Talk:Trial 1135

Edit reverts

I don't want to get into an edit war Alseyn. I don't think wiki pages should refer to player bots. Even if we should, the context on this page is incomplete (what does a player bot look like? how do you know who you're pulling from that's a bot vs a multiboxer?). Instead of reverting and leaving passive aggressive comments let's have a conversation. If an admin wants to say it's fine, then fine by me. -- Soleras (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

> I don't think wiki pages should refer to player bots.

Whose decision is that? Isn't that just your opinion?

This isn't an official game guide, and there's no rule that the wiki needs to be written that way. I would say that it's a compendium of player knowledge and insight as contributed by actual players with a side of datamined and otherwise imported data. Or to put it another way, it's an emulsion of folklore and data. That's my opinion.

> Even if we should, the context on this page is incomplete (what does a player bot look like? how do you know who you're pulling from that's a bot vs a multiboxer?).

I think this is splitting hairs. First, it's obviously a tongue-in-cheek note. If you have a problem with that, then you should remove the angry MS Paint ant from the Chamber of Oracles page while you're at it or change the picture for Henwen. Second, if you feel the need to a satisfy a requirement for that extent of full context, why don't you have a problem with the brief notes about Abyssea mobs that don't explain how confluxes work, how to get into Abyssea, where exactly to find the specific monsters, etc.? How to pop Cherti and what kind of content the NM belongs to? (Why is Cherti even a suggestion, it's probably the worst way to do it.) Should the tip about Raaz in Reisenjima point out that you need enough Rhapsodies progress to get there?

This is what I mean about folklore existing in the wiki. The section is explicitly a list of suggestions based on player experience. Yeah, theoretically that should go in a Discussion page, which no one reads, but sometimes the lines get blurred and this is one such case. If you want to take the angle that I think you're proposing, then the page should be a walkthrough that only has the most efficient strategy listed and in full detail about every step/element of the procedure.

> If an admin wants to say it's fine, then fine by me.

Why bring it up with me only to conclude that it's up to an admin?

Look, I apologise for being uncompromising and coming across as hostile, but I do have a problem with folkloric community resources getting watered down by contributors whose first instinct is to cut and delete to satisfy some ideal about encyclopaedic objectivity or whatever that they've decided they want to impose on everyone else, on a resource that's grown organically. I've seen it happen before, take for example the classic ROM hacking community website romhacking.net, where someone very aggressively went on a mission to delete commentary about each game in the database written around the 2000s and replaced the entries with one-liners saying only the genre and platform of the game, completely removing the history and lived tradition of the community in the process. I do not like the idea of something similar being allowed to happen on this wiki, regardless of the flaws that may come with that, like tolerating the link to Spicyryan's weird spin-off subreddit on the main page. Alseyn (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not my call, that's why I asked for a conversation. The admin piece was if we can't come to a conclusion, instead of disrespecting you and going straight to an admin. I felt that was a pretty obvious attempt at being civil. People doing this trial are, I believe, mostly newer players. FFXI has had a major resurgence in popularity this year, and will have no idea what's going on with the bots in this zone. Or the bots fighting Caedarva birds, or the bots in KRT. I'm not here for some moral purity test or exacting perfection in the wiki. Jokes are great, too. If they're funny. You could have at least found a middle ground and incorporated both our contributions. I shortened the Monberaux text like any typical wiki edit. But I'm backing out, given how heated this topic got you. This isn't some attack on the lived history of the wiki. Given that's your approach, I realize I don't have this kind of energy for a wiki one-liner. You win. Soleras (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)