TYPE-MOON Wiki
Register
Advertisement
TYPE-MOON Wiki
Archives
  1. Archive 1

Centralized area to propose changes or general comments. Create a new header for each topic.

Terminology unification[]

Section for discussing terminology to make sure it's consistent across the wiki due to the varying nature of fan translations and official localization.

AWB projects[]

Fate/Stay night 20th anniversary announcement[]

I believe this should be the first link on the slideshow on the main page because it is more recent than Tsukihime Remake Series I just did itUser:KarkatKitsune

Images[]

Formatting[]

Can we please use PNG where possible? I dunno why some people keep insisting on JPGs when there are better files available. -- Banksia (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm raising this again as people have repeatedly over the years expressed frustration at Nikonu deleting PNGs and replacing them with JPGs, which they have promptly ignored. Even WEBP files would be better and I hate them. -- Banksia (talk) 10:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible to name a png with the same name of a picture that has already been uploaded as a jpg? I don't know how people do it with the stages. Everytime I try to upload a fgo stage pic with a translucent background without replacing the jpg with the official background art, the wiki tells me I can't repeat the name, despite both files having different types.GuessWhoYoutube (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

There should be an option you can click that says something like "save anyway" if that's the case, I know I've done it a few times. -- Banksia (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Renaming files[]

I'm in the long, slow process of updating image names into something that's actually searchable. Mainly I want some consistency between filenames, especially with all the FGO art. Some notes for anyone who wants to help:

  • Search uses both file name and summary, however it has trouble with no spacing and wildcards (*) DO NOT WORK
  • Keep common acronyms where possible -- can possibly discuss what these are but they're generally self-evident
  • The wiki seems to have trouble displaying files that have diacritics/accents in the filename so it's best to avoid them.
  • Hoping to use a "(Class) (Name) (Card/Portrait/Illust)" formatting for FGO art -- going to add to this point in a bit, just a tad busy atm

-- Banksia (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Please note Wikipedia's Manual of Style guidelines on file namesWP for more information. -- Banksia (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Descriptions[]

If possible, we should start putting some descriptions in image files (or at least the important ones), similar to what's being done with Craft Essences files. Just basic stuff, doesn't need to be long descriptions (although I guess people can do that too). It'll help with search results as well. -- Banksia (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Galleries[]

I'm noticing an uptick in the use of slideshows, but I think they're being overused. It's one thing if it's 2-4 images (four is already the maximum recommended by Fandom's own guidelines) but I've seen them stacked with 10 images. As they're formatted on Fandom now, the images just end up too small, and I think there's still a bug (or feature??) where you can't open the images on an overlay like you can with normal thumbnails. -- Banksia (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

A lot of Servant pages use a Servant's Class Name instead of their True Name in images descriptions of galleries, which I don't think is a good idea, especially regarding images related to Fate/Grand Order. Calling a Servant by their Class Name rarely happens or doesn't happen in FGO so it's odd to use them. While it would be understandable to call Mordred "Saber of Red" for images related to Fate/Apocrypha, since that was her name in that series, it makes less sense to use Saber for images related to FGO, especially when she has a Swimsuit/Summer form that is a completely different class. In regards to FGO originals (like Paul Bunyan, Don Quixote, and Jeanne d'Arc Alter) this makes even less sense since they never get mentioned by their Class Name. Therefore, I would like to ask permission to make edits to the galleries so I can change the Class Names of FGO-related images to True Names. By extension, I also want to ask for permission to remove non-unique Class Names from the introductions of the pages of Servants from FGO, and other Fate entries, who never get called by their Class Name since I have mostly the same reasoning for that.--Appelmonkey (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Your reasoning is so dumb that is perplexing. You just have to think two seconds to understand why is done in this way: you are looking at a gallery of a specific character. Of course it will be the same name from all of them. That is a character gallery, of course all images are related to that specific character. But even then we got characters that get multiple classes designation like Frankenstein. She gets a berserker, saber and caster variants. Why then characters with single classes get the same trestment? Because we dont know the future, they may appear in different classes or different forms. Just look at Li Shuwen example, imagine all images named as li shuwen instead of their classes, the confusion would be great. The names used in their galleries prevent this confusion and signifies their origin.
Just think for two seconds before making dumb changes (i will have to fix your mordred relationship edits).
Lemostr00 (talk) 3 August 2023 (UTC)
As far as "Class Name X" goes, that's there for consistency across the board. It's necessary for all non-FGO Servants, and all FGO Servants have the chance to appear in other games down the line.
As far as the galleries go, I'd say that seems sensible enough. The name of the article should generally be used in reference to the character. The exception would be stories in which the Class Name is heavily utilized. Saber should be Saber in a FSN plot summary, but she should be Artoria in a FGO plot summary. If there's need to differentiate different classes in the same gallery, [Class] [True Name] is fine. EGGS (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Image Use[]

Using File:QuetzalcoatlJungleBabylonia.png as an example - this was a generic jungle background introduced during the first FGO summer event so is not strictly associated with Quetz. There's been other generic images uploaded to the wiki as well. Barring very specific backgrounds (such as Honnoji and LB6), I don't know that a lot of these really need to be used. -- Banksia (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it might be better to use anime/manga images for stuff like that. EGGS (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles[]

Alternate versions[]

I would like to now when do alternate versions of one characters get their own article, their Alternate Forms section, or nothing at all. It's a bit confusing since there isn't a clear criteria to follow. In my opnion that is. Swimsuits and Alters are easy, but when characters morph throughout the story I can't tell what's the correct choice. I haven't read LB6, but wasn't Oberon for example his own character at some point? Shouldn't he have his own article separate from Oberon Vortigern? Or at least have a section in List of characters. Similarly, I think Light Koyanskaya should be split from Tamamo Vitch (Alter Ego/Beast). I don't understand why when a servant appears in another class with a different set of abilities they get their own article, but Konyanskaya doesn't. And well, maybe the Heroic Spirit Swordmasters should get their own article too just like other modified servants (Megalos comes to mind). I think that's all.GuessWhoYoutube (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Oberon was always Vortigern. He was always a Pretender moving things for his own machinations. Koyan, currently waiting for 6.5 to happen before we restructure anything. Koyan Light is currently portrayed as the same continuous personality with no actual change beyond her class and name. If anything will be split out, it'd probably be the Beast version if that happens. If she doesn't become a Beast but splits into Light and Dark, then we'd probably make two pages based around the two versions. The Swordmasters are basically Alters for all intents and purposes, so I've been contemplating splitting them out. With the Shimousa manga providing a bit more of a visual difference for some of them, that makes it a little bit easier to justify. EGGS (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I know the Oberon Fujimaru meets is Vortigern is disguise. What I meant is what the fgo porfile says. PHH Vortigern was summoned in LB6 and he merged with Oberon, becoming Oberon Vortigern. When they say "Oberon was married to blah blah blah" or "Oberon is the King of Faries", they are talking about a different character than vortigern pretending to be him. That's what I meant. Shouldn't info only involving Oberon pre-LB6 fusion be on its own article? I just find sentences such as "shakespeare created the oberon character" linking to fairy vortigern extremely weird.GuessWhoYoutube (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I propose we split up his article just like we did Space Ishtar and Demon King Nobunaga. Everything involving LB6 would go to Oberon Vortigernand but info only concerning the fairy king pre fusion to Oberon.GuessWhoYoutube (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
They're not alternate personalities, so it wouldn't really make any practical sense. Even if "Heroic Spirit Oberon" is something that can be summoned indivdually, it's the same case as Van Gogh where we're never going to see the individual components in the context of FGO at the very least. EGGS (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm personally not a fan of the Chaos Tide versions getting their own articles. I know they're Alters, but Benkei especially only appears for a few scenes in one event. -- Banksia (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Collaboration Servants splitting[]

In FGO, there are some servants that ate originated from collaborations where the character ate still alive, that is fine and all but in the wikia they share the same lage as their origin (cases like Illyasviel von Einzbern (Fate/kaleid) and Chloe von Einzbern). And we have cases like Miyu Edelfelt (Servant), Gray (Assassin), Shiki Ryougi (Assassin) and Erice Utsumi (Lancer), where their servants counterparts have their own pages.

Should we split all these pages in servant version and their original ones? Illya's page bother me so much that there is FGO material with Kaleid one when Miyu got her own page separated from it. If future collabs happen, should we use a term like xxxxx (Servant) to avoid problems like Erice Utsumi (Lancer) who also happens to be an avenger in her summer saint graph version? What are your thoughts on this matter? Lemostr00 (talk)

Yeah, that's on my to-do list. I originally kept the Prisma characters together because they're kind of just the literal characters with zero changes shoved into the game (in comparison to the other characters who are more Servant-ified), but made more sense to unify things. I got Miyu done, but haven't gotten to Illya or Kuro. EGGS (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Canon to Fate[]

I've been thinking for a while that we should do a little proofreading session going over the most important characters. I think there are people just inserting everything they know about real life myth into the wiki articles whether that info has been confirmed as canon in fate or not. Pegasus being listed as Medusa (Rider)'s offspring, or Poseidon's background section going over how Cronos devoured his children are some good examples. I'm pretty sure that those things have never been stated on any official fate source, so they should be removed. This type of problem also appears in the relatives tab, where the greek characters have over 20 people listed there. In fate, I think all we know about Achilles is that he is son to Peleus and Thetis, however, in his article, he has his real life grandparents and cousins listed, even though I'm 100% positive they haven't been name dropped in fate.GuessWhoYoutube (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, anything not actually mentioned directly within the context of the story or side materials can be removed. Though there are cases like Pegasus (direct gift in hollow, speculated to be her child in the CE of her other offspring) where there exist references to multiple interpretations within Fate itself, so all of those should be documented. EGGS (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes. The problem is that because no one uses references it's hard to tell if the source is some obscure CE/material most people don't know about or if someone made it up entirely.GuessWhoYoutube (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Citation needed tags or just full scale TNT is fine depending on the circumstances. We can just have the expectation that every field of the info box have a citation if we want. EGGS (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Contents[]

Not expecting much to come of this but is there any way to limit the copypasta from Reddit translations? -- Banksia (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine just TNTing any direct copy and paste that's not utilized for quotation purposes. We have the encyclopedia pages for that stuff. EGGS (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Extreme long-term project: rewording articles to have actual content and summarising where possible. -- Banksia (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Greek Family Members[]

As I already addressed here in Canon to Fate a while back, the current character tabs listing the family members of a few servants/gods are a mess. A lot of users have been inserting for years family members that to my knowledge haven't even been name dropped in fate. (Rhea for instance), let alone having been confirmed to be related to other characters. I've recently been updating the Lostbelt Machine Gods with their CANON CONFIRMED family members. The confirmed lineage includes:

Those are the confirmed relationships. There's also stuff such as Demeter having inherited Gaia's Authority, Zeus and Hades being from the same "line", and so on. I'd like to know if any of you are aware of official sources confirming any other relationships such as "Hades is Zeus's brother", that Hephaustus was fathered by Zeus, etc. I know proofreading is always an inconvenience, but since Olympus just released in NA I think now is the time.GuessWhoYoutube (talk)

Minor characters[]

Still proposing we either split up the List of minor characters article into different canons or break them up into their own character articles. The page is too long. -- Banksia (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Renaming articles for consistency[]

I noted down that some Servant articles need to be renamed to be consistent among Fate off-shoots e.g. the Fate/Prototype and Fate/EXTRA Servants are largely tagged as only "Prototype" and "EXTRA", so it needs applying to others like Grand Order and EXTELLA Servants. -- Banksia (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that too, but I prefer the original. I think "Gilgamesh (Fate/EXTRA CCC)" is better than "Gilgamesh (EXTRA CCC)" or "Gilgamesh (CCC)."GuessWhoYoutube (talk)

Class Names part 2[]

New section now that I've banned him for 6 months. Probably should be permanent, but maybe he'll chill out if he decides to come back. In terms of whether the edits can go through, should be fine to proceed. Post here if there are any issues with the edits and try to figure out if there's need for adjustment. EGGS (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I do agree with the previous proposal to make it [Class Name] [Servant Name] as the middle ground. Do tell me if and when it is implemented, I keep reverting Applemonkey's edits until consensus is reached and keeps undoing them, despite having explained to them my reasoning.--The Lord Reader (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Appelmonkey is once again doing as they want claiming "per policy change" despite no official consensus having actually been reached. The Lord Reader (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Templates[]

Navboxes[]

The navboxes pretty much all need an overhaul, splitting up by canon and so on. I noted down the ones used by the Final Fantasy wiki as examples for myself.

More than that though, there's apparently a way to format them so that you can make a bullet list and it'll format the • instead of us having to do it manually, which would be super helpful for the really long navboxes like Noble Phantasms and what'll eventually be the FGO navbox. Been meaning to look into it but have been swamped with other things. -- Banksia (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Some of the navboxes appear to be broken, at least the last I checked, the Skills navbox is unable to expand. Need to look into the formatting. -- Banksia (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like one of the recent changes changed the collapsible/collapsed code. For anyone looking to fix it a particular table, "collapsible" should be replaced by "mw-collapsible" and "collapsible collapsed" should be replaced by "mw-collapsible mw-collapsed article-table". EGGS (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


Episodes/Volumes[]

Hoping to come up with a template for manga/novels/etc similar to how other wikis do it, like MHA or Naruto.

Template:Episode needs updating to be more in line with what's used at Wikipedia.

-- Banksia (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Long term, would it be beneficial to go for episode/chapter lists or go for individual episode and chapter (or volume) articles? That'd probably dictate how those are designed. I merged the individual episodes way back, but there were only two shows at the time. With many more pieces of media, many completely original, revisiting individual articles might be better. EGGS (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
At least for television shows, I know that the long serials will generally have a table with episodes per season, sometimes with a short summary, and sometimes linking to an article for the episode itself. I think a lot of wikis do that with manga too. I think it should be doable like that? -- Banksia (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I grabbed the volume template from the Bleach wiki. Seems like a good enough base to fiddle around with. Experimented with Fate/EXTRA CCC FoxTail Chapter 1 as well. EGGS (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I know it's been a while and you've already made two(?) examples to test out. The Bleach wiki template seems a bit off if only because they have all their chapter info on one page and make use of scroll bars, of which I'm personally not a fan. That said, as you said, I like what you have now as a base. I like the examples of MHA, AoT and Naruto for how we could potentially format the infobox (introducing characters, Skills, NPs, etc.).
If anything, I think we have a bigger issue about how we'll want to name the articles, given how much media this wiki covers. I'll have to dig into what other mega-franchise wikis do. -- Banksia (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, getting more info into the infobox seems like a good idea. So far, I made List of Fate/EXTRA CCC FoxTail chapters and List of Fate/kaleid liner PRISMA☆ILLYA chapters. For naming, I think [Series] Chapter [#] is probably the only real way to do it. If we want the phrase "Chapter #" to pull it up in the search bar we can either do redirects or simply name them Chapter [#] ([Series]) or Chapter [#] - [Series]. Naming after the chapter/episode title has always seemed like a weird way to do it considering the variations in translations and simply making it harder to search efficiently. EGGS (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Tabs[]

I really, really, really want an alternative to character/canon tabs, preferably using disambiguation pages. -- Banksia (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I like the tabs, but I think some people add too much text for no reason. Like, if Kama only appears in FGO, why does her tab have the class icon along with "fgo (kama)"? Wouldn't the class icon and the name be enough to fulfill the purpose of the tab?GuessWhoYoutube (talk)
We could consolidate any bloated ones at the very least. For Artoria, the unnecessary/secondary ones could be relegated to the disambig page. Or have the final tab of the main one be "other characters," which then links to a secondary set of tabs for the minor parody characters. More disambig pages regardless wouldn't hurt though. EGGS (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Using Tabber seems to help with the ugliness issue at the very least. EGGS (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't look very good on mobile, but I think editing for the mobile site will need to be a more concentrated effort (covering all templates) given how old this wiki is. -- Banksia (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Tried out using Template:Sidebar on Iskandar's Shadow with Template:Hephaestion. Any thoughts? It probably couldn't completely replace the tabs, but it's an option. EGGS (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks better than the tabs but my vote is still for disambiguation pages. :p -- Banksia (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Categories[]

Categories for discussion[]

List categories for review for renaming, merging, or deletion.

Rankings[]

I know Servant/NP ranking categories only got introduced last year(?) but I've been wondering how helpful they are. Honestly in the context of FGO, I don't think there's that much thought put into it (triple pluses is just silly!!). -- Banksia (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I think I made them after seeing comments from people on different sites simply looking for easy ways to find Servants with similar parameters. I'd agree some Servants in the last few years have probably had no real thought put into their stat distribution (A STR d'Eon standing out as particularly confusing), but it'd say they're useful enough for quick comparative navigation. EGGS (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Overcategorization[]

What exactly is the plan with all the new categories that have been added to the wiki in the last few months? It's hard to see how they add to organisation when some (a lot) of them feel arbitrary. I'm reminded of one user who argued for adding categories based on religion which was ultimately refused - a lot of new categories look to me like they're being added for the sake of adding them without considering their function on a wiki about Type-Moon. Or maybe the sheer amount is just too overwhelming for me to see the big picture. -- Banksia (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I do think a healthy category system is what a lot of wikis are missing, but there is definitely the opposite spectrum of overcategorization. Added an above section where potentially unnecessary categories and category trees can be listed for discussion. EGGS (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
There is definitely some really dubious categories added. LDSatoko just added a Crocodile category just for Ammit and the Kali monsters, which feels unnecessary when the Animal category does the job just fine. Making subcategories for every species of animals is overkill and cluttering. And there is also a "Life" category now??? Just a lot of categories that need justification for their existences. The Lord Reader (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, the animal category needed a little splitting, but that's going a bit too specific. "Life" appears to have been created following Wikipedia's category structure as a top level container category as part of Category:TYPE-MOON fiction. Can't really think of anything better. EGGS (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Automation[]

Literally just throwing out a list of things to look into whether there are AWB plugins for or stuff we could just put together to run a mass edit on every now and then. I feel like what I've managed so far is only pretty basic and surely more can be made, well, easier.

  • typoes (character/place names etc.)
  • template updates/changes/clean up CSVLoaderWP might be a good choice
  • references formatting/clean up
  • renaming images and replacing page links at the same time

Look into Pywikibot??

-- Banksia (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Misc.[]

References[]

We need some kind of consistency with references but that would involve a LOT of work. -- Banksia (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Currently in progress at TYPE-MOON Wiki:Standardized references. Maybe we could eventually fold them into a template system for ease of editing? Not sure if that'd be useful or cumbersome. EGGS (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I've looked into how other big wikis do it and it's something that would require an extensive, well, reference to go along with the template. We'd have to be pretty clear about every bit of media and materials. Having said that, this list is certainly a great start. -- Banksia (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Mobile issues[]

Mobile edits insert junk for some reason. The infamous "div-class" or however it's called. How is it that just typing in your phone automatically copy-pastes all the text multiple times? Is it just me? Could it be fixed? -- GuessWhoYoutube (talk)

This might be something we need to tag an actual wiki staff member about. -- Banksia (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Outreach[]

What are the chances that we can reach out to someone from the FGO Wiki to ask for their help in formatting this wiki? I've glanced over their CSS coding and it's very detailed in what it can do. Unfortunately it's a little out of my league to replicate. -- Banksia (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If not, I think Fandom staff will help. There was a Fandom local manager previously, but not sure if they're still doing that. EGGS (talk)
Honestly an advisable suggestion, the CSS coding there makes it easy to navigate and look-up assets, especially for the purposes of editing related pages. ArcaneX (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Moving[]

A few months late but this has been on my mind since some of the big wikis like Zelda pulled out from Fandom. So this is me opening the floor to the possibility of moving content off site, and if so, to where. There's the Miraheze alt that I believe Soarel started up, for example, although it would need reopening. Given that the TM wiki is very old and has a lot of content from a lot of contributors, I acknowledge that there's a lot to consider and a lot of logistics probably involved with a move. But I also feel that it's an option worth considering. -- Banksia (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I've thought about it considering Fandom is pretty cancerous, but currently seems like too many downsides. Lack of traffic and visibility due to Fandom's search optimization domination, the fact that this wiki would still exist and thus end up competing with the new one once someone else took up the helm, and the overall hassle it would be getting everything set up. It's certainly something always on the table due to Fandom consistently looking for ways to make things worse, but I don't think it's particularly necessary until they put out something that really makes the user experience so unbearable that there's little alternative. EGGS (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
One pro I was considering was that it would cut out the community forum side of things, seeing as it's currently unmoderated anyway and the people who engage with that and the wiki don't seem to really exist in the same space as it is. -- Banksia (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I feel like visibility is sort of a non-issue since the fandom is large enough that the news about a move would make the rounds regardless. Methods to export exist although would require additional help given this wiki's size. -- Banksia (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Further to this point, the Miraheze alt has been shutdown and closed - not sure if it's possible to just straight up make a new TM wiki - but wiki.gg has also gained traction lately and quite a number of game wikis have since moved there. -- Banksia (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I reached out to the people at wiki.gg and they'd be happy to help us move. The size and all that wouldn't be an issue, as they just helped the WoW wiki move. -- Banksia (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Appelmonkey's editing[]

Central forum for for discussion on Appelmonkey‎'s edits, including proposals from Appelmonkey‎ on how content should be structured, rebuttals against it, recommendations on how to include productive edits, etc. to form a consensus. Add subsections as needed. EGGS (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Relationships[]

I haven't gone through everything yet, but my first suggestion on the relationships section would be to mix the two styles. I personally hate them, but seems they're here to stay. Using the FGO quotes as a base is fine.

Character

« Full, unedited Fate/Grand Order quote here »

(Fate/Grand Order material #)
Further commentary here, containing factual information, directly sourced to either the material books or actual story.

These sections can extend beyond the FGO profiles, but inclusion should be limited to only core relationships. EGGS (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

This style of quotation may look alright bringing in both sides but in practice it would like like a comic panel where a man opens the doot and the dialogue is "the man opened the doot". To not even say the fact that by trying to mix one you can fall in a pitfall of false interpretation or supposition.

Let me give you one example, this is Irisviel (doh) line in materiao III to Grigori Rasputin, now, this material was published in December 31, 2016.

Grigori Rasputin
"Eh? First thing first, could you die for me?"

Rasputin came into FGO years later and we didn't know about his true body. Right now we can understand why was that said because of Fate/Zero context, but not because of zero accel where iris was Introduced since their encounter wasn't the same here. So if we go by trying to explain it back in 2016 wr would have to assume something or infer, without the direct context that the creators have when they decided to put the line in the material. And the same goes for lots of fan service lines that other servants have in direction to other characters.

And another big problem is: if we put this little explanation we can spoil some other work that it wasn't the intention. Another example, this is Kriemhild line to Sieg:

Sieg
"You, you smell like someone related to me… Your name is…? I see… Sieg. Sieg, you say…? For your own good, change your name right now. Give in and change it to something like Hans or Schmidt. …If you don't… you will end up acting like a sort of hero and dying satisfied, you know? ─── Wait. Did you just look away…? Wait, wait a minute, OKAY SIT DOWN!! I'll have you tell me thoroughly. About the mistake that you made…!"'

The person that knows apocrypha will get the context and the nuance of her lines, but for s person that just wanted to see kriemhild page and never played FGO, will get spoiled for another work without any intention of being so.

Who reads this and know the context of apocrypha will get it and those who don't, will not be spoiled for something else. So why do I insist in leaving the way it is: because it is flexible. Another case with Sieg is how he has both how he relates to others in apocrypha and FGO (I for example, would prefer that servant versions of living characters would get their own page like Gray (Assassin)). It allows that the nuance of the dialogue to not be misinterpretated by a supposition/desire/wish by whoever writes his description. And of course, the gigantic problem that it would supposition +interpretation+spoilers. We have multiple examples of how it can go bad like trying to describe what Arthur Pendragon feels towards Merlin (Prototype) relationship with Beasts.

By leaving as it is, we cover out asses, dont spoil other works, leave the interpretation to the reader since it is a primary source, gets the personality quirks of each servant, and of course: it doesn't create redundancy in the clear cases.

And here is the thing: I went and put all there, I will not do the same if we decide to go with this mixed system. There are more than 300 playable servants and 16 materials covering it with more to come. At the moment we have reached maintenance status, adding new ones as we get it. If we decide to go mix, who will write it? There wasn't someone doing before and I really doubt appelmonkey will, it is lot of work.

And of course: adding how other X character feels in a character page about Y is totally out of question. That is taking all problems from before and making it even worse to not even say about the 4x redundancy that it would create. Since it would be:

  • Quote x> y
  • Description
  • Quote y > x
  • Description

Completely moronic idea. Put how that character feels in their page, not on the subject. (Just think about Gilgamesh, imagine putting all his relationships in all series he has been and will, before even reaching the story section, it would be spoiled)

The one proposition I would made is to move the relationship section to be after story since one could spoil another.

Lemostr00 (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


I am fine just core relationships (close friends/allies, family members, Master, Servants, and arch enemies). That is a reasonale request. However, I disagree with the use of quotes due to redundancy, but this is not something I am going to bat for.

However, I completely disagree with Lem. The purpose of a wiki is to explain the naunces and intricacies, which means giving out spoilers like candy simply comes with the project. In fact, the page names of most Servants alone is a spoiler. Spoilers are also abaunt in Noble Phantasm pages and ability sections since you have to describe fights while doing so, which could include the outcome and thus death of a character. His suggestion also means creating a wiki focused soley for people who are already familiar with the Fate series and fully understood it, which would make the purpose of a wiki mute. What about the people who don't give a shit or have watched it and simply didn't fully understand and want some things cleared up. If someone doesn't want to be spoiled they should tread with caution and approach at their own risk. The argument is also implying the relationship would be restricted to one entry, which is not always true.

The size of these sections ultimately do not matter. As long as its relevant to the character it should be on there. Simple as that. I dont have anything against moving relationships to a lower part, but I do feel like its somewhat pointless (if harmless) considering my previous points.

As for editing the pages, editing a wiki is an ongoing project, is it not? You don't have to do it tomorrow or even the next year, nor do you have to do it alone.--Appelmonkey (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


(I can't tell who's arguing what, so I'm guessing and adding page breaks. Fix things how you want.)

My initial thoughts on relationship quotes is that they are redundant. There's too much content on this wiki that's just direct quotes as it is. -- Banksia (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I am arguing that we should add relationship descriptions to wherever its relevant because its info that should be mentioned, Lem wants to keep it minimal and simply because it would take too long to make the change and it would spoil shit.--Appelmonkey (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I personally don't care about spoilers so much, although we've been sorely in need of either a spoiler-friendly formatting or spoiler warning. I feel like other wikis that have included details on character relationships typically have them split off on their own page, precisely due to the potential of the sheer amount of content. And Type Moon has a lot of characters.
I'm all for expanding on core relationships, but this fandom/wiki (quite reasonably) attracts people who scrutinise every detail, so I understand the concern about what an overwhelming task it would be, both the writing and editing. At a surface level, I'm reminded of some power/abilities sections that go into WAY too much detail about "who is stronger that who in this or that situation". -- Banksia (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I think making a seperate page for relationships would be a fine compromise and would allows us to go into further detail regarding relationships. Personally I think that a paragraph or two on the main character page would be enough and I don't care too much about spoiling, but I can defintly live with your proposal. Maybe this could also be done with the story sections for characters who have been in a certain amount of Type-Moon entries.
And I know exactly what you mean regarding the abilities. Sasaki Kojirou had an entire bit talking about how Gilgamesh would deal with him just for its own sake rather than to illustrate the extent of Sasaki's skill as a fighter. I have been trying to cut down those kinds of paragraphs myself recently.--Appelmonkey (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Collapsable sections[]

There are some sections that keep getting longer and longer, there is a tool that can make ir collapsable. In this case I used two examples: one that is already collapsed Melusine (Lostbelt)#Relationships where you need to click before to read. And the other is Morgan (Lostbelt)#Relationships, where you need to click to hide the text within the section.

What would you guys think it is better for these sections? I think it may need a button or a bigger text explaining that it is hidden.

I prefer collapsed to start with. -- Banksia (talk)
Advertisement