interest. There's also a few nice tidbits of infotainment scattered here and there (Aegis damage pics, Rukenshin's LJ notes, etc.)
edit: Oh well, at the very least I got a chance to learn about wiki formatting by messing around with this list and my User page the last few days. :P --TP 20:25, 27 February 2007 (EST)


I think the page should be deleted. There is no real way to actually verify that users have the actual fully upgraded weapons unless every single player submits pics, and that will never happen. Also who is not to say that someone will claim they have the weapon, and possibly even doctor some images to "prove" they do when they really don't. I don't think having the usernames of all the players that have it are necessary. When SE releases it's yearly report on it, that's the information that is officially confirmed. They do not release the names of players, just how many on each server. Anything else is just here say. --Wayka 05:48, 4 March 2007 (EST)
I agree actually. This whole article is largely useless, unverified, and is as you say, just hearsay. But I would also add that I don't think anybody seriously cares enough to do something like that, and if they do, their server co-habitants tend to be pretty quick about discovering (and laughing/dramamongering about) it. Like the Vana'diel Census though, it's just entertainment in the end.--TP 10:03, 9 March 2007 (EST)
This page has quickly risen to my #1 least liked page on the wiki. It is (1) ugly, (2) always changing, (3) not verifiable and (4) irrelevant except for bragging rights (which is undercut by #3). --Gahoo 16:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Delete: I'm with Chrisjander. There is a userbox specifically for relic weapons that can be placed on their userpage if they so desire, no real use for this page than a giant wall of brag. If they really want to show off their relic, they can either use the userbox or the blogs. That's my two cents. --Charitwo 20:22, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Comment: I don't care either way, but I want to point out that this kind of vandalism shouldn't have bearing on whether to delete or keep the article. The decision to delete or keep should be one that considers the merits of the article itself. --Aurikasura 21:20, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Comment: The fact that it's an article that highlights specific players' achievements is what makes it a target for this kind of vandalism, so it does have bearing on the merits of the article. Individual achievements belong on userpages, blogs, or not in wiki connected space at all. Normal wiki articles aren't subject to this sort of targeted vandalism. --Chrisjander 21:29, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Delete: I made comments about this before and I still feel it should be deleted, at least the specific player names. The only way this page would remain is if you show official stats released by SE during its annual census that tells how many players have the items. But the page should not include any specific player names as again there is no way to really officially verify any of it unless every single player, English, Japanese, German, and French come on this site and show verification. That will never happen, so I call for a delete on this page. --Wayka 08:06, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Delete: It's (1) not needed, (2) not verifiable and (3) leads to vandalism. --Gahoo 09:54, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Delete It fulfils all of Gahoo's previous "qualities" and is, from personal experience, highly inaccurate. Also, Relic Weapons are becoming so common that we might as well make a list of all the players with a Ridill or Defending Ring if we let this page continue. --Dragonspight 11:35, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, "Stage 5 Relics (60,998 bytes)". That is all.--Dragonspight 11:44, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't Delete I believe this is useful in finding players on your server who have these items. Lets say I decide to upgrade my katana and I want to find someone on the server who has information on it, preferably someone who owns the weapon. I could browse the forums like allakhazam and/or KI and/or bluegartsls forums but that doesn't let me go ahead and watch someone use the weapon in front of me. A lot of information on forums is just as inacurate as people say this information is, if not more. A person can go ahead and send a tell to any name on the list here and ask that player if he/she has that weapon, its not like you are advertising that some player has some kind of disease he/she doesnt have. I'm just trying to say there is no harm in listing people here. More often then not it is people who have no relation to those people who have Relic Weapons who are listing the names of with the weapons... how is that showing off? My server has a bigger wang then yours? Who cares. If my vote has any say whatsoever then please just leave the list as it is. Now as for being verifiable...why not? I've already seen at least one screenshot posted..theres verification for you right there. What needs to be done is request people go out and get verification, not just say "ok, i don't have a relic weapon, and I don't feel like hunting for someone with a weapon to get a screenshot, AND I'd rather just remove this post instead of add some text to the page saying 'Hey guys, this is going smoothly being updated but please let us get some screenshots on here a.s.a.p. for verification. Thank you.'." In my mind I see the request to remove this page as spiteful rather then wanting to help out the community. A Wiki site is designed to list any kind of information available about a certain topic or about many topics. In this case it is about one topic; FFXI. Any information pertaining to this topic should be welcome. If SquareEnix sees fit to announce how many relic weapons are out there per server during their census' then I do not see why it is harmfull for us players to play along and actually find out who these people are? It can be helpful for prospective relic weapon collectors as well as entertaining for players to see how many are on their server. You can tell how often dynamis is done on a server by how many weapons are completed (this is a rough #). Now I know I have jumped around a bit on this matter but still, why remove it? I have yet to see a valid argument. Gahoo said "It's (1) not needed, (2) not verifiable and (3) leads to vandalism." Ok well (1), why not?whats the harm? (2) I explained earlier. (3) Vandalism can occur on any article in almost any way, how is this a valid argument on a wiki site? Have you never used one of these before? This is user run, which means users read this, and chances are users edit this. The chance at vandalism is indeed huge. But what? you will say "hey this guy has a relic weapon!!1!!eleven!!" when he doesn't? what kind of slander is that? "Oh it will cause players to send him tells." If this wiki is monitered as much as I believe it is, then people will notice false information on here. If the screenshot verification method is implimented, then that would make things easier. There is a fricken big question mark nexto people's names who have not been verified. In other words "take what you read here with a grain of salt." As I am done work now this is all I have time to say, and i was starting to ramble a bit. --Jeebz 9:01, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Comment: First, please watch your tone; this is a discussion, not a shouting match. Second, just because you aren't convinced by an argument doesn't make it not valid. Some wiki allow personal information on main page, and we've maintained that opinions and personal data do not have a place in main articles (and are removed/moved when we find these). This list would certainly be fine if it were in a blog, and individual users can advertise that they have these weapons on their userpages (and we won't even ask for verification there). However, as it is an article pertaining to personal achievement, many of us feel this article is not needed in the FFXIclopedia. Someone can feel free to move it elsewhere to maintain the list so people can still search these people out, but it was iffy when it was first created (see above talk) and it has followed through by being the target of vandalism. --Chrisjander 11:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Comment: Re: A lot of information on forums is just as inaccurate as people say this information is, if not more. -This is one reason that it is requested to be deleted, it is highly inaccurate more than any other article.
Re: A person can go ahead and send a tell to any name on the list here and ask that player if he/she has that weapon. -What if a person that has the weapon didn't give permission or want their name advertised on this site? What if they didn't want to be bothered from people that constantly send them tells asking questions like this? If they want to be asked, that person would themselves be the one putting it on their own user page or in a forum, but no one should be putting it up for them.
Re: I've already seen at least one screenshot posted..theres verification for you right there. -While screenshot verification does help, there is not a way to say that screenshot wasn't doctored. It is very easy to take a screenshot of someone else, copy your name over it and claim that you have it. So technically even screenshots are not verifiable.
Re: I do not see why it is harmful for us players to play along and actually find out who these people are? -This sounds like it would be a lot of work and someone on each server would have to track down (stalk), find, hope they have the weapon on, take the picture, submit it, etc. I don't think anyone on any server would be up to this task, that would take way to long. Who is not to say that half the names on the list are even currently playing the game anymore. --Wayka 14:06, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Comment: I would also add that this article would be constantly growing (unlike, for example, besieged server records). Since it is user-based, as time goes on more and more people will obtain these weapons and the page will get longer and longer and be harder and harder to police/verify. --Gahoo 14:28, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Keep: I'll address each of the issues one by one:

  • It's ugly - That issue has been resolved, it's no longer ugly.
  • It's not verifiable - I would argue that it's trivial to verify any of the entries on the article. Jump on the server and ask the person, or ask people who know the person.
  • It leads to vandalism - Lots of controversial articles have the potential to lead to vandalism. Even the community portal was recently a frequent target of vandalism. That's the nature of a wiki. If vandalism is getting to be too big of a problem, we can do what Wikipedia does with controversial articles and not allow editing of it for new users. Example
  • It's irrelevant/not needed - That's in the eye of the beholder. It's relevant to a fairly large number of people, myself included.
  • It's always changing - Again, the nature of a wiki.

If you feel it doesn't belong as a main article, move it to a subpage of my personal userpage. I'll put a note at the top stating that even though it's a part of my userpage, I don't mind if it's edited by people. --Divisortheory 14:51, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Keep: I still stand by my statement from earlier: "I've always seen this wiki as a (FFXI) reference tool (and that's what it is, isn't it?), and this page is a very valuable reference when it comes to completed relic weapons. Some people may not care about that, but a great many people (myself included) do." Like Divisortheory said, if vandalism is such an issue, lock editting of it from new users. As for the main arguement of it being about personal accomplishments: I think the fact that no one who has a relic weapon was involved at all in the making of this page shows that it's not about the people with relic weapons bragging. It's just a reference, plain and simple. --Kyrial 04:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Keep: The edit summaries show exactly two vandalism-related reversions since the article was started. If this page is FFXIclopedia's worst "vandal magnet" then I'd say we're doing pretty darn good. Pixymisa 07:31, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Delete: I recently stumbled upon this page after some relic research and I think it's just a big, ugly, uninteresting table. I agree with Chris that it's needless self-glorification and such a "hall of fame" is not for the benefit of this wiki. The upper part of this page might contain mildly interesting server statistics (though dubious, like the Besieged ones)... But if players want to brag about this, I suggest they create an account here; the userpage is the perfect place for it. --Eithin 08:07, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

Delete: Self-explanatory. Radiumsoup 13:45, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

Comment: Considering the relic weapons are starting to become more common in game the page will lose its effectiveness along with its accuracy with time. The only "official" counts would be from SE itself with the censuses. However, as been previously stated the tables of more interest are near the top. Server comparisons along with the totals of independent weapons. What I would like to see of the article is some sort of structured response on the growing distribution of the weapons with possible explanations. For example, commenting that more common is the shield and instrument where the least common are the staff and polearm along with unbiased reasoning. If someone wants to take it as a userpage addition I believe that would be the better choice than pure deletion due to the amount of work which has already been put into it. --Ariannas 23:52, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

Comment/Delete I don't feel this type of article has a place here. Like I said before, if we are tracking this why aren't we tracking other drops? Let's make a page tracking everyone who has all 5 relic armor pieces for each job. Or make a page about who has Bounding Boots. I don't think tracking gear is a worthwhile effort. What I say we do is make userboxes for relic upgrades. And those userboxes could contain a category like "Category:Relic Stage 5". Then the category is up to date, and it is maintained by those users who which to participate by creating a user page and adding the user box. That would satisfy the argument that "it's easier to find these people to ask questions". Maybe not everyone wants to be found, and if they do, they can add the userbox. --Ganiman 07:04, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

Another reason I see to drop this article is that all verification is done by linking to external image hosting companies. FFXIclopedia has always been against that sort of thing, as we have not control of maintaining those images, and we are not going to get in the practice of hosting those kinds of images. --Ganiman 07:07, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

Comment: As a note, there is a userbox, but it's not linked to such a category. {{Relic Weapon}} --Charitwo 07:52, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

Resolution: Delete --Mierin 08:36, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

Note: Deleted from Wiki. Moved to subpage for User:Divisortheory. Please note this is a personal user page, and not an official wiki page. --Mierin 08:36, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

Additional Resolution: Considering that some of the information is official and that some FFXIclopedia users may want to identify themselves as a relic holder, the {{Relic Weapon}} userbox will contain a "Category:Relic Acquisition" categorization (this terminology comes from SE - see The 6th Vana'diel Census (06/23/2006)#Items). The text of the category will contain the official statistics from SE (take from the above referenced census), which will likely be revised by SE shortly and (for now) the top two tables from the existing Stage 5 Relics page ("Stage 5 Relics by Server" and "Stage 5 Relics by Type") with an appropriate disclaimer that these statistics are unable to be verified. If someone wanted to undertake a neutral analysis of the distribution that would be appropriate. --Gahoo 09:00, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.