FANDOM


Three Millas?!

There are three Millas in altogether in ToX and ToX2?! What's the difference between all of them? Maybe we could the "Milla" redirect to describe each of them and link to each of them? (Also, I'm not really a fan of "(Alt)" tag.)—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) ∙ 07:48, July 7, 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the localized term for the Alts will be once the game is released. The difference is spoiler-heavy. Basically, the Alt-Milla is Milla during an alternate timeline where a lot of the defining aspects of the original Milla's character simply did not happen, leading to an inferiority complex and a bitchy Musee, and the removal of the Maxwell name since the purpose of 'being' Maxwell that the original Milla had was already fulfilled. The original joins in the first game, and the Alt joins in the second game due to Time Factor shenanigans until the original returns to the story. I tend to refer to the two of them as Milla Maxwell (the original) and Milla NotMaxwell (the Alt), and they are actually very separate and independent characters with radically different lives and personalities after that one point. Milla Kresnik is the founding ancestor of the Kresnik family line (involved in a lot of other historical events more relevant to Ludger and his relatives), and Milla Maxwell/NotMaxwell was named after her.
Shizune Hakamichi (talk) 08:14, July 7, 2014 (UTC)

Bolded set-ups

Keep in mind that many characters crossover into sequels, and there is no indication that these bolded set-ups denote the introduction of the characters. However, I suppose it does need to be clarified in some manner, so this is fine. The previous format was suitable, imo. Yes, there was a lack of indication in regard to who is in which game, but like I said, this format also fails to indicate something. Would have nicer if we were able to avoid this issue altogether. I hate sequels.

Also, I suppose the ToS template needs to be adjusted accordingly. If I can get my Internet to cooperate, I'll do it myself.

Arosia (talk) 23:49, July 7, 2014 (UTC)

My concern is largely the ability to sort the sequel chars into the protag/antagonist/support categories, versus keeping them all clustered into their own category. The solution is naturally to create separate templates, but this bloats the pages, some of which already have 3-5 of them at the bottom of the page due to sequelitis. This compounds if we count crossover spinoffs, unless we stick with listing core names like the Kanonno reincarnations.
Shizune Hakamichi (talk) 01:38, July 8, 2014 (UTC)
I suppose we could make something like {{ToX Characters|ToXMajorAntagonist}} and {{ToX Characters|ToX2Protagonist}} to make it easier to categorise, but I think categorising personally (like typing the whole [[Category:Tales of Xillia Characters]], [[Category:Major Antagonists]], [[Category:Tales of Xillia 2 Characters]], and [[Category:Protagonists]]; although I'd be leaning towards very specific categorisation like [[Category:Tales of Xillia Major Antagonists]] and [[Category:Tales of Xillia 2 Protagonists]]). Then we could put all Major Antagonists categories in [[Category:Major Antagonists]] and all Protagonists into [[Category:Protagonists]].—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) ∙ 11:08, July 8, 2014 (UTC)
I'm referring not just to sorting into categories, which can be done easily enough with slightly different keys as you say, but also how to display them on the templates. I agree with Arosia that the ToX/ToX2 labels is messy, and if ToX2 lables are only going to show those chars that are introduced in that game, it fails the purpose of the templates to show the characters that are actually involved in that particular game. This is why I think the Phantasia character template looks so bad. It has three games in one template, because Namdai will never leave the Phantasiaverse alone. It doesn't show which ones become involved in any game except the first ones in which they appear, with one of the characters actually being playable in all three games. The Destiny one is also intended to point out that some names will end up repeated in different parts of the template because three playable chars in the first game become supporting chars in the next one, since they are no longer able to fight for varying reasons, like having to rule an entire kingdom with a glorious beard of manliness. I didn't do this on the Phantasia template because it's soooo redundant due to the template representing three games.
This is why I would prefer to go with completely independent templates for each game, if it weren't for the template flooding that is certain to happen on most pages. I hate the idea that the template portion of the pages will be longer than the actual text content. But I'm starting to think of it as a necessary sacrifice, because this current setup of combining games that are direct sequels/prequels simply does not work. The question remains whether we should actually do this or instead just dump all sequel-relevant chars into their own collapsible portion of the original game's char template, as it was originally for the Symphonia one... which again leads into a lack of sorting characters into their respective roles in these sequels. This would have to be done twice for the Phantasia template.
On further branching the categories, I'll leave it up to discussion, but I feel like some cats made in this way will be exceedingly small, sometimes with only one char, and I wanted all of the names across all games to be accessible through the protag/antag/etc cats when I first envisioned the category hierarchy. Likewise with all chars in a given game without regard to their role, since the templates will already show their particular roles once we figure out what to do with the templates.
Shizune Hakamichi (talk) 12:02, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

The more I play around with these templates, the more I become convinced that separate templates for separate games, including sequels, may be our best option. I agree that having one template to span an entire timeline is more concise, but due to the reasoning you provided, it doesn't seem plausible - not to mention it's going to cause problems in regard to alternating roles and the confusion of introduction/actually appearing. I'm going to vote against how the ToS template was, as this devalues the sequel and fails to sort these characters appropriately.

Arosia (talk) 17:40, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

I've created a new template for DotNW and adjusted the ToS template accordingly. I personally don't think it's necessary to include the DotNW template on ToS character pages if the character happens to be in the sequel, but if we want to do that, I'll do so. As for this template, the ToD template, and the ToP template, I need to know which characters are in the sequels or other games in the series. If someone will provide me with a list, I'll be happy to do all the work in creating the templates. Also, if I messed anything up on the DotNW template, just let me know and I'll change it.

Arosia (talk) 23:39, July 19, 2014 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.