FFXIclopedia:AfD Discussions/Vulcan's Ring

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 current talk page.

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)

This is why it's important to read comments in context. My comment at the top of the page was not in support of deletion, it was regarding the erroneous link on the Goldsmithing--Flame Ring synth. --Aurikasura 21:32, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

---

Delete: Jeepers~Creepers!?! Will you two stop flaming each other and arguing for the sake of arguing... [Aurik look above - didn't you a year ago want this item gone when I wanted it to stay?] and actually get to the point.

The point is - this was never a FAKE item - it was real; unobtainable - most likely; In the DAT files any longer? NO.

As I said on the Template talk Wayka made - CURRENT standards dictate:

Data Files
Items which can be identified only by a data (.dat) file may be referenced in the FFXIclopedia.
 These items must contain the {{Datfilesonly}} template, which identifies the item as 
 potentially not existing in the game. These items are subject to speedy deletion if the .dat file is
 subsequently removed by Square Enix.

So I suggest one of you who adamantly thinks that DAT files should remain in the wiki should post something on the FFXIclopedia talk:Prohibited Articles or on the Forums and try to get support and have the actual Policy changed because as Policy states this should be deleted as its many other counterparts have been. Otherwise - its the wrong tree to bark up of. --User:Nynaeve/Sig 21:07, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Nope, I never recommended this article for deletion and never thought it should be deleted. I also don't think that items that once were in the dats and are no longer should be removed, but that's a discussion for another place. --Aurikasura 21:32, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Yikes. What I agreed with was a few redirects to one article about items which were, for a long period of time, in the .dats and the subject of much discussion. That way when someone tries to create the page, they get redirected to an article called something like "Removed .dat Files". I don't think they should each get a page - which doesn't provide any context for why the page remains desired/necessary in the first place (i.e. the community has long discussed them). --GAHOO t/ c 21:58, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Honestly, I can't see a reason someone would try to recreate something that doesn't exist. Several items like 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 were all deleted for being removed from the DAT files, I don't know any rhyme nor reason why anyone would be putting up a defense for these 8 rings that have no bearing on anything. They were obviously removed from the DATs because they weren't meant to be there in the first place. And for anyone who isn't aware, searching for any of these after they are deleted will bring up the respective AfD discussion first and foremost, I can't see any confusion as to why someone would recreate it. --User:Charitwo/Sig 22:40, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Well the first thing that would need to happen would be for someone to create an article about the history of deleted items. Then, IMO, the only thing to be decided is whether a redirect is appropriate. As it stands there is no such article. I don't think they should each get their own "historic" page, or that a category is needed. --GAHOO t/ c 22:54, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Forgive me for sounding prudent, but can I ask what such an article would signify? All these items were all unobtainable. If they used to be obtainable but now no longer are, I could see reason for some sort of reference page, but these were either 1) mistakenly added to the DATs and since removed or 2) they had plans for these items to exist, but since change their minds and thusly removed them --User:Charitwo/Sig 23:06, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Comment Simply have a look at ffxi.somepage.com. All these rings are still in it, and somepage is still a much refered to resource for information on FFXI. Someone looking at the item will see no further information on it. A natural further action is to go to other pages, like this one. If that player does not find anything here, he might just create the page and ask for further information. Which then starts the whole issue all over. Thats why i like the redirect idea best. If there is a standard deletion policy for such information, that policy should be rethought for cases like this one. --Gisselle 06:53, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

Resolution: Delete per FFXIclopedia:Prohibited Articles#Data Files. A possible redirect page is still in discussion. --User:Charitwo/Sig 16:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)