Quickly looking through the comments on this thing, it doesn't appear to be watched or moderated in any way. Shouldn't the thing be purged/disabled somehow, or at least have some sort of pinned message that redirects to the wiki proper (or its long-abandoned forums) so that the activity history can be logged and monitored more conveniently? It would also help to answer questions quickly to prevent the spread of misinformation or speculation that may be attributed to Aselia.
I honestly can't find any way to disable it. I'm also of the opinion that letting them talk there prevents them from saying it on the Talk page, and I believe they're fairly easy to ignore since it doesn't appear directly tied to the article pages. If it does become a problem, I can start being more proactive in it, but letting people use is as a space to chat doesn't seem harmful.
I accidentally stumbled upon it the other day but didn't think too much of it at the time. I don't mind what happens to it as long as it remains non-problematic. Would love to see the forums alive again but rip. Also, this is getting a little out of hand.
I think the Alphen has a high chance to be a customizable avatar like the protagonists of Radiant Mythology, and his/her gender will be selected by the player. Alphen won't be his/her name but a title, meaning "someone who is numb to pain" or "someone who wields the sword of flames". As for Takuya Sato being his/her voice actor and not being able to voice a female Alphen, I think it's because the Alphen we were shown in trailers is just the canon Alphen design, which will be used in spin-offs, and unless the opposite gender version of Alphen (think Astral Chain, which gave you an avatar and made the opposite gender's default design a secondary character named Akira Howard) is going to have a role in the story, the female Alphen design and voice actor haven't been revealed yet because they confirmed it as non-canon.
Since Sato described Alphen as "very emotional", which is rather atypical for an avatar, I think he's actually referring to either the characterization in spin-offs or the gender swapped version of him/her, which will likely play a role in the plot as a separate character and is voiced by Sato when playing as a woman.
What do you think? Are you expecting Alphen to be customizable or not?
Because the female voice actress hasn't been revealed yet? I'm pretty sure she won't be revealed at all before actually playing the game, because they only showcase the default design, which is the one which will be used in adaptations and spin-offs. A female Alphen is obviously a non-canon design (unless the gender-swapped Alphen's default design is the "very emotional Alphen" Sato was referring to), but that doesn't mean the game won't have gender selection.
If you mean that one voiced line spoken by him/her in a trailer is proof that the Alphen is going to be a voiced protagonist, it's not true. Like Joker in Persona 5, the Alphen could have just 4-5 lines outside of battle, and the rest is player-chosen, and the male voice narrating the trailer is most likely another party member.
I think the default design was modeled after Ludger to avoid looking too distinct.
Not to mention, him/her shattering the mask to reveal the face is probably a sign that in the prologue you play as him/her masked before you actually create his/her face. Then, before it shatters, you get the opportunity to create him/her
In that email account I handed over to you prior to my departure, was there a conversation with Texanona regarding our affiliation with Taleslations and the conditions of using their translations here on the wiki? I know all of this was resolved ages ago and Yume herself has expressed that the information is free to use here without having to cite it (although we always will); however, I wanted to know the full extent of the matter before acting on anything.
Regarding Taleslations, I always saw Yume complaining on various sites that Aselia "sucks at citing" the content on the wiki. That might be part of why she does not want their site from being connected to this one, so that any perceived misinformation that is placed on this wiki would not be tied to their site. I believe her intention in asking to not have Taleslations cited is so that the actual official materials would be cited on the pages instead, meaning the guidebooks and whereever else the information might have originated from, and the misunderstanding that resulted from "don't cite us" just led to more irritation toward Aselia's content overall. At least, this is my own interpretation and may not be the overall big picture.
Quite honestly, I was always bothered by how Yume would complain about how inaccurate things were on this wiki and always insist toward her followers that the wiki is a poor resource of information. I never made any tumblreddit accounts [because reasons] so I could never argue against such statements and explain that any wiki that is available to be edited freely can have slipups or editing fails due to users inserting that incorrect info without sufficient moderation of the content being added (or lack of awareness regarding the accuracy of the content involved by the mods/admins), or that any incorrect statements can in fact be edited for accuracy by anyone else who notices it. If something is wrong and you know it, then you might as well fix it yourself, right? Complaining about it elsewhere and encouraging others to avoid interacting with the wiki to fix those problems is counterintuitive and only exacerbates the problem.
Now, if the reason for not editing questionable things on this wiki is due to laziness and apathy, then that is totally understandable. Guilty as charged, I am.
I'm going to have to voice my disdain for allowing the wiki manager to overhaul this wiki's infobox design for the sake of administering something we rejected in the past. It may look "cleaner", but it also negates everything I tried to accomplish with creating identical visual dimensions when navigating the alt image tabs. The idea was to have a smooth transition that doesn't alter the size of the infobox (and article), and now it would all have to be entirely redone to achieve the same effect. There's no wikibot to help with something like this because it relies on the visual comparison of the editor, which I painstakingly accomplished years ago.
The alt image tab titles are also messy. "Official Artwork" is cut off on the default, appearing as "Official Artw...", and at that point you may as well just change it to say "Official Art" for a cleaner representation. Another thing: when did message walls begin automatically hiding the "archive", which isn't an archive at all, as it was intended to represent the most recent and relevant conversations of the user. I get that Wikia is streamlining the visuals and functionality of wikis for the sake of cleanliness and consistency, but we already had modifications in place that allowed for our own archivals. Reverting back to the original point, we also had a modified infobox in place for what best suits our current designs.
If you have a say in the matter, I am going to urge you to revert the infobox changes. I don't at all like the idea of a wiki manager commandeering our designs when nothing was wrong or malfunctioning with them, and for that matter, there is no reason that any manager should be assigned to wikis for the sake of streamlining things, as this role has always been filled by (and should be left to) the wiki's local administration. Browsing his edit history, I see other irritating micromanaging and promotional offers that are entirely unnecessary. I don't agree with Wikia/Fandom management having any place in the decision-making of the communities "assigned" to them.
Upon a second inspection, I see that Wikia appears to have implemented the same message wall system as Community Central on all wikis, and I see no options in the settings to revert it (not that it would be necessarily possible at this point). This had to be extremely recent because the last message I left on your wall was applied normally, and this also means that there is a new visual "recent conversations" wall, while everything applied through the previous system has been archived. I suppose there's worse changes that could be implemented, but I saw no issue with how it worked before, and article talk pages (thankfully) don't seem to have been affected. Sigh.
Another thing I must know. What is the purpose of using a bot to remove all underscores from the image file insertions? I understand the desire for consistency, but I see nothing wrong with how it was. I also believe it was you who stated that you do not like to mess with things that aren't causing problems. For clarification, when using the photo retrieval feature from the wiki's database of images, the files themselves are applied with the underscores, so it was never something I was just doing for the hell of it.
Something I just noticed (and remembered) about these new infoboxes is that the image's dimensions can't be altered, rendering the size inputs useless, and these inputs are needed to avoid images appearing too large (already noticeable on several character pages). I second the urge to revert these changes. I'd do it myself, but you're a bit of a dick these days so I'm not sure what will set you off since you obviously have something against me.
Speaking of which, I'd like you to know that when I was above you in administrative ranking, I never once ever reverted any of your edits, even when I disagreed with them or thought something should be done a different way. I have no idea why you decided to show me an unnecessary amount of disrespect upon my return, but everything I've done on this wiki has always been for the sake of its betterment. Like Mayu, I was a bit aggressive when it came to making changes, but it is because of those changes that the wiki is at the state it is in now.
I let the infobox switch through was because I needed to not have a kneejerk reaction to the change. I didn't like them either, but almost anyone dislikes when something changes, and they are better from a technical, backend standpoint. I wanted to see if my problems with them were because they're not what I'm used to or if there were legitimate problems.
Message walls are a feature I support for user talk pages because they allow conversations to be neatly grouped.
Kaimi brought up the point that I needed to enforce consistency, since there were some pages that had them and some pages that did not. Agreeing with them, I ran a bot to ensure they all used the same formatting. As files are wiki pages, and as adding them using both the standard editor and the source editor did not include underscores, it made sense to not have them.
So is the infobox switch staying or not? I feel the issues I brought up are still very relevant and should be addressed in some way if these new infoboxes are to remain on the wiki. If there's a way to adjust the image dimensions, this will solve a major portion of the problem. Any odd-looking alt tab headers can be changed with a wikibot so that's less of an issue.