FFXIclopedia:AfD Discussions/Vulcan's Ring

It's currently disputed that this is actually obtainable as a HQ Flame Ring. Same with the other HQ elemental rings; of all the hundreds of thousands of rings synthed nobody has been able to prove the existence of a hq result, despite many hq animations on them.

-Aurik

---

I dont understand... Are you trying to say its an HQ2 or it doesnt exist? Or are you just restating what the recipe blatently says? --Nynaeve 21:04, 30 April 2006 (PDT)

---

I don't think it really matters, and is an issue for Master Goldsmithers to argue about. I only put it here cause there is a picture, and an entry on Somepage. --Chrisjander 21:42, 30 April 2006 (PDT)

---

I'm saying it doesn't exist, period. In which case it shouldn't be listed as a HQ1 result at all, or at least a note made about the inaccessability (or disputed inaccessibility) of this item at the current time.

-Aurik

---

Hmmm, just read the page on Alla for the Vulcan Ring ( http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?fitem=5058 ). There's a lot of back and forth about "it's in-game" "it's not in-game" la la la. But no proof of anything...So as far as I can tell, these rings don't appear to be in game. There's no history for any at the AH on Titan either (which isn't proof, but you know what I'm sayin). And a few people said they've gotten a HQ animation on these, but still end up with the NQ version. Maybe we should add that info to these HQ ring pages... Anyone seen these HQ rings in-game? --Rixie 17:40, 1 May 2006 (PDT)

---

Tell you the truth, I'm not at all surprized none are on AH. Its a Goldsmith (102) recipe, so if someone were to ever in a blue moon synth an HQ, they'd keep it, not sell it. --Chrisjander 18:55, 1 May 2006 (PDT)

---

Of course they wouldn't sell it - but i'm pretty sure they would put it up and sell it to themself to brag. And as I said, the lack of an AH listing doesn' prove anything (it's a trong indicator though), but the numerous reports that "i've gotten a few HQ animations on that synth, and never get this HQ ring. the HQ comes out an NQ" is what is convincing for me. i found more reports of this kind on the snow rings HQ page (aquilos ring..? somehting like that) --Rixie 19:17, 1 May 2006 (PDT)

---

You can find similar unfulfilled calls for evidence that they exist on KI and TheOrderLS. As far as anyone can tell, none have ever been listed on any AH anywhere ever. And it's not like the rings are never made...most goldsmiths get the bulk of their skillups 95->100 on these rings... -Aurik

PS. How do I sign my talk entries with my username / datestamp like that? You don't actually input the time manually do you? <_<

---

You put 4 tildes for it like this ~~~~ --Syeria 00:47, 2 May 2006 (PDT)

---

Remora have no HQ History of any of these rings. I have personally gotten my flame rings synthed by a 100+6 goldsmither. One of the animations was HQ (I almost wet my pants). Result was NQ. --Daniel 06:20, 2 May 2006 (PDT)

I know there are such things as HQ #2s ~ Just a suggestion but it could be an HQ 2 --Nynaeve 06:52, 2 May 2006 (PDT)

---

I doubt it, there would have been one to pop by now. We're talking a sample size of literally 10000+ synths, and nobody has reliably confirmed the existence a single one. -Aurikasura 10:41, 2 May 2006 (PDT)

---

There is also such thing as HQ 3. And well, if the recipe really caps at 102 instead of 100, I don't think you're going to see really any HQ 3 out of it. Well I suppose after about a million or 2 synths you might get one, but I'm pretty sure we don't have that sort of a sample size. --Syeria 11:27, 2 May 2006 (PDT)

---

I went and changed the synth bits on all the pages to HQ ??: for rings like this, since its debated whether its HQ1 or HQ at all. --Chrisjander 04:08, 3 May 2006 (PDT)

---

How did we get a screenshot of the item description if the item is unobtainable? Pro-Ether +2/3 probably arent on your server's auction house and you've probably never seen it (non-temp anyway), but those aren't in this category. At any rate, I don't see how its possible to get an SS like is on this page, if the item cannot be obtained, unless it's a photoshop, and it really doesn't look like one (if it is, whoever did it is pretty 133t at PS), so i'm going to move it out of this category and remove the warning. It's a 102 synth- if its higher than an HQ1, it stands to reason that its virtually (not totally) impossible to synth. Tahngarthor 04:45, 3 March 2007 (EST) (there's a difference between impossible and almost impossible)

---

[1]. It's not impossible to hq1/2/3 a tier0 HQ; for every 20 HQs, there will be on average approximately 4 HQ2 and 1 HQ3. Suffice to say, goldsmiths have gotten HQ animation for this synth (and the other elemental ore rings) hundreds of times, and yet nobody can even point to the existence of a single HQ result. --Aurikasura 12:51, 4 March 2007 (EST)

---

Item has been removed from dat files. -Sudra

The new /translate command when used as /translate "Jupiter's Ring" ej says that the item does not exist, that seems like proof enough and a good way to verify the existence of any other items that are disputed.

~ Craig

Article for Deletion

Keep Let it stay, it will come back anyway. Rather comment on it that the item probably does not exisit, or even for sure does not exist. It is listed in a ton of crafting lists as an HQ result, and people will look for it. In most lists there is no note that this item does not exist, so we should provide this information here. --Gisselle 21:41, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Delete: If the item was REMOVED from the DATs, it means it was either added originally as a mistake or never meant to exist in the first place. Items that do not exist in the DAT files have no place in FFXIclopedia. --User:Charitwo/Sig 21:50, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Comment: Sorry that i have to argue about this, but FFXIclopedia is meant to be a complete source of information on Final Fantasy, and as such these Rings have a place here. They existed in the DAT files once, and caused a lot of rumors, and people will look for this even now. So why delete the article on the item if people want info on it? Just explain on the page of the item that it does not exist, was once in the DAT files yada yada yada. Makes your point but also helps all people needing to clarify their info on the item. --Gisselle 03:07, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Comment: They don't have a place here, they would not have been removed if they were not erroneously there in the first place, we reserve a spot for items within the dats but not found in-game, but not for items that aren't found in the DATs at all. --User:Charitwo/Sig 05:56, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Comment: How about this: make all the pages of removed items into redirects to a page where the "no longer in DAT files" items are listed. That way we do not loose the relevant information, someone looking for a removed item will not have the problem of not finding any information, the items themselves are no longer listed and if more of these happen to appear we can just add them to the list and make a redirect to the list there too. --Gisselle 08:59, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Comment: This seems like an ok idea. --GAHOO t/ c 10:12, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Comment: it's impossible for a fully developed item entry (like these rings once had) to be erroneously in place. SE made a conscious decision to put them in the dats and a conscious decision not to use them. they've been removed now but I think simply deleting this and other items that used to be in the dats would just lead to a spate of them being recreated whenever someone comes in to fill in "missing" 75 items from other databases. either keep these pages and update to indicate the items no longer exist in the dats, or make a redirect to a secondary page with a list of similar items. --Amele 14:10, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Comment: Made template for "no longer in DAT files". How does this look? --Wayka †Talk† 19:50, 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 if the DAT in question is removed by Square Enix. --User:Charitwo/Sig 20:17, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

• What exactly is non-factual about "this item used to be in the dats but is no longer"? The first link to Prohibited Articles also deals with Fake Items; Vulcan's Ring was never fake, just unobtainable. --Aurikasura 20:24, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Comment: See also the Data Files section, the first section is basically saying if it doesn't exist it will be deleted. --User:Charitwo/Sig 20:20, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

• Ok, so you should remove the first of the two links since you don't seem to dispute that it doesn't apply. --Aurikasura 20:24, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Comment: It does apply, items that do not exist in the game will be deleted, it was never meant to be there in the first place, it's as good as being fake. If the first one isn't good enough for you the second is very clear and concise. --User:Charitwo/Sig 20:29, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

• You don't dispute that it doesn't apply, stop including it? --Aurikasura 20:34, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
  • OK, now you are making the argument that it does apply. But it doesn't, because Vulcan's Rings were clearly never fake, just unobtainable. --Aurikasura 20:44, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Comment: It's called a typo, there is no need for semantics. You need to read up on the guidelines before you can deem necessary what is considered proper formatting for Article for Deletion discussions, I have every right to format a discussion to these standards. Thanks. --User:Charitwo/Sig 20:37, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Comment: Then so do I --Aurikasura 20:38, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Comment: I'm the patroller, it's my job to ensure all edits conform to the guidelines set forth by the administration. If I notice something that is not formatted properly, I fix it, you on the other hand seem to be confused on how an AfD should be formatted properly. You also have no right to stop asking me to do anything, learn the rules. --User:Charitwo/Sig 20:45, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

• I have every right to ask you anything, you need to deflate your ego just a little bit Mr. Patroller. My comments don't make clear sense when severed from their context; leave them attached to their context so that other people can follow the discussion effortlessly. Also, I seem to have missed the memo where proper formatting for AfDs means no reponses to other comments, only root-level comments is allowed.

Comment: It's amazing that you show up to defend an item that you were so adamant about getting rid of in the first place. --User:Charitwo/Sig 20:56, 14 September 2007 (CDT)