EGGS, will you buy a brain and try to THINK for a second why the other guy keeps reverting your changes ? I haven't cared for the details of the text to see if there were sensible differences, but I can already see that your version adds the chant, and there's no reason to put it both here and in the Chants page. The other guy's version says "go to the Chants page for the chant" and that's perfectly fine. Stop undoing that. The text definitely needs to be reworked and I suppose both versions have their ups and downs, but there's a fundamental need to not put the same shit in several pages, as adding the chant on this page feels just unnecessary as long as it's already in the Chants page, even if it's collapsed. --Byakko 11:41, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- How exactly am I supposed to know what he is thinking if all he does is revert back to before I ever touched it? I really doubt he's worried about something as small as the chant chart, as he could either just remove it without altering anything else or note it in the edit summary if that were the case. This either seems to be a case of thinking the old version was better before the changes for some unknown reason or just an attempt to annoy me for some reason. As for the chart, it's fine to have it in both places, especially when I don't really see any space on the C&I article to fit things like alternate versions of the English chant unless you want to add a couple of almost blank columns to stretch it out even further. EGGS 12:42, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Hey. You're doing the exact same thing as him. One undoes, the other redoes. You're both dumbasses (and you especially since you have a history of making retarded edits). Neither of you is trying to discuss it. --Byakko 12:59, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- If you haven't noticed, the guy is an anon. Trying to discuss with someone who doesn't wish to be known is useless, especially when as the aggressor, he hasn't even made a single comment in the edit summaries or the talk page. I'm not going out of my way to argue with someone like that. EGGS 13:09, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if he's an anon, and you aren't making any comments on your edits, either. So you're still at as much fault as him. As it stands I feel like I'll just remove all the content of the entire article and put my back translation of the Japanese encyclopedia entries I know about, and fuck anyone who doesn't like it - just like what you do. What did you say last time ? That it was a publicly editable Wikia and that anyone could put in whatever they wanted, and you didn't care if we didn't like your edits ? But you can't stand it when someone does the same thing to you, right ? --Byakko 13:45, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- It does matter because an anon can be absolutely anybody. For all I know, that's just you doing this to piss me off (not that I'm really accusing you, but just as an example). If they had any intention of discussion or an actual reason related to preferring one version of the content over another in the first place, I really doubt they would simply be reverting to a version that I hadn't touched. Either way, placing "What exactly was the point of that?" in each of my summaries wouldn't really change anything. This discussion is here now, so they're free to chime in at any time if they do have some sort of reason. EGGS 14:04, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Since when did it make any difference who that anon is ? For that matter, how does it make a difference who YOU are ? How are you any different from him just because you have a registered account, you who have been fucking up a tremendous number of articles here just because you didn't like the way they were written ? You're no better than him, with or without an account. You say he does shit with your article, I say you do shit with our articles. --Byakko 14:18, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether you like my editing or not, it's still done with the intention of improving the articles. Until the anon's reasons are actually specified, there is little reason to believe that his intentions are anything more than disruption available to him because there are no repercussions. If he were using an account, the constant wholesale reversions without any comment would be under more question. Either way, it no longer matters, as he should end up commenting here if he has an actual reason. If he doesn't, then that simply means that my theory of intentional disruption for the fun of it is correct. EGGS 14:27, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Then I'll just go and claim that I do not trust you when you say your edits are aimed at improving the articles. I'll say I believe your edits are only done to disrupt the Wikia, and just because you say you're doing it to improve them, you think we will not question your good faith, and you think it's enough for us to leave you alone and let you post shit in this Wikia. And if you still claim it's for the good of the articles and are never willing to make any compromise and keep editing everything just because you don't like how things are, it will only prove that my theory is correct. --Byakko 14:48, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Is it your nature to be an angry person or is it just something that pops up on the internet? Really, you just seem to hate everyone and anything that doesn't align with you. Anyway, again there is a difference between a disruptive anon and regular editing. If you remember the Robin Hood article, it only took a couple of reversions for a discussion to pop up. At this point, assuming good faith is silly when the other party has yet to utter a single word, let alone voice exactly why they're reverting it. If they revert again, I'll point them here, and if they keep reverting after that without bothering, then their goal is obvious. EGGS 15:06, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- I still don't see you making any improvement. Same as before, you're only reverting to your own text over and again. And I'm the one who created this talk page even after you and the other guy have been at an undo-battle for a while, not you. You're not here to improve anything, if you were you would have asked before putting your text back. We're always the one who need to start up a discussion with you, you never make any step forward. Why would that guy even try to talk with YOU ? You're not here to discuss with anyone, you're only here to have your own text on every page you see. You're not here to make anything better, you're here to make things the way you want them. There's no reason anyone would want to discuss anything with you, since you'll never listen to anything and you'll never talk with anyone anyway. I can try to talk with you for as long as I want, you'll never tolerate anyone telling you off. Is that from the Internet or are you like that in real life too ? --Byakko 15:19, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe I just have a prejudice towards anons, but accounting for all of the time that I've edited Wikipedia and other wikis, I cannot recall a single case of something like this leading to an actual discussion. So yes, in normal cases discussion should have happened more quickly, but I just can't imagine that this will actually lead to anything productive. And exactly how many discussions have we had? I count three including this one, one of which I started, one an anon started, and one you started. I really don't see how you can possibly pick up an actual trend from that. And exactly how many people have I interacted with on this site? There's you and Azaghal. We're complete opposites, and Azaghal can be considered more of a neutral party, so again, I don't really see how you can develop any sort of trend in how exactly I work with other people. Absolutely everything you've described can only be gleamed from our interactions, so it's fairly skewed by how much you seem to hate me. EGGS 15:47, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- The discussion between you and I started because I watched you on your way to changing every single page here just for the sake of putting your own text (which was crap, most of the time). Don't you go and say "oh, we talked only once and yet you already decided you don't like me". The reason I don't like you is for the shit you've been pulling on the entire site, not just from the one discussion we had. As for the anon thing, I can tell you about arai, one of the major contributors in the English-speaking Nasuverse fandom who actually is Japanese AFAIK and has translated a lot of material - pieces of the books and VNs themselves, side material books... He set up the Fuyuki Wiki which was considered the biggest English-speaking source, and so on. And that guy occasionally posts here and discusses with other people here. As an anon, because he hasn't registered an account. And there's nothing wrong with that. Your thing about anon users is bullshit, just like when you try to change the subject, asking if I'm also that aggressive in real-life, because that's what losers like you who are full of shit always do, they try to change the subject and refuse to accept it when anyone tries to tell them what they're doing is wrong, and they try to reject the fault on anyone other than themselves. You're deflecting. --Byakko 16:24, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- I already know that you've hated me since before we even had a single discussion. My point is that you've generalized me completely based on those feelings, and that's rather pointless. And again, this is essentially a dead site except for the five or so occasional editors, so it's not that I'm trying to insert only my text everywhere. It's that there is nobody else to actually edit actively in the first place. This discussion would be completely different if the anon was simply rewriting my text or something, but this is just an outright removal with absolutely no reason for it. Did I say that all anons are bad? No. I said that when you get anons who use their anonymity to disruptively edit articles that there is little point in hoping for a decent discussion out of them. Maybe I jumped to conclusions with this guy, but he certainly hasn't made any attempt to make himself appear to be a serious editor. How exactly was my question meant to change the subject? I went right back to it afterward. I'm just still trying to figure out why you're being so aggressive on site dedicated to a visual novel company of all things. And really, do you even want to go into what you can generalize from a guy who goes directly into insulting people every ten seconds? EGGS 16:45, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Still fruitless, still unrelated argument, you're still not making anything better than what he did, and you're still not the one who actually tried to make things move forward. Oh, and for some reason, you still DARE get pissed at what this random joe is doing, ignoring the fact that it's exactly the same thing as what you've done to other articles, whether you claim it was with good intention, and whether you give the excuse that the Wiki is dead anyway, none of which have anything to do with the act itself.
- As for your reversal of the article :
- -didn't you yourself say you thought the guy wouldn't look at the edit summary ?
- -didn't you yourself use the excuse in other discussions that it was a Wiki anyway, the history was still available ?
- -again with the self-importance of putting back your own version instead of even considering the possibility of a neutral ground.
- -I don't give a fuck what you think. --Byakko 16:53, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, as I've admitted, it probably wasn't the best course of action. But having been through this same kind of annoying stalemate at least around two hundred times, I think I at least have a good reason for expecting little results. Especially on Wikipedia with their reverting rules, you're forced to start a discussion. Guess what happens after that? Nothing. They just keep on reverting, reverting, and reverting until they eventually get bored. And if they don't get bored? Their IPs simply get blocked, so they just switch on over to another. I'm really not expecting much more from this situation. And again, there is a difference between actual editing and randomly reverting to an older version repeatedly without changing anything else. It's one thing if they want to reorganize it to their own preferences or cut chunks of it out, but they're simply going back for no specified reason. That's another good reason to believe that their intentions are not based around improvement.
- About the latest reversion: I believe the guy doesn't give a damn at all about discussing. Maybe I'm wrong entirely, but either way, he'll still have to see it to use the undo function. Not every user knows how to search through the history, so there is certainly no reason to disrupt them because of a petty fight. If we go back to the oldest version, he won't have much of a reason to come here seeing as that's his whole damn point for editing it in the first place. EGGS 17:27, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- I already know that you've hated me since before we even had a single discussion. My point is that you've generalized me completely based on those feelings, and that's rather pointless. And again, this is essentially a dead site except for the five or so occasional editors, so it's not that I'm trying to insert only my text everywhere. It's that there is nobody else to actually edit actively in the first place. This discussion would be completely different if the anon was simply rewriting my text or something, but this is just an outright removal with absolutely no reason for it. Did I say that all anons are bad? No. I said that when you get anons who use their anonymity to disruptively edit articles that there is little point in hoping for a decent discussion out of them. Maybe I jumped to conclusions with this guy, but he certainly hasn't made any attempt to make himself appear to be a serious editor. How exactly was my question meant to change the subject? I went right back to it afterward. I'm just still trying to figure out why you're being so aggressive on site dedicated to a visual novel company of all things. And really, do you even want to go into what you can generalize from a guy who goes directly into insulting people every ten seconds? EGGS 16:45, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- The discussion between you and I started because I watched you on your way to changing every single page here just for the sake of putting your own text (which was crap, most of the time). Don't you go and say "oh, we talked only once and yet you already decided you don't like me". The reason I don't like you is for the shit you've been pulling on the entire site, not just from the one discussion we had. As for the anon thing, I can tell you about arai, one of the major contributors in the English-speaking Nasuverse fandom who actually is Japanese AFAIK and has translated a lot of material - pieces of the books and VNs themselves, side material books... He set up the Fuyuki Wiki which was considered the biggest English-speaking source, and so on. And that guy occasionally posts here and discusses with other people here. As an anon, because he hasn't registered an account. And there's nothing wrong with that. Your thing about anon users is bullshit, just like when you try to change the subject, asking if I'm also that aggressive in real-life, because that's what losers like you who are full of shit always do, they try to change the subject and refuse to accept it when anyone tries to tell them what they're doing is wrong, and they try to reject the fault on anyone other than themselves. You're deflecting. --Byakko 16:24, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe I just have a prejudice towards anons, but accounting for all of the time that I've edited Wikipedia and other wikis, I cannot recall a single case of something like this leading to an actual discussion. So yes, in normal cases discussion should have happened more quickly, but I just can't imagine that this will actually lead to anything productive. And exactly how many discussions have we had? I count three including this one, one of which I started, one an anon started, and one you started. I really don't see how you can possibly pick up an actual trend from that. And exactly how many people have I interacted with on this site? There's you and Azaghal. We're complete opposites, and Azaghal can be considered more of a neutral party, so again, I don't really see how you can develop any sort of trend in how exactly I work with other people. Absolutely everything you've described can only be gleamed from our interactions, so it's fairly skewed by how much you seem to hate me. EGGS 15:47, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- I still don't see you making any improvement. Same as before, you're only reverting to your own text over and again. And I'm the one who created this talk page even after you and the other guy have been at an undo-battle for a while, not you. You're not here to improve anything, if you were you would have asked before putting your text back. We're always the one who need to start up a discussion with you, you never make any step forward. Why would that guy even try to talk with YOU ? You're not here to discuss with anyone, you're only here to have your own text on every page you see. You're not here to make anything better, you're here to make things the way you want them. There's no reason anyone would want to discuss anything with you, since you'll never listen to anything and you'll never talk with anyone anyway. I can try to talk with you for as long as I want, you'll never tolerate anyone telling you off. Is that from the Internet or are you like that in real life too ? --Byakko 15:19, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Is it your nature to be an angry person or is it just something that pops up on the internet? Really, you just seem to hate everyone and anything that doesn't align with you. Anyway, again there is a difference between a disruptive anon and regular editing. If you remember the Robin Hood article, it only took a couple of reversions for a discussion to pop up. At this point, assuming good faith is silly when the other party has yet to utter a single word, let alone voice exactly why they're reverting it. If they revert again, I'll point them here, and if they keep reverting after that without bothering, then their goal is obvious. EGGS 15:06, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Then I'll just go and claim that I do not trust you when you say your edits are aimed at improving the articles. I'll say I believe your edits are only done to disrupt the Wikia, and just because you say you're doing it to improve them, you think we will not question your good faith, and you think it's enough for us to leave you alone and let you post shit in this Wikia. And if you still claim it's for the good of the articles and are never willing to make any compromise and keep editing everything just because you don't like how things are, it will only prove that my theory is correct. --Byakko 14:48, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether you like my editing or not, it's still done with the intention of improving the articles. Until the anon's reasons are actually specified, there is little reason to believe that his intentions are anything more than disruption available to him because there are no repercussions. If he were using an account, the constant wholesale reversions without any comment would be under more question. Either way, it no longer matters, as he should end up commenting here if he has an actual reason. If he doesn't, then that simply means that my theory of intentional disruption for the fun of it is correct. EGGS 14:27, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Since when did it make any difference who that anon is ? For that matter, how does it make a difference who YOU are ? How are you any different from him just because you have a registered account, you who have been fucking up a tremendous number of articles here just because you didn't like the way they were written ? You're no better than him, with or without an account. You say he does shit with your article, I say you do shit with our articles. --Byakko 14:18, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- It does matter because an anon can be absolutely anybody. For all I know, that's just you doing this to piss me off (not that I'm really accusing you, but just as an example). If they had any intention of discussion or an actual reason related to preferring one version of the content over another in the first place, I really doubt they would simply be reverting to a version that I hadn't touched. Either way, placing "What exactly was the point of that?" in each of my summaries wouldn't really change anything. This discussion is here now, so they're free to chime in at any time if they do have some sort of reason. EGGS 14:04, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if he's an anon, and you aren't making any comments on your edits, either. So you're still at as much fault as him. As it stands I feel like I'll just remove all the content of the entire article and put my back translation of the Japanese encyclopedia entries I know about, and fuck anyone who doesn't like it - just like what you do. What did you say last time ? That it was a publicly editable Wikia and that anyone could put in whatever they wanted, and you didn't care if we didn't like your edits ? But you can't stand it when someone does the same thing to you, right ? --Byakko 13:45, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- If you haven't noticed, the guy is an anon. Trying to discuss with someone who doesn't wish to be known is useless, especially when as the aggressor, he hasn't even made a single comment in the edit summaries or the talk page. I'm not going out of my way to argue with someone like that. EGGS 13:09, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Hey. You're doing the exact same thing as him. One undoes, the other redoes. You're both dumbasses (and you especially since you have a history of making retarded edits). Neither of you is trying to discuss it. --Byakko 12:59, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, let me intervene before this degenerate any further. First Byakko, again with language and bad temper. When you're are like that it makes anyone reluctant of taking your side even when you're right. Now EGGS, I think you also need to make some auto-reflection. To begin with, I believe that is safe to assume that the other party is vehemently about this either because he/she don't like the changes you made or he/she simply prefers the old version better. Now, if we include Byakko this is two people that have issues with what you wrote. Taking that into consideration, I think we should take this cue to review your text to see what is wrong with it.
- First, although I myself also think that the other version was kind of lacking in something, one of its strong points was that it was clear and coherent (and if you learned about the "3 Cs of writing" you should know how important that is). Your text is unnecessarily long and full of phrases that can easily make a reader that knows little about the subject become lost.
- Also, I believe I told you this before, but you should always provide a source when you make a significant change in any article, even if just as a passing note in the "summary". Trust me, it avoids a lot of trouble. That being said, I kind of recognize some of the wordings you used so I can roughly guess were this comes from. Now, while it is not totally wrong, there are some concerning points about bringing over that kind of info which you need to be careful about.
- Furthermore, I agree with Byakko when he says that you should stop revolving information. If a piece of data can already be found in another page of this wiki, you should create a redirect link to said page instead of repeating the same thing in a less relevant page.
- Finally, both of you please be mindful that this is a public database and that anyone can come over and make changes where they feel like there is a need to. Being able to accept and recognize the value of that is almost a prerequisite to participate of a wikia. --Libra00 17:40, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- It's perfectly fine if someone wishes to actually fix it. By absolutely no means do I believe that my version is absolute in either writing or actual information, but it should be reinforced and reorganized rather than reverted. As for sources, everything comes either the VN or translated side material. If you want an exact source for a certain line, I can provide it, but it should generally be assumed its from one of the two. I agree with not repeating information too much, but the chant is a rather important part of UBW, and there is also some info that doesn't belong on the other article (like the anime dub versions of the chant). I see that as an acceptable overlap, and there is still a link to the article in the text. Are there other cases you have problems with? EGGS 17:54, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, it seems that the current version is too brief and the version that recently disappeared was too wordy. The current version doesn't offer enough details and is inadequate to fully describe the subject, but the wordy version has too much information, some of which is unnecessary. I do believe a compromise is in order, so as to create an article that is both easy to read and informative. --Jaften 03:31, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
Two Versions
by User:EGGS: If you've seen it, it would be nice if you could go there, so we can avoid having to constantly revert in order to communicate. Also, the invasion of his body happened in Fate as well.
- You ultimately contributed with little new information to this page. When you compare the two versions they hold pretty much the same data, but yours is excessively wordy and unnecessarily dramatic. The other is much less complicated since it sticks with just the essential to understand about the Reality Marble, thus not only it is easier to read but also makes misunderstandings less likely.
- Also, what happened in Fate (route) and Heaven's Feel (route) are not the same thing. In Fate, swords appeared throughout Shiro's body as a form of self-preservation, in order to both protect from Rider's attack and close the open wounds. Meanwhile in Heaven's Feel was a direct consequence of Archer's arm invading Shiro's body, it is not caused (at least not directly) by UBW. Though the final result is the same, they are still two different phenomena.--180.1.1.50 10:18, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
Problems
So if anyone actually has a problem with this, please actually explain. "Too wordy" doesn't cut it. Do you want more paragraphs, sections, or something? If you simply don't like the wording, please feel free to change it around or provide sample sentence of what you consider "less complex." I'm not protective of it, and it would be nice for someone to go through and copy edit it. Either way, this version contains too much information to simply revert it back to the older one just because it's "less complicated." EGGS 17:59, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
Works
Could "Works" be short for Workshop?
70.137.137.59 18:44, August 10, 2011 (UTC)Sebastian
I am The bone of My sword= My body is made of sword?
kind of wondering the true wording of the sentence that Shiro said during his battle with Kirei in heaven's feel. As mirror moon translation basically translate it as I am the bone of my sword (which is english version of UBW chant) but which is different from UBW chant that appeared at the beginning of the game. Is it possible that in the Japanese version Shiro said My body is made of sword instead I am the bone of My sword?
Dainsleaf 10:58, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is the article really confusing? I think it better if the references to Archer and Shirou are made clearer. Whilst the use of Emiya to refer to Archer and Shirou to Shirou is consistent, I think it would be better for clarity's sake if 'Emiya' is changed to Archer or Heroic Spirit Emiya.
No mention on Fate/ Extra's UBW
Since Extra's UBW is linked to here, anybody willing to add stuff into it, seeing that everything else is from the main series.... Ankoku暗黒 19:38, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Is there anything to add? I haven't played with him yet, but the only thing of note seems to be that the chant is faster than normal. Everything looks to be the same otherwise. EGGS 20:00, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
- I too haven't played him yet, but probably we could add stuff like conditions of NP, effects and I believe there was a remixed EMIYA for this NP, The Hero Who Nobody Knows/ Nobody Knows Him The Hero, or something like that.
Known Projections
Should we add a section for what we know Unlimited Blade Works to have, like we've done with Gate of Babylon? Zahadrin (talk) 09:46, April 30, 2017 (UTC)
- That doesn't sound relevant. GoB has the bonus of novelty, actually showing weapons from various parts of the world (more if we include spin-offs like Prillya). UBW just copies what we already know. The only part of it that has any interest are the unique weapons like K&B and Rho Aias, but other than FSN, I don't think any spin-off has made use of it by introducing brand new material. At best, Extella only shows the weapons that the other characters already have, that's barely worth a footnote. 93.16.135.125 13:00, April 30, 2017 (UTC)
New format in FGO
Just noting that the name got changed to アンリミテッド・ブレイドワークス during a game update for some reason. -- Banksia (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)