FFXI Players Guide

[Zenion]

They have large portions of the wiki dedicated to them, something no other wiki would ever do. The reason being, that some of the people who edit bgwiki are associated with those illegal servers themselves.

I can find a non-zero number of pages about private servers, but I'm going to need to see some citations before you go throwing around terms like "large portions."

Not that I really care to defend BG-Wiki, I find it's useful for "relevant" content but is less thorough on "pointless" content (contrast BG Wiki's take on gardening versus FFXIclopedia's category on it.)

That said, I only visit FFXIclopedia if I absolutely have to to track down some obscure detail, because I still don't trust it after one of its ads (before the Fandom subdomain, around Abyssea's heyday?) served up a virus that took me a few days to clean up from. Thanks for teaching me to never browse the internet without NoScript on deck.

[Sp1cyryan]

The less relevant content takes a back seat to the overall progress on the wiki. BG has vastly more editors and more quality work being done at all times for close to a decade now.

The gardening or whatever is for when I or anyone up to the task gets around to it. However, it is not hard to make any edge case like this superior to what exists now. In general the information and layout on Clopedia is inferior or superfluous. Even fringe sections that get looked at for answers to something and cited as why it matters, are inaccurate or flat-out wrong.

I would love to work with players on this, and often end up looking over or touching up the work that does get done every day. Which of course also takes time. However, I can say the integrity of the information is overall superior on BG compared to Clopedia.

[Alhanelem]

Not that I really care to defend BG-Wiki, I find it's useful for "relevant" content but is less thorough on "pointless" content (contrast BG Wiki's take on gardening versus FFXIclopedia's category on it.)

Well, in most cases I tend to be in Spicy's camp these days, but we had quite the battle over the Ballista page. FFXIclopedia et. al. use the original description blurb provided by Square Enix at the top of the page. But on BG, a paragraph effectively saying "nobody does this content and you shouldn't either" was added to SE's blurb. I objected to the notion that anyone should be actively discouraged from any content in the game on a reference page about that content, and stick to informing the reader about what that content is and how it works. I removed the discouraging blurb and Spicy reverted it. After some back and forth we settled on a *slightly less* discouraging blurb. I still see it as inappropriate and unnecessary (i.e. let people decide for themselves if content is "worth playing" or not rather than pushing them in one direction or the other) but I know it will get reverted if I try to make the page more neutral.

That said, I only visit FFXIclopedia if I absolutely have to to track down some obscure detail, because I still don't trust it after one of its ads (before the Fandom subdomain, around Abyssea's heyday?) served up a virus that took me a few days to clean up from.

I understand your trepidation but this could have happened anywhere, it wasn't like FFXIclopedia consciously decided to serve viruses to people. It's not always easy to catch that stuff before people see it.

It's something Wikia/Fandom would have to fix, otherwise the bad press would be damaging.

[Zenion]

BG has vastly more editors and more quality work being done at all times for close to a decade now.

The gardening or whatever is for when I or anyone up to the task gets around to it.

Let me bottom-line it, man. FFXIclopedia had an army of hundreds of nerds with nothing better to do to build up its knowledge base as everything was fresh and exciting. It might not be as elegantly-curated, but it's exhaustive for the pre-sunset part of FFXI's life. BG-Wiki is never going to find somebody who has so little going on in their life that they'll hammer on one pointless NM for weeks to figure out the exact range of Eagle Eye Shot delay reduction evoliths that's available.

BG might be the better source for news now, but dismissing FFXIclopedia because it's past its prime is choosing to ignore a wealth of esoteric information that is, at best, implausible to recreate.

Screw Fandom though. Bad host is bad.

[Alhanelem]

dismissing FFXIclopedia because it's past its prime is choosing to ignore a wealth of esoteric information that is, at best, implausible to recreate.

Example:
https://ffxiclopedia.fandom.com/wiki/Bubbly_Bernie

I myself determined Bubbly Bernie's MP by using a BLM to aspir away all of its MP- since it has no spells and doesn't have auto refresh, you can get a 100% accurate determination of its max MP (it has MP because its job is PLD).
While the template has always provided for users to put in both an HP and MP total, for most NMs with MP it is hardewr to determine how much they have because they cast spells, and some mobs have auto refresh etc. There's only a few monsters for which their max MP is known- One of the others is Golden-tongued Culberry (about 30k MP), where the strategy was usually to kite the NM and let hem cast spells til he runs out of MP, at which point he will stand still and do absolutely nothing, not even auto-attack. Generally, mobs pay the same MP costs players do, though there are exceptions, like Meteor, since our meteor is totally different from the one used by monsters; so you can calculate their MP by adding up the MP cost of all the spells they cast until they don't cast spells anymore- This is simply rare because 99% of the time, a mob will never run out of MP before you kill it.


Also on Bubbly:
"Can be defeated by an alliance of level one jobs."
You know, I wonder how many times this was actually done lol.

[Immortal]

The problem in completely ignoring one of them to update the popular one, is what someone said on the previous page. That site could poof on a whim, the majority of people upkeeping it don't play retail or appreciate it in any form. It is always a fear of many that contributing to a sole source of information could end up blowing up in our faces. So I don't think its wise to discourage anyone from adding information to the wikis given that could happen to any of them from what I know. They should be able to just copy and paste it to each one at this point, with such a small community I don't see the problem.

[radar]

I can find a non-zero number of pages about private servers, but I'm going to need to see some citations before you go throwing around terms like "large portions."

Not that I really care to defend BG-Wiki, I find it's useful for "relevant" content but is less thorough on "pointless" content (contrast BG Wiki's take on gardening versus FFXIclopedia's category on it.)

That said, I only visit FFXIclopedia if I absolutely have to to track down some obscure detail, because I still don't trust it after one of its ads (before the Fandom subdomain, around Abyssea's heyday?) served up a virus that took me a few days to clean up from. Thanks for teaching me to never browse the internet without NoScript on deck.

Type bgwiki catseye into google.

[Rinuko]

Type bgwiki catseye into google.

That's cause Ryan was part of their team, which he is not anymore but I wouldn't expect them to delete the pages.

[Zenion]

Type bgwiki catseye into google.

I mean, that's a lot more pages than I'd expect about private server specific stuff, but it's, like... 31 pages? And there's another with, what, 20 or so? And they're fenced into server namespaces, making it unlikely to come across them if you're not looking, or mistake them for retail FFXI content in a search.

You're trying to make it sound like BG is "FFXI Private Server Wiki Hub (Plus FFXI Stuff I Guess)" when it's "FFXI Wiki But Also A Little Community Stuff Maybe". Should I be screaming that BG is nothing but dumb memes because it's got a 109-page category for them?

[Alhanelem]

I understand the argument but the fact that they don't decry private servers doesn't make the information on the site less valid. It's not like you're giving them money and therefore endorsing private servers.