From FFXIclopedia, the free Final Fantasy XI encyclopedia

Contents 1 Bombs, Snolls and Djinn 2 Golden Salvage 3 Support Job pages 4 Signature 5 Fields of Valor revert 6 hmm

Bombs, Snolls and Djinn

Per your comment. If you could check Pankration that would be helpful. Thanks. --GAHOO t/ c 16:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Done- No known snoll can be used in Pankration, while any bomb can. If they were both considered part of the same category, they would both be useable. Tahngarthor 17:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Golden Salvage

Thanks for your comment in the discussion of my guide. I have made a pretty large overhaul of the article, including some new sections, and I believe that it is much clearer now. Feel free to let me know what you think!Resheph 09:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Job pages

I see you replaced 'level' with 'main job level' on the warrior support page. That's a good idea, thanks. --Volkai 14:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Signature

Please remove that giant substituted template from your signature. Thanks. --Charitwo^Talk 03:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

? I dont recall making anything like that.... wonder how it got that way. lemme see what I can do. Tahngarthor^{talk-contribs} 04:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You need to add a ]] after the pipeline in [[User:Tahngarthor| btw. --Charitwo^Talk 05:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Fields of Valor revert

I'm wondering why you reverted my edits to the FoV page. I don't see what's wrong with my modifications: (1) it is proper to link to the Field Manual page here when talking about them; (2) the manuals aren't always next to outposts; (3) 'exact' shouldn't be capitalised as it doesn't begin a new sentence; and (4) what's wrong with actually linking to the chart being referenced?--Anthoron T/ C 11:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point to linking to a page that is nothing but a data source which is transcluding information onto the FoV page. The manual locations are listed in the table and the text now specifies " (Exact locations are shown in the table below.)" Also, you can have entire sentences in parentheses so captializing exact is acceptable. The link is redundant. If it were a reference to an off site source, it would be appropriate. But identical content within the same site is redundant. Tahngarthor^{talk-contribs} 13:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Capitalising 'exact' would be acceptable if it was the entire sentence, but the period to end the preceding sentence doesn't appear until after the parentheses. The link isn't "identical content", it's a shortcut to the table. Should the TOC be removed too for the same reason?--Anthoron T/ C 21:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's a "shortcut" to identical content. For the umpteenth time, the two pages say exactly the same thing, except one has a couple additional sentences of text. I don't understand the resistance here. Usually the wiki frowns upon redundancy and other unnecessary stuff. Correct grammar all you want, nobody's perfect. but I maintain the FM page in its current form is unnecessary. I'd be more inclined to support the page and the transclusion of it if it were going to be used on multiple pages, but as it is now I don't see that happening due to the nature of it- the table is useful on this page and this page only. Tahngarthor^{talk-contribs} 23:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion about the Field Manual page, it's about the FoV page; and while the FM page still exists in its current state, the wiki should be edited as such (and not with the assumption that it's going to disappear). If the FM page is removed/merged/whatever, then the FoV page can be updated to reflect that.--Anthoron T/ C 01:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It still makes no sense to link to it, whether it dissapears or not- in its current state, the Field Manual page is little more than a chart template (filled in with content) and it does not help anyone to link there from the FoV page. If something isn't helpful, it shouldn't be done. And linking from FoV to the FM page is not helpful to anyone. Tahngarthor^{talk-contribs} 01:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

hmm

Tahngarthor TALK - 06:27, October 12, 2009 (UTC) This is a test of the emergency broadcast system. If you are reading this, then the test has been successful. This concludes the test of the emergency broadcast system. Have a great day.

I like this concept alot, it really seems to highlight ur additions to talk pages, mind if i borrow or play around w/ the source? Milotheshort 23:15, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

p.s. i already have the source duplicated, just wanted to make sure you were cool about me trying to implment/alter it on my page, some ppl are touchy about pet projects like this lol thx in advance Milotheshort 23:17, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Please don't use this, I'll only be using it in certain cases and I've been informed that this template of a template concept can be problematic if overused. Tahngarthor^{talk-contribs} 06:32, November 2, 2009 (UTC)