FANDOM


Article IncorporationEdit

I'm really not sure about this incorporation thing you've been doing recently, EGGS. I mean, debulleting items and putting them into article text -- that is, removing them from list format -- is fine and all, but this sort of makes it more difficult to use articles as a quick reference, which is what a lot of people do with this wiki. From an aesthetic perspective, I can understand why you're doing it, but I can't help but feel that it damages the accessibility of the articles. Same thing about removing character abilities descriptions that appear on multiple articles. A little redundancy for clarity isn't harmful? I'm not going to argue this point too strongly, but do you get what I mean? -- Fallacies 00:43, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Do you mainly mean like I did with Jack? There is no real reason to keep the bullets now that there is story content to add to them, and it wouldn't really match the rest of the articles if it were left like that. Unless the other Apocrypha characters also get short stories, it's fine leaving them as they are seeing as that's all the content they'll ever have. Or are you talking about the spells? This article should only list common types of magecraft rather than every specific spell, as that's something more suited to the chant article. Ideally, I would like to combine the two articles together, and just have the chants by section like with Geis. The spells would be fine to list in that manner. EGGS 01:33, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. I feel that incorporation of bulleted points into the prose makes the wiki more difficult to use as a reference, and I don't feel that the bullets are without inherent utility, stylistic issues or not. If I want to look up the specific features or drawbacks of Jack's abilities, I don't want to have to open up the infobox and click through it to go to the parameters article, or to try to parse out how the ability works from your character background paragraphs. For use as a quick reference, having them bulleted in the article text makes utility less difficult. Further, I feel that some redundancy does not harm the wiki -- and that it would be ideal if the abilities are listed as well as explained in the text. Explaining "how the abilities are used in the story" should not be the same thing as listing "what the abilities are, and how they work." -- Fallacies 02:30, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
This is really only the case of one character, so sticking with prose seems like the best choice overall. Unless you're proposing every single article switches formats, having just bullets for Jack's abilities would be sort of strange stylistically. Redundancy can be fine, but having the same exact entries on both the character page and the skills page is a bit too much. The point of the skill list is so the exact entries don't have to be in the character articles in the first place. EGGS 02:47, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
In this case it should be fine, since the article has the Servant Template and thus all the skills are listed under a convenient info box, which makes it easy to reference. Fallacies seems to have a problem with that only because he has to click on the skill to read what it says, but in the end that's not a huge inconvenience, and I feel that anyone looking up the parameters and skills of Servants should already have the "Parameters and Skills" page open. However, I would be more inclined to agree with Fallacies for examples that don't have the Servant Template, but at the same time rearranging them to bulleted format would make them strange looking, so I'm not exactly for that. Right now, I think that Jack the Ripper is the only Servant of the Fate/Apocrypha bunch that has her own article in prose format, so it is somewhat jarring. I do feel that they need to all be one way or the other, instead of having varying formats. Also, someone forgot to leave a link to the Jack the Ripper article on the List of Fate/Apocrypha characters page, something that I feel is pretty necessary, so I went ahead and took care of that myself. Murderofcrows 01:33, March 7, 2012 (UTC)
I was planning to wait until they decide how they are going to market Apocrypha before doing anything. If they simply do a short story in every issue of Ace over some number of years, it would probably be best to just format them all now. If they turn it into a full project, I was thinking of moving the Servant page to something like "Prototype Apocrypha designs." There would likely be a number of changes to the final product in that case, so having both the old page and new pages for the characters would work best. If Jack turns out to be the only Apocrypha story that ever gets written, I figure it would be best to just have Jack as the only exception. EGGS 17:15, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

RunesEdit

Someone knows if our Runes (the Runes used in Nasuverse), has the exact inscriptions format of Norse mythology? If they share the same, I think it would be a nice idea to use some picture or just the one that Lancer uses in UBW Movie. Eiyuu.ou (talk) 23:49, November 10, 2012 (UTC)


OLDER RUNES AND RESISTANCE

The consensus on Beast's Lair seems to be that runes older than the modern ones aren't affected by regular resistance like the modern ones are and therefore, don't need to be writen on the target's body. Touko doesn't need to do it when she fights and she uses Elder runes against mages in Case Files and Caster Cu fights enemies that should have magic circuits, like the dragons in France and they seem to work just fine.

82.155.36.250 22:02, June 30, 2016 (UTC)

Name of article: "Magic"? Edit

The Type-Moon universe makes a distinction between "Magecraft" and "Magic". This article seems to be referring to the former. --Raijinili (talk) 03:18, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Only to some degree, the translation for what we refer to as magecraft could easily be called sorcery, thaumaturgy or magic. The only real distinction as such is between magic and 'True' magic. So a list of magic spells is just that, a list of magic spells, while our articles for magecraft and magic make the distinction quite clear. Hawkeye2701 (talk) 04:09, June 21, 2015 (UTC)
Unless we want to go with pure magecraft for everything (i.e. magecraft crests and circuits) or switch over to a different naming convention (magic and sorcery being one example), "magic" will just have to be used where it sounds best. EGGS (talk) 04:41, June 21, 2015 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.