Forum:What spells to merge, and how

This is the continuation of Forum:POLL: Spell article's merging policy. Now we have to decide what and how to merge spells.

What to merge[edit]

A list of potential mergers, ignoring UW for now. Noticed that I'm not entirely sure on what to do with spells that are repeated inside U3 itself (divine/arcane versions):

• Blink (Sosarian), Blink, Teleport. However, there are some differences, but they may be small enough to be discussed inside the article. I'm not sure how Dag Acron and Lib Rec fit here; maybe we will need several separate pages, merge only some of these. Blink (Sosarian) and Dag Acron in one article, for example, but not with the other Blinks.

Teleport is quite different from Blink, therefore I wouldn't put them together.--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

Ok, Teleport is left separate. Blink (Sosarian) and Lib Rec are already merged. How about Dag Acron? Seems to be a Blink limited to work outside dungeons. Does Blink have any similar limitations, or it is a combination of Dag Acron and Lib Rec (so it can be used inside dungeons and outside of them)?--Sega381 15:11, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

Blink in U4 only worked on the overland map; Blink in U5 worked on the overland map AND in combat, but relocated the caster ONLY to a random spot on the battlefield. --polygoncount (Polygon Dragon -==(UDIC)==-) 15:50, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

In that case, besides adding those notes to the articles, the only thing we should do would be to add Dag Acron to the Blink article, and leave the Teleport and Lib Rec articles as they are now.--Sega381 17:50, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

• Create (Sosarian) and Energy Field

Ok, sounds reasonable.--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

• Destroy (Sosarian) and Dispel Field

Ok, sounds reasonable.--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

• Kill (Sosarian), Kill and Death (though I'm not sure if this last one is more similar to Mass Death) Also, probably Decorp and Excunn.

Death does not work like either Kill or Mass Death. Its workings are so unique that it should stay on its own.--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

Fair enough. Though I'm curious, what is the exact difference?--Sega381 15:11, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

• Ladder Up and Upward Movement (and Sur Acron and Rec Su if they are equivalent)

Ok, that's true.--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

• Ladder Down and Downward Movement (and Dor Acron and Rec Du if they are equivalent)

Ok, that's true.--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

• Magic Missile (Sosarian) (or Mittar) and Magic Missile. However, not sure about Mentar...

Seems to be the same.--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

• Unlock (Sosarian) and Open (note that the Sosarian Open seems to be different enough, targeting coffins. Appar Unem seems to be different enough to be separated...)

Here I don't know.--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

Sosarian Unlock, U4 Open, and Appar Unem are TOTALLY the same thing; Appar Unem just has a chance of failure. --polygoncount (Polygon Dragon -==(UDIC)==-) 14:14, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

• Light (Sosarian), Light and Light (U9) (and Lorum and Luminae, if they are equivalent)

Yes, these seem to be equivalent.--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

• Surface, Sequitu and Xit

The effect is pretty much the same.--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

• Sanctu, Heal, Light Heal

Yep, these belong together.--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

Definitely agree here, Light Heal is Heal (medium wounds, really?, it only restore a small amount of HP) - Iceblade 17:03, 4 March 2012 (EST)

• Fulgar, Fireball and Fireball (U9)

Also no contest.--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

• Alcort, Cure and Cure (U9)

No contest.--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

• Great Light, Day, and maybe with Dag Lorum and Sominae

Great Light and Day are different. Great Light's only difference to Light is, that it lasts longer, while Daylight is a stronger (brighter version).--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

Ok, so we'll leave them separated.--Sega381 15:11, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

• Altair, Time Stop and Time Stop (U9)

Since the effect is the same, should be done.--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

• Vieda and Peer

Should be done this way.--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

• Surmandum and Resurrect

I agree.--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

• We would have to check the effects, but maybe Great Heal with Full Heal

No, Great Heal just heals lots of HP, while Full is is, as it says, full. These are different effects.--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

I can't confirm the earlier games right now, but in Serpent Isle it does fully restore HP -- I just checked. All the lore quotes would seem to support this, too. --Terilem 14:27, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

Confirmed full restoration of HP in U6, too. --Terilem 23:28, 23 June 2011 (PDT)

• Charm and Charm (U9)

No contest.--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

• Douse and Douse (U9)

No contest.--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

• Ignite and Ignite (U9)

No contest.--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

• Summon and Summon Demon (maybe)

They should be, as in the early incanartions of the spell (U5 and 6), summoning daemons was possible.--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

• Tremor and Earthquake

Spell practically the same.--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

• Telekinesis and Telekinesis (U9)

• Wizard Eye and Wizard Eye (U9)

They work pretty much the same.--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

• Lightning and Lightning Bolt

No contest.--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

Significant difference in power, but effect is the same - Iceblade 17:03, 4 March 2012 (EST)

• Magic Storm and Lightning Storm

Yeah, these two fit.--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

Now, this will require people who know what the spell does in each game to help. And the arcane/divine thing in U3 is going to be a pain...--Sega381 12:38, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

Added my comments to the various spells. Also, if we put things together, we should as said keep the various ages (Sosarian, Britannia, Ultima IX) strictly apart with completely seperate sections in the same article (actually multiple complete articles in one).--Tribun 14:03, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

Yep Tribun. In fact, the idea of the section below, "How to merge", is exactly about this, to see how we would actually separate them inside the article.--Sega381 14:48, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

The ladder up/down spells could be put in their own articles; both allow the same end result, but the placement of a ladder that does not have to be used immediately to ascend/descend is pretty significant. Again, this could just be discussed with in the Up/Down main page, too. --polygoncount (Polygon Dragon -==(UDIC)==-) 14:11, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

I think that the criteria should be "if there is a significant difference in the results of the spell, leave them apart". This would fit the criteria, so we could treat them separately. Or at least start that way, until someone comes up with a better argument.--Sega381 14:48, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

Chiming in ridiculously late here, but I agree that this should be the criteria for separation. Case in point: Douse and Ignite. It's like reading the same article twice in both cases, and I don't see any demonstrable reason why the Ultima IX and "Britannian" (wasn't U9 in Britannia as well? But I digress...) instances should be segregated. Heck, there are more differences in the U6 versions of these spells than there are between U7 and U9. --Terilem 22:19, 23 June 2011 (PDT)

If I understand correctly, the differences with the U9 magic system are more related to the fact that the reagents only have to be used once, and that several spells continuously use up mana while working (such as Light). The results of the spells are, in general and with the exceptions mentioned above, practically the same as in previous games. It depends on whether we want to have them slightly separated due to those two differences above.

If we get into this kind of differentiation, one could argue also that there are differences with U4, as there are no Words of Power there, so we could separate U4 intoy another magic system too... so in the end it's just a matter of consensus. Right now, as the U9 magic system has some basic differences, and as many people hate or treat U9 as a contagious, sick person that has to be kept isolated, we have maintained those spells in a slightly separated category. In my opinion, we should have U9 spells inside the "Britannian" spells, just as U4 spells are treated as part of the "Britannian" spells, even though they have differences in its magic system. Of course, some U9 spells should remain in their articles, as they may have different effects, but that is another thing... what I'm talking about here is how valid is to mantain a separate "Ultima IX spells" category, outside the Britannian spells. AFAIK, Tribun is the one most vocally proposing to maintain it this way. I guess we should vote on the issue and follow what the majority decides.--Sega381 13:01, 24 June 2011 (PDT)

We do appear to be on the same page, and you touched upon what is really the crux of the issue for me. I just don't see the difference in U9's magic system as enough of a justification by itself to keep the sections separate, especially as these differences aren't, nor do they need to be, covered in the spell articles. It's irrelevant, not to mention already handled sufficiently by the Ultima IX Magic article. Keeping the U9 spells in their own section does absolutely nothing to illustrate why they're kept separate, other than perpetuating the leper colony syndrome as you suggested.

To add to your example about U4, in Serpent Isle you could theoretically cast all spells just with scrolls, which means you don't need to use any reagents, yet we merge them in with the "Britannian" spells. And what about how in U4 and U5 there was no spellbook and you had to mix every spell manually? Does that mean U4/U5 and U6/U7 now need to be given their own sections too? Believe me, I never thought I'd be taking U9's side in any debate but it's not the first time the magic system has changed in the series, and it seems pretty silly to keep singling it out for such exaggerated differences that are basically given a free pass with the classic games. --Terilem 23:34, 24 June 2011 (PDT)

Actually, each game already has its own spell category, although that isn't as visible I you might think it would be. So the question if there should still be a category for Ultima IX spells isn't the issue here. If you are against duplicate articles, the decision to merge these together was already made and the fact that in IX spells only need words of power and reagents once is big enough that these spells stand apart on the merged pages.

Thing is... I don't really see the problem.--Tribun 13:13, 24 June 2011 (PDT)

Tribun, check Terilem's reply, it may have been clearer than mine. It's not that U9 spells have a category and other game's spells don't. It's that the "Ultima IX spells" category is treated differently. The spell cats for U4, U5, U6 and U7 (and U7P2) are all inside "Britannian Spells". Yet the U9 spell cat is not, and this leads to treating those spells as too different, when they are not, only the magic system is different, though the spells are similar. The point here is whether the fact that magic systems are different should mean maintaining them separate, even when the spell effects are the same. Check Terilem's examples about differences between spell systems un U4, U5, etc, to see how making ONLY U9 separate may be kind of inconsistent. It's not that it's wrong or bad the way it is now, with U9 spells separate in the merged articles. It's just that... it may not be the best or more consistent solution.--Sega381 20:29, 25 June 2011 (PDT)

Ah, so you mean we should move that spell category to be an under-category of Britannian spells?--Tribun 05:41, 26 June 2011 (PDT)

Yes, but what Terilem is proposing, and what I'm thinking may be a good idea, are two things: one, move the U9 spell cat under "Britannian Spells", AND two, to be consistent, in merged spell articles which contain spells from pre-U9 spells, merge the U9 section with the rest of the "Britanninan spells". The differences in the magic system are covered enough in the related U9 magic system article. Of course, U9 spells which are substatially different in effect would remain unmerged in their own articles. That's the proposal.--Sega381 08:02, 26 June 2011 (PDT)

Yeah, that's exactly right. I was mainly referring to the latter issue in my original post, but your point about the categories would certainly be a good idea too. --Terilem 10:17, 26 June 2011 (PDT)

So, should we go on with this? This would imply: 1) moving the Ultima IX Spells cat under "Britannian Spells" (and whatever consistency thing is needed there), though maintaining the U9 magic system differences metioned in there; and 2) when merging u9 spells with spells from u4-7, putting them under the same "Britannian Spells" section. Agreed?

On a related note, we should define which spell systems are we going to try and "merge" into an article with different sections, and which are we going to leave separate. So far, we defined that "Sosarian Spells" and "Britannian Spells" are going to be merged but left in separate sections. I think that "Pagan Spells" should remain separate, as they have nothing to do with Sosarian and Britannian spells; the same goes for Savage Empire Magic, in my opinion. That would leave us with the spells from UW and UWII... should we merge those articles into the Sosarian/Britannian ones within a separate section (Runic Spells), or should we keep them completely separate?--Sega381 22:21, 30 June 2011 (PDT)

Well, Underworld is a completely different beast. Right now, there is nothing to merge, as I only uploaded the spells that are unique to these two games. Once the other spells come, I think a seperate section in the spell article in question would be the best. However, the Underworld spells category should stand on its own.--Tribun 04:51, 1 July 2011 (PDT)

Leaving UW apart for now, and since there are no more comments, I'll proceed to do the following: 1) move the Ultima IX Spells cat under "Britannian Spells" (and whatever consistency thing is needed there), though maintaining the U9 magic system differences metioned in there; and 2) when merging u9 spells with spells from u4-7, put them under the same "Britannian Spells" section.--Sega381 18:40, 7 July 2011 (PDT)

Excellent! I had a look at the newly merged articles and they are presented in a much better way now. --Terilem 21:43, 7 July 2011 (PDT)

How to merge[edit]

Maybe some of us could put forth alternatives in sandboxes, on how these spells could be merged while mantaining them in different sections?--Sega381 12:38, 15 March 2011 (PDT)

Here's one I did for Energy Field/Create. Pretty self-explanatory: Energy Field. --polygoncount (Polygon Dragon -==(UDIC)==-) 13:12, 16 March 2011 (PDT)

Excellent, that's exactly how I envisioned it.--Tribun 17:03, 16 March 2011 (PDT)

It looks good. However, I would add a common intro about the spell. Very minimal, but still. And maybe instead of putting "Britannian" and "Sosarian" in parentheses, we could create a subsections named that way. Something like this maybe?--Sega381 19:35, 16 March 2011 (PDT)

Yeah, I definitely like your changes -- makes the Contents look better and more useful, too. --polygoncount (Polygon Dragon -==(UDIC)==-) 19:39, 16 March 2011 (PDT)

I thought I'd throw in my two cents too. It diverges pretty heavily from the above though and I may be a bit late to the party. But I prefer the infobox all together and at the top as it's purpose is to be quick and easy for user to locate and parse. I wouldn't want to have to hunt for the infobox I need lower on the page. And I like separating it out by game. I feel like each game has enough unique information to deserve it's own section. Ooo, like who you can buy the spell from in later games. I forgot to mention that. That'd be useful information too.

(And I was gonna showcase my new LoreQuotes too. But I don't want people to be prejudiced against it because of that so here is a version with the current LoreQuotes. -- Fenyx4 21:43, 18 March 2011 (PDT)

Nothing against your efford, but it looks somewhat messy and actually things are harder to find in it. I think we should stay with what we already decided.--Tribun 05:05, 19 March 2011 (PDT)

What things do you find harder to find? -- Fenyx4 07:01, 19 March 2011 (PDT)

Everything. Would I have to read through several articles structures like this, I'd go crazy. As I said, a nice experiment, but not very practical.--Tribun 09:52, 19 March 2011 (PDT)

Hmm, yeah, I gotta say, I'm leaning towards the Sega381 version... it's a noble effort to separate out all the different games' info/etc., but with all that separation, it's almost like sliding backwards towards individual pages again. --polygoncount (Polygon Dragon -==(UDIC)==-) 12:24, 19 March 2011 (PDT)

Yes, I think I see Tribun's point. It's not that your proposed structure is wrong; in fact, it's the most comprehensive one as it clearly indicates the differences among all games. But it looks a little cumbersome; too many subsections, with not that many content. Maybe, if the spell pages grow enough, we may end up wanting to use this structure. But for now it seems a little like overkill, though I completely understand the reasoning behind it. However, I do like the idea of moving the infobox to the top, merging all the info up there.--Sega381 18:32, 19 March 2011 (PDT)

Just one point: When a Ultima IX spell is merged, could you please put the spell icon from the infobox somewhere (ideally next to the quote), if possible?--Tribun 14:58, 14 July 2011 (PDT)

Sure, no problem. I'll do that.--Sega381 18:36, 14 July 2011 (PDT)