So yeah, that vandal that keeps messing up the Earthling article...something really needs to be done about him. He'll keep vandalizing it as long as he's not blocked or banned. Henryacores and Diablocon are admins, only they can block and ban, but I haven't seen Henry around in a while. Should we let Henry know? Or at least that he will give us admin priveleges...idk. We're the only registered editors still active it seems... Riegella li Ersaren 22:37, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, someone needs to be notified, or powers need to be transferred. The vandal hasn't done anything that can't be easily reversed but he has exposed a weakness since none of us can ban him.ClaudeLv250 22:48, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
Before you say anything...Welcome to Star Ocean Wiki!!
Hi there! Welcome to the Star Ocean Wiki, and thank you for your contributions! There's a lot to do around here, so I hope you'll stay with us and make many more improvements.
I, and all other contributors to this wiki, are really happy to have you here!!
As for Blade of Fury, there isn't much coverage beyond what we can have at Fayt Leingod page. Abilities that appear only at one game don't need their own article because they're usually covered somewhere else, in this case, Fayt. Their coverage is not ignored at all, it's just not given the notoriety it doesn't have.
As of the Abilities section being removed of combat mechanics I must disagree. Just because it may include field mechanics as well, abilities already include special arts and symbology, which are very notable combat mechanics. Since abilities also include anti-attack auras and battle skills, I really think they should be under both field and combat mechanics equally. Or either make the three the same hierarchical level. - Henryacores^ 00:42, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
Earth Glaive is not of the same nature of Earth Grave, but rather of Glaive. Different subjects should be featured in different articles, independently of connotation. That's what redirects and disambiguations are for. - Henryacores^ 18:52, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Also, your strategy for symbology coverage is excellent. The only addition it should have are links to the characters' articles. - Henryacores^ 18:53, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
Earth Grave and Earth Glaive are the same spell. I know the localizers keep screwing around though, but the current naming convention of this same spell is Earth Grave (SO1/2/BS) -> Earth Glaive (SO3) -> Crushing Earth (FD/SE) -> Earth Glaive (SO4). Glaive got retired after Blue Sphere, and Earth Glaive somehow took its place as the lowest tier Earth spell starting with SO3. ClaudeLv250 19:04, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
- You are looking at it the wrong way. Earth Grave and Earth Glaive are distinct. Earth Grave was dropped and replaced by Stone Rain as a multi-target mid-rank elemental spell and Earth Glaive took Glaive's place. - Henryacores^ 19:27, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that Earth Grave and Earth Glaive are literally the same spell in the series, their only difference is in localization name. The difference in functionality should be noted in the article, instead of trying to pass it off as two separate spells based on slight differences (single target versus multi-target), or certain spells would need multiple articles just to chronicle the small changes from game to game, like how Thunderbolt started off as an area of effect spell but strictly became one-target in SO2. Earth Glaive's functionality never really changed - it still hits multiple enemies, it's just that you have to target one enemy now to start it. That seems like such a miniscule thing to make another article for.
I also wouldn't know how to approach them separately going off of the old "Earth Grave" name. They're the same spell, so which game goes under which article? ClaudeLv250 19:47, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
They are not literally the same spell in the series simply because they are completely different in functionality and appearance and have distinct names in each instance. Earth Grave is a series of rocks rising from the ground, while Earth Glaive is only one. Targeting has changed a lot between the older Star Oceans and the latter two, and spells aren't strictly single-target anymore.
Single-target versus Multi-target is a great difference. If it was not, we'd better merge Faerie Healing and Faerie Light - they have similar names. Earth Glaive also shares Glaive's low-ranked tier, while Earth Grave appears as a mid-rank spell. I did not split two similar subjects. I split them because they are completely distinct in nature. - Henryacores^ 20:18, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
- No, they are literally the exact same spell. This is not an opinion, and I'm not sure why it's up for debate. Your Fairie Heal and Faerie Light analogy doesn't make sense because they are, and always have been, two distinct spells learned at different levels by the same characters. Earth Glaive has never been a different spell, its functionality changes a bit from game to game, but it has always been the same spell regardless of its name.
- A better analogy would be Ray and Laser Beams. They're the same spell, but Ray went from an all-target low-tier light elemental spell in SO1/2, to a non-elemental non-tier single-target spell in SO3 that got localized as "Laser Beams." But it's still called Ray in the Japanese version because it's the same spell. Earth Glaive is the same way - every instance of "Earth Glaive" and "Crushing Earth" is still called Earth Grave in the Japanese version because it is not, and never has been alluded to being a completely separate spell. This is why the Earth Grave page is factually incorrect - it says that it's a "direct successor to Earth Glaive." They're the same spell, how can it be a successor to itself? Earth Glaive/Earth Grave is a successor Glaive/Grave, and nothing else. Pretending it's a separate spell between games is disingenous, and very strange since that logic hasn't been applied to any other spell in the series on this wiki. I don't see why the changes between games can't be chronicled on the spell's page like every other spell and special art, instead of going through this bizarre song and dance of splitting off the spell into different 'instances' and using localized names that don't actually apply anymore. ClaudeLv250 02:03, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
You are showing yourself to be incredibly obstinate. I think it's fair to expect a better argument than "you're wrong" for such behavior. I am not trying to impose myself or any of the sorts, but, very sincerely, you don't show an open view to the argument, and repeat yourself with the same argument instead of discussing it. I do not want to impose any administrative protection on said articles until a consent, but I want even less for the entire website to orbit around articles of such trivialty. - Henryacores^ 22:16, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
- ...really? You read both of those paragraphs, and all you could take away was "you're wrong?" You read my acknowledgement of your analogies, you read my own analogies between Ray/Laser Beams, you read my recollection of every localized name of the Japanese spell Earth Grave, my citing of which games both spells have been in, and the disaprity in logic compared to other Symbology articles...and the only thing you could take away was "you're wrong?"
- If I sound curt or even condescending, it's because I'm a buff on special arts and symbology in this series - I know how they work, I know what they're called in every game and I'm active on GameFAQs so I help people with these issues all the time.
- If I sound blunt, it's because I feel this is an objective discussion. The spell is either in the game or it isn't. The way the Earth Glaive article is handled is based on pure subjectivity that actually contradicts the games outright. I'm getting frustrated because you don't seem be paying attention to anything I've said. If anyone is obstinate, it's you. It feels like everything I've said just bounces off. You haven't really discussed any of my points. I'm curious to know how you justify putting SO3 and 4's Earth Grave spells under the Grave page when Grave doesn't exist in those games. If I must, I'll try to make my arguments and points shorter and more precise. ClaudeLv250 22:29, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
- These spells are unpaired because, as we all know, SE loves to toy with translations. That's why we try to take a restricted approach to recency, similarity, reocurrence and language. We cannot base ourselves in japanese readings of english text, because they can't read it properly, and I don't mean to sound condescending either, but I am experienced with katakana, mistranslations, and subject issues. I do not doubt of your knowledge, but I am ashamed I can't show you how Star Ocean 4's Earth Glaive is a direct continuity of the first two Star Oceans', as it's easy to notice it does not resemble the games' Earth Grave incarnation in any way.
- These articles are not being treated with subjectivity, but rather with logic. From what I can tell, your point of view is that SO3 and SO4's Earth Glaive is the Earth Grave version of both games, which contradicts my view that they are the installments' versions of Glaive: it's a pretty simple misunderstanding. However, this is not true because: Earth Grave is a mid-rank spell and SO3 and SO4 mid-rank earth-elemental spells are Crush and Stone Rain. However, Earth Glaive is the basic earth-elemental spell for both games, much like Glaive\Grave is for the previous articles.
- Also, "Earth Grave" was discontinued in future translations of the first games it appears, being replaced by "Crushing Earth". This is, I think, where you are mistaken: Earth Glaive did not replace Earth Grave - Crushing Earth did. SO3 nor SO4 use this notation for their mid-rank elemental spells, which allows us to presume that Crushing Earth\Earth Grave was discontinued. These factors allow us us to assume that Earth Glaive is the continuity of Glaive\Grave, since Earth Grave has its own continuity in Crushing Earth. - Henryacores^ 23:01, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
I see. I think placing that much emphasis on rank is a bad idea, because it creates confusion. Rank is implied and a little subjective - none of the games have even acknowledge that a ranking system exists, even though most elemental spells are learned in three tiers. Symbology pages are not written based on or around rank, they are based on the individual spells as they are. They are not defined by their rank. These details change with every entry in the series; I can't think of too many recurring spells that haven't undergone animation or rank changes from SO1 to SO4. If we base it on rank, a LOT of spells are going to have to get split off into separate pages just to detail the changes in rank. Here are a couple of examples:
- I mentioned Ray and Laser Beams above
- Faerie Healing was the top-tier single healing spell, now it's the low-tier all healing spell. Cure All has been missing ever since (this change happened in SO3)
- Deep Freeze was a blizzard that swept the screen in SO1; the top tier all-target water elemental spell. Now it's a single-target mid-tier AOE spell that creates ice on the ground and can inflict Frozen status. Very different, but we are in agreement that this is still Deep Freeze, right?
- Explosion was an all-target top tier fire spell. As of SO4, it's a mid-tier single-target AOE spell. Eruption used to be this to a T, but has been missing for several games. We're not going to take SO3 and 4's Explosion and shove it in the Eruption page, are we? Volcanic Burst actually reminds me of Eruption, but that's acknowleged to be a completely different spell.
- Blood Scylla was single target, now it's AOE
- Gremlin Lair/Ravenous Fiend was an all target top tier Void spell, in SO3 it's a single target secret earth elemental spell that summons demon hamsters of all things...
- It's interesting to note that SOBS actually has 4 tiers, the 4th tier spells are all original and havent't been seen since
The two big problems that I see with relying on rank is that it's room for large errors and that it leaves me completely confused when creating the Symbology pages. It follows and implied logic but not a defined one - we have SO3 and 4's Earth Grave listed on the Grave page, whereas Grave isn't in those games. How do I refer and link to these pages, especially when dealing with a game like Blue Sphere where learning one is dependent on the other, as both spells exist in that game? I think we already have an error as I see, without a doubt, that Earth Grave is Earth Glaive as that is its Japanese name in every installment without fail, and that I see Grave being removed for redundancy and to make room for new spells. I see this the same way that I see SO4's Explosion as still an Explosion spell, despite being moved to mid-tier and only covering an AOE instead of all enemies, with Eruption being removed and the equivalent of Grave (to an extent). ClaudeLv250 23:27, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
- As I have explained in the Crushing Earth page, we should assume that Earth Grave exists in Star Ocean 1, 2 and Blue Sphere, and Earth Glaive exists in Star Ocean 3 and 4, because their romanji are exactly the same.
- We should not base ourselves through a single factor: we must have in count tiers, nomenclature and nature in general, and sort information through articles accordingly. I say this for the same reason as you: rank is implied, though not wholy subjective as there is a strength\MP cost rank between spells, and it's not static. So we can't base ourselves solely on that factor. Japanese pronounciation can have issues of ambiguosity sometimes, so it's not 100% bulletproof either. Area of Effect is also variable (though it does vary less through games). There are and always will be cases where we must discuss how to name articles and split information, and when that happens we must take a ton of things into account.
- Of course, since the most notable factor of all is the name; and when it doesn't really fit, it makes a damn hell of a mess.
We agree that it's the same romanji in every game, why are we splitting it off under a spell with a different name? We have to have a main factor that is at least static when it comes to making spell pages, and that's their Japanese names. Their tiers, functionality and elements change from game to game, even starting as far back as SO2, but the one thing that has been 100% consistent is the Japanese name even when the animation doesn't completely match up, or the name itself is egregious engrish. That's the only reason I keep using that point. All changing traits like tiers should be noted under the game headers (I never suggested game tagged pages). This is a chart chronicling both spells through the series:
|Earth Grave||Earth Grave||Earth Grave||Earth Grave||Earth Glaive||Crushing Earth||Crushing Earth||Earth Glaive|
We should be following the consistency of every other Symbology and Special Art page on the wiki - the spell gets a page, then we list all the everchanging information, like English localized names, characters that use it, element(s), MP cost, animation and useage on that page. The latest English name becomes the name of the article. So we should have a Grave page called Glaive, because that was the last English name for that spell in the series, and we should have an Earth Grave page called Earth Glaive for similar reasons. They should follow each linear path on the chart. This is how every other Symbology page on the wiki is presented.
I think the way it's listed now has Earth Grave under the Crushing Earth name, and the Grave page under the Earth Glaive name. Instances of the Earth Grave spell are listed under the Grave page, making it technically incorrect. It ignores facts and consistency, which is why I get confused looking at both pages. Where do I put SO3's Earth Glaive? It's an earth-elemental low-tier spell. It's not mid-tier or all target like it was in previous games, but it's not like SO4's version either, and yet it, and all the spells I just mentioned, are still Earth Grave, and that's easy to note in the article itself. ClaudeLv250 00:32, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
Star Ocean: Blue SphereEdit
You mentioned information on SO:BS on your Rena edit. Do you have access to an english translation or did you just get that from GameFaqs?
- I've played the game so I have that information firsthand. There aren't any complete translations that I know of.ClaudeLv250 11:23, October 21, 2012 (UTC)