Template talk:Testimonials

Testimonial Conventions[edit]

For reference, this is a continuation of a discussion between User:Karuberu (talk) and User:Jawat (talk) regarding how we should implement testimonials. Firstly I would like to thank both of you for handling this civilly, it has made reading through your conversation pleasant instead of a headache. The testimonial convention (moving the "I soloed this with RDM/NIN with god gear and sole sushi" type lines to the talk page) was implemented to lessen the clutter on NM pages which detracted from the other notes information in the article. First I will explain my views as to what is acceptable to keep on the main article and what is not, then I will detail how I'd like us, by convention, to place it on the page. I will be going into length in my explanations for the benefit of others, as I know both Karuberu and Jawat already understand the basic reasonings behind the template.

People want to know whether they are able to kill a monster or not, so this information is relevant to the main article. However, once you start putting a list of all the combinations of jobs that can solo, duo or otherwise pwn said NM, you start detracting from the main article. The main article should not be used as a "look what I did" section of the wiki. So it comes to the point where you say "what's acceptable?". To be fair to all contributors, and to add a more professional look to the article, I feel only a general description of what level character or group can be expected to kill the NM is warranted on the main article. This can include multiple entries, but they should not, in general, be too specific. "Killable by 3 level 60 characters" is acceptable, while "Killable by a PLD, RDM, and BST with good gear" is not. These lines should not mention gear, food choices, specific jobs and limit the description of strategy to a link. If a general statement cannot be made about how the monster can be killed, then it is likely a Strategy subpage should be created and linked. Strategy for how to kill a monster falls loosely under the guide rules, and does not, in general, belong on the main article. Exceptions can be made if the mention of strategy is extremely brief, or can be linked to another page (either an article on general strategies, or to a strategy subpage if the strategy is long). If you can't keep it to one normal sentence, it likely belongs on a subpage or in the testimonials section of the talk page.

As for the look of this, I believe we should use the following to keep all the pages consistent, and easier for people to find the testimonial section. The "Killable by" line should be no more than 4 entries, and should only take up one bullet line. If the information on the line is too specific, it may be moved to the talk page. This line should be listed last in the notes section. This leaves the other information regarding monster behavior and abilities first, and I think improves the flow of info (page flow top to bottom: monster family and job, monster location and level, notes on monster abilities, notes on how you can take it out). At the end of the line, the testimonial template can be used to link to appropriate section on the Talk page (section named "Testimonials" so that the link will work). Please feel free to discuss this further here. --User:Chrisjander/Sig 16:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


Just wanted to add that I think 1-2 words describing the general difficulty for each entry is also warrented (e.g. Killable by: 6 level 60 characters with difficulty; 3 level 75 characters easily). I think it that if there is a specific requirement in order to make killing a NM possible with a certain number of people, it should be noted by saying "some combinations" (e.g. lets say to trio a NM, you MUST have a RDM and 2 /nin melee's, you would say "Killable by: 6 level 60 characters; Some combinations of 3 level 75 jobs"). Finally, I think for consistency's sake, the Testimonial section of the discussion page should always be at the top. --Jawat 23:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


It actually does not matter where on the page the testimonials section is located on the discussion page, as the link is designed to take you specifically to that section, regardless if it is at the top or the bottom. --User:Chrisjander/Sig 03:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


Oh I know it'll work either way, I just meant so it would look uniform across all pages. --Jawat 03:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


Sounds fine, except that I prefer to use "Can be defeated by" rather than "Killable by:". I think "Killable by:" sounds a little forced (who uses "killable" in common language? I had to look it up to make sure it was even a word), and is only used here because many monster pages were copy-pasted from somepage by early editors. I also prefer to use more expansive sentences ("a party of 6 characters at level 60" vs. "a party of 6 level 60's") for professionalism, but that's up to the editor, I suppose.

Also, a small correction, the kill information may not be the last peice of information on the page; any information on drops should be placed after kill information, since that's the logical order (see the monster > fight the monster > kill the monster > get the drops). ~ Karuberu 02:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


I would say this is a very bad idea. It hides important information, and shows other information that is actually less useful and arbitrarily chosen. Realistically, most people are going to be interested in how to defeat NMs. Also most people might not even bother clicking a link that says a somewhat obscure word like "testimonials". In addition if you only leave something like "killable by an alliance of lvl 50", and hide "soloable by a lvl 75" behind a "testimonials" link, it gives the false impression to readers that you need an alliance to kill said NM, which is at best confusing or plain wrong.

If you really want to make a separate page for what can kill than NM, call it an intelligible name like "Killable by" (testimonials could refer to so many things, including satisfied customers of infomercials, people who have a funny story about said NM or want to give a "testimonial" of unusual drop rates etc). And if you do make a separate page, do not leave any partial arbitrarily chosen information about how to kill it in the main page, because it gives it an undeserved bias and preference.

In fact, saying "killable by a PT of level 60" is a lot more likely to be vague or incorrect, did the person who wrote that actually try with a full PT or just guessed/estimated that? Did they try with various PT setups? You get the idea. Please discuss it more and come up with a better solution, this really seems like a terrible idea. --FFXI-Genome 07:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I like this change. I think the main page should reflect an approximate solo level, PT level and alliance level (if applicable). The rest should go on the talk page via the template. Whether the template says "testimonials" or something else I guess can be discussed, but testimonials seems ok to me. --User:Gahoo/Sig 16:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I think that all information listed on the talk page should be on the main page in some form. Like, say if a NM is soloable by most jobs at level 75, but can also be solo'd earlier by some jobs, like BST and RDM. I think these jobs need to be listed on the main page, even if there is already a ton of other information about other setups (party, duo, etc.). Of course, it shouldn't turn into a long list (consolodate to "some jobs at level xx" if possible), but there should definately be a list. Most people won't check the talk page if something isn't on the main page (and shouldn't have to), so as much information as possible should be listed there (with details on the talk page). ~ Karuberu 02:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not how it's currently implemented however. If it at least gave a solo level that would be more useful, or if it said something like "soloable by some jobs, see link".

Right now however soloing is always excluded and hidden away, suggesting no NM is soloable, just look at the page on Blackbeard as an example... it reads clearly that you need at least 2 people or 4 people even though that NM is easily soloable by many jobs (already 4 different ones as people indicated), and then hides that information behind this "testimonials" link:

Notes
* Killable by: 4+ characters level 70+, 2 characters level 75. (see testimonials)

That's incorrect and deceiving, and suggests there is no reason to click on the link as there is no indication it's even soloable at all. --FFXI-Genome 23:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC).


If it's incorrect, feel free to add "soloable my some/most 75 jobs easily/difficultly", and it will no longer be incorrect (I have no idea how easy/hard and how many/few 75's can solo it, never fought him before or I'd do it myself). It's not that a general statements about soloing are hidden away, it's that no one has added it yet for this particular NM.

As Chrisjander said, the purpose of this is to give a a quick and general estimate of the monsters strength, while putting the details on another page for those who want to know, and in order to keep the main page clean. Take Aquarius for example, look at all the testimonials for him, would you really want all of those on the main page? It would make the Aquarius' main page look messy and cluttered. Sure, we could choose a few to keep on the main page and leave the rest on a different page, but again as Chrisjander said that's unfair to some people/jobs, and confusing to contributers who wont know where to put their own testimonials.

As for the definition of "testimonials" being obscure and with different meaning, many words have different meanings, but the context that they're used in makes their meanings clear. The fact that "See testimonials" is in the same line as a general statement about who can kill the monster, makes it's definition perfectly clear. --Jawat 00:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

But you're the one that moved the solo information to the talk page ([1]). ~ Karuberu 02:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I moved the specific solo information, I'm saying one general statement (i.e. easily soloable by a lv 75 player" like all the other general statements is fine, but has yet to be added by an editor. --Jawat 03:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes there isn't a "general" statement for solo information. Skeletons are hard to kill for most jobs, so it's possible that only those four jobs can solo it. It's a good example of why you have to be more flexible with your cleanup and use your judgement more than hard-and-fast rules. ~ Karuberu 03:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
As I suggested above, in cases where only a few jobs can solo a monsters, you could put "Soloable by some/a few level 75 jobs". Or, in cases where most jobs can solo something, with only a few exceptions you could put "Soloable by most level 75 jobs". If anyone wants to know what specific jobs they those are, they can go to the testimonial page. And like I said above, I think it would be a good idea to quantify all the general statements this way. --Jawat 04:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but it's sort of rediculous to do that when it's only a handful of jobs, which is why I have a "cut-off point" of about 4 jobs at the same level. However, if the jobs can solo at different levels, the list will always need to be longer to accomodate it (a level range doesn't cut it, in my opinion). Looking through the testimonials shouldn't be a requirement to tell what level you can solo the monster at; You should be able to tell if you can solo it by the jobs listed on the main page and by your confidence level alone. In my opinion, the testimonials should only be there for people that aren't confident in thier (or thier party's) ability or would just like to know more information about how thier job solos the monster before taking it on. ~ Karuberu 04:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
lol, I think we're kinda going in circle's here, because we're right back onto the same topic and arguments that lead us to ask for Chrisjander's input as a tiebreaker in the first place ^^;;. I think we've both said everything there is to say at this point. We disagree on two valid opinions on where and how much of this info should be, Chrisjander and Gahoo have weighed in their opinions, so unless they change their minds or other mods chime up with a difference of opinion, we should work under the parameters the mods have decided on ^^. --Jawat 05:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe my original statements stand as a general guideline for how they should be setup. I also believe in exceptions. I think the exceptions will come up mostly for HNMs, than for normal NMs, but there could be exceptions there as well. I don't want people listing 10 jobs and strategies for how to kill Tom Tit Tat, is what I'm saying. I agree that there should be room for listing a general statement about both solo, party and alliance levels, but if it gets too involved, it belongs on a strategy subpage, or in with the testimonials. To say, for an HNM, "we killed it with XXX setup" and to leave it at that makes it eligible for testimonials. To say "we killed it with XXX setup and here's a paragraph on how we killed it" makes it a candidate for a strategy subpage. Details that specific should be kept off the main page to both reduce clutter, and to keep strategies (a form of guide) off the main article (but certainly linked to it). A strategy that works for one group may not work for another, which is why it deserves it's own subpage (with appropriate disclaimer). --User:Chrisjander/Sig 07:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


Ok, I edited the Blackbeard page to also say "soloable at 75 by some jobs, see 'testimonials'", since it appears that was just an oversight and not done on purpose to hide the fact that such NM can be soloed.

Having said that, I think I am not against the whole idea, I did look at the Aquarius page and I see what you mean there, HOWEVER, I am strongly against implementing this type of template incorrectly as was accidentally done in the Blackbeard page. By that I mean people should be cautious in not having strange biases when leaving some information on the page and hiding other behind a link (without any hint that it's there). If even one job can solo for example, write at least "soloable at 75 by some job(s)". As I said before, if you choose to ONLY write just "Killable by 2 characters playing my favorite job", and then put the rest in a link, that seems to suggest the only way to kill it is with 2 players and your favorite job class only, which is misleading.

I think you can hide information where it is overlapping, for example if you had killable by any 3 characters at 75 and any 2 characters at 75, you can hide the 3 players one. If you had "soloable by BST at 60" and soloable by RDM at 70, you could just write "Soloable by some jobs at 60+, (see link)".

Just don't remove information in a way that makes it seem like the only way to kill it is with a full PT or one specific job when it is not the case (like what happened to the Blackbeard page, where there wasn't even any indication the link would have any solo information).

The word "testimonials" still suggests the idea of individual stories and not necessarily a list of jobs that can kill it, although it can make sense IF it always comes in the same line as "killable/soloable by".

This type of information is very valuable because I think it encourages people to go out and try other strategies to defeat each NM, and produces good information for the rest of the playerbase on what they could try to kill a NM (especially in terms of solo, if you go with a PT you don't often care as much about job and might just get higher numbers).

--FFXI-Genome 11:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC).----


In that case we basically agree, the only reason I didn't add the general soloing note myself was because of my lack of personally experience with the NM, I didn't know if only a few or most jobs could solo him, or if it was easy/hard to do, so I left it to another editor who knew these things to add them. I also agree that if any/most 2 75 jobs can kill a NM, it goes without saying that 3 can do it also and shouldnt be added. However, if any 2 75 jobs can kill a NM, but it takes 3 70's to do it, I think that's worth noting separately.

As for the placement of the testimonial link, it was discussed between me and Karuberu that for the sake of consistency it should always be put in the same line as the general statement. Earlier edits didnt follow this convention, and should be fixed when you come across them.

This article uses material from the "Template_talk:Testimonials" article on FFXIclopedia and is licensed under the CC-BY-SA License.