Talk:Final Fantasy bestiary
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For a March 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Final Fantasy Bestiary
 |
This article or template is part of WikiProject Final Fantasy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Final Fantasy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Square Enix, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Square Enix related merchandise and video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
Contents |
[edit] DarkEvil's recent work
User:DarkEvil has been working really hard on this lately. I'm going to help him out, but I plan to make this more encylopaedic. I've been reading through Wikipedia's policys lately and intend to implement them here. Nothing personal though DarkEvil ;) If anyone knows anything about th origins of names or monsters could they help out? I'm using the obvious websites to help me already though — CuaHL 10:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, this is the help I've needed. You've made this more encyclopaedic than I could ever have, I don't consider myself a writer and tend to forget some of wikipedia's guidelines and other things like that from time to time. I will continue more entrie, this time following the new subtle change. Should I consider trying to upload images for each different game the monster has been in, like it was made for Adamantaimai in FFVII? – DarkEvil 13:38, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
- My pleasure entirely. I thought it would be a nice touch to include a brief mention to where the origins for each come from. I don't mean to undermine your work, mate. What you did was fantastic. But yeah, I thought we could include images for each games, put a bit of comparison in. Even if they don't appear we can link to them. As for now, I'll start editing section by section to prevent server conflicts some :) — CuaHL 13:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Looks complete. Well done DarkEvil - nice work. To think it was just a table once without any varying names included. I still think there's a bit to do (if anyone else can help out?)
- - We'll need some more images.. doesn't have to be just one each.. I started uploading more
- - There's loads of enemies missing from that list I'll have to fill in soon hopefully.
- - The layout will have to be tweaked again when all this is done.
— CuaHL 17:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I listened to your advice about multiple images and I'm currently trying to cut the background on a screenshot I took of Ark during a summoning phase in which he looks like a transformer. I also have Final Fantasy I to IX + Mystic Quest, Tactics and Tactics Advance at hand, so I will be able to provide a lot of screenshots. It sure evolved from it's table status and, even though I was the first to try to upgrade it, you helped a lot. Once again, thank! – DarkEvil 17:29, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Small question, when we make a list like this
It has appeared in the following games:
- Final Fantasy
- Final Fantasy II, etc...
shouldn't each game's name be italized? They are in other pages, but I don't want to change the whole page if they aren't required. – DarkEvil 02:52, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- You know, I thought about that too, but then we were so far in I didn't want to spoil it. Maybe you could find a program to do it (or use Notepad's replace, I guess) — CuaHL 03:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] What should be included
As of right now, it seems every entry is talking about a monster appearing in more than one Final Fantasy. It may have been like this without any kind of guideline or following the original author's intention to not overflow this list with non-relevant monsters. I don't think we'd need to talk about every tiny little monster that appeared, considering that the page is already too big. An alternative could be that, when it gets really too big, we could put sub-pages like Final Fantasy bestiary A-E or something like that, then we'd be able to include more monsters. But, maybe we should remove those entries which are already present in Races of Final Fantasy, they are only a copy and are not bestiary, for most of them, since they represent something against which there is never a fight. However, a monster like Tonberry could be kept, since it is part of a bestiary. – DarkEvil 00:30, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Ah no, don't include something in one and ont include it in the other. Some races you do actually battle, and these deserve a mention in both articles. I agree about the A-E thing, because the article is expanding quite large, and I've already found a lot of monsters missing from the list. — CuaHL 02:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- OK then, about the A-E thing, it could be either that, or something like Final Fantasy bestiary, Final Fantasy II bestiary, Final Fantasy III bestiary and so on. It'd make more pages, but it would permit to place an image of the monsters directly on the page for each game rather than a link to it. – DarkEvil 16:11, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
- The lists states that it is a "list of creatures", not a list of things you fight. There should be no overlap between this and the races article (else we ought to include a "human" entry because we fight tons of those in FF). Nifboy 06:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Good point. Let's keep it to a list of creatures, but not races. — CuaHL 06:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, that's what I always thought that races should be only in Races of Final Fantasy, but maybe we should either do a human section like Nifboy proposed, but it'd make a pretty big list with, for example, different humans in the games like knight, monk, warrior, and some humans that are boss on their own like Vargas, the Turks, even "Sephiroth" maybe. The human section would take an entire page just like Dragon is starting to do. Also, for dividing the page, like I earlier said it could be either the A-E thing or Final Fantasy bestiary, Final Fantasy II bestiary and so on. The new design Cuahl thought of would make the A-E thing possible, while the Final Fantasy bestiary, Final Fantasy II bestiary would make possible to show images on directly on the page as there is not 11 or more games in a section but only one or two in the case of Final Fantasy I & II. Sections with more than one monster like Dragon would still cause a problem, though. Seems there are no "perfect" solutions, but one has got to be better than the other. – DarkEvil 14:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- The "human" thing was a joke. Please please please don't take it seriously. Nifboy 15:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, ok it was a joke, but there could be the knights and those human things we fight in the game they're part of the bestiary, the bestiary could be about all that is fought, things like Cetra can be excluded since we fight none of them, as well as Moomba, for the Moogle, I'm not sure if there is actually a moogle fight in one game but the Chocobos are seen in fight (they can actually be pretty strong adversaries when using Choco Meteo). – DarkEvil 22:06, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- No. Again, i reiterate my point, the list says it's a list of creatures. That is what it should be. It is NOT a list of things fought. Nifboy 02:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- To be certain about the nature of bestiary, I looked in the first online dictionnary I could find, there are two descriptions pretty much saying the same:
1 : a medieval allegorical or moralizing work on the appearance and habits of real or imaginary animals
2 : a collection of descriptions of real or imaginary animals
so I accept that only creatures be included following the true meaning of the word. I'll forget all that was said about humans, they won't be integrated in the article. – DarkEvil 02:28, August 5, 2005 (UTC)- Just see bestiary. Hold on... rocks?! :/ — CuaHL 03:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hah, if I had thought about looking in wikipedia first, that would have saved me some time. And it does sound silly that rocks be included in a bestiary, but anyway, the only rock I can think about that is of significant importance is the Golem. I wonder if I could find a bestiary with some rocks, that'd be fun. Well getting off topic here, so I'll continue enhancing the bestiary a bit and after I'm done with images, some more entries should be included, but before, there has got to be a division of this article, have you ever tried editing an article over 100k, it gave me some trouble. – DarkEvil 03:53, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe we should be making Final Fantasy bestiary (A-M) and Final Fantasy bestiary (N-Z) in that case.. — CuaHL 03:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hah, if I had thought about looking in wikipedia first, that would have saved me some time. And it does sound silly that rocks be included in a bestiary, but anyway, the only rock I can think about that is of significant importance is the Golem. I wonder if I could find a bestiary with some rocks, that'd be fun. Well getting off topic here, so I'll continue enhancing the bestiary a bit and after I'm done with images, some more entries should be included, but before, there has got to be a division of this article, have you ever tried editing an article over 100k, it gave me some trouble. – DarkEvil 03:53, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Just see bestiary. Hold on... rocks?! :/ — CuaHL 03:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- To be certain about the nature of bestiary, I looked in the first online dictionnary I could find, there are two descriptions pretty much saying the same:
- No. Again, i reiterate my point, the list says it's a list of creatures. That is what it should be. It is NOT a list of things fought. Nifboy 02:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, ok it was a joke, but there could be the knights and those human things we fight in the game they're part of the bestiary, the bestiary could be about all that is fought, things like Cetra can be excluded since we fight none of them, as well as Moomba, for the Moogle, I'm not sure if there is actually a moogle fight in one game but the Chocobos are seen in fight (they can actually be pretty strong adversaries when using Choco Meteo). – DarkEvil 22:06, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- The "human" thing was a joke. Please please please don't take it seriously. Nifboy 15:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, that's what I always thought that races should be only in Races of Final Fantasy, but maybe we should either do a human section like Nifboy proposed, but it'd make a pretty big list with, for example, different humans in the games like knight, monk, warrior, and some humans that are boss on their own like Vargas, the Turks, even "Sephiroth" maybe. The human section would take an entire page just like Dragon is starting to do. Also, for dividing the page, like I earlier said it could be either the A-E thing or Final Fantasy bestiary, Final Fantasy II bestiary and so on. The new design Cuahl thought of would make the A-E thing possible, while the Final Fantasy bestiary, Final Fantasy II bestiary would make possible to show images on directly on the page as there is not 11 or more games in a section but only one or two in the case of Final Fantasy I & II. Sections with more than one monster like Dragon would still cause a problem, though. Seems there are no "perfect" solutions, but one has got to be better than the other. – DarkEvil 14:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Good point. Let's keep it to a list of creatures, but not races. — CuaHL 06:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Continue this topic at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy Done: A-M and N-Z
- Woooooow, lots of indents... BishopTutu 07:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Related games
The Chocobo section talks about Legend of Mana including chocobo, as we know, Legend of Mana is the fourth game in the Seiken Densetsu Series. Not being a Final Fantasy game, is it worth mentioning it in the article and adding images and info for it. If so, there is Final Fantasy Legend I-II-II, and Final Fantasy Adventure which are also not real Final Fantasy game. If not, then I'll just remove the bit about Legend of Mana. – DarkEvil 00:10, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Final Fantasy XI
I am able to find images for Final Fantasy XI, but I am having a hard time understanding how to use them. I don't understand how monsters are classified in Final Fantasy XI. When I try to find some basic monsters, I can't because the name of the monster I typed is often the family. What is this thing about family, is there a basic version of the monster for a family? – DarkEvil 00:33, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] A-M split
Final Fantasy bestiary (A-M) was getting too big, so I've moved it to A-E, and created F-M. I've also created Template:Final Fantasy bestiary for the bottom of each page, which can be expanded as the articles are expanded — CuaHL 15:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- This was needed too, it's incredible how it became big. But now, each page of the bestiary's got no more size problem, that's good. I'm looking forward to adding more entries, I'm currently working on List of Final Fantasy locations, after what I'll try List of Final Fantasy II locations and so on. As soon as I have some time after that, I'll go back to the bestiary (or if I get bored of List of Final Fantasy locations too). It's so bad that school starts soon for me. – DarkEvil 15:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
-
- Fantastic. Except we need to sort out something with those images. I'm not too fond of the idea that they're links. There page is very link heavy. I'm not sure what official article editors would do though.. maybe we should put this up for peer review, but I like my image idea. — CuaHL 15:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- I like your image idea too, my favorite, after thinking about it, is the 20px version. – DarkEvil 17:10, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
-
[edit] Distinction
I'd just like to point out that there isn't a very clear distinction in many of the entries between the origin of the creature (mythology, folklore etc.) and its appearance and behaviour within Final Fantasy. For example;
The Coeurl is a fictional immortal alien predator which sustains itself by feeding upon the Id of other beings. Its resemblance is comparable to a panther or a leopard.
There's nothing saying whether that relates to the games themselves or not, or whether its just the origin of the name/beast. --Made2Fade 14:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] i am the creatore of this page
when i created this page months ago i was having fun looking up names and putting them in a list i used ffcompendium for most of my info that you guys took this little bit and are trying to create a real bestiary makes me happy i wish you all the goodluck and succes i rarely come here my self i am dutch and most of my wiki editing are done on the dutch wikipedia where i mostly work on mythology basque etruscan finish celtic but because you guys vomited new life into the ffbestiary i was planning on helping you —the preceding comment is by 85.146.24.65 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC): Please sign your posts!.
- You should! The editors need all the help they can get. We set up a project a while back (see WP:PJFF for information). I think it was DarkEvil who's taken this over.. I can't help out as much as I would have liked to anymore. — CuaHL 18:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] galleries?
I think that we should use galleries, this will stave off deletions of the images as they will be directly used in the page. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think we should do something at least, now I need to get most images back, but I need the solution before. Galleries could work, I like the style on the List of Final Fantasy II characters page, what do you think? If it could work, then I'll start taking images and uploading them back.
- A gallery is now used, much like the one on List of Final Fantasy II characters. There is at least one example on each page for now, but I'll try to convert them all right now even those who have only one image, we'll put the images back eventually.--DarkEvil 04:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Images
As part of the fair use law, no more than 15 images from a collective work (meaning a single game like Final Fantasy I) should be used in one of our work, meaning an article for us and I count the Final Fantasy bestiary A-E and those as one major article, Final Fantasy bestiary. So, from A to Z, the maximum of images we can display for a single game is 15 images. Since there are more than 15 beasts in a single game, we can't put an image for each of them. I'd say, let's put an image for the 15 most important. Then again, choosing which is the most important can be discussed, and with time, this will probably change as new entries will be added. There are alternatives, like someone good at drawing could draw something based on the monsters which we don't put an image for and those images would not be fair use if they are creative enough to be distinguished from the original.--DarkEvil 19:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Non-sentient?"
"Non-sentient" really has nothing to do with at least half of the creatures listed--for example, just about all summoned creatures in the games are sentient at least (many are VERY intelligent, and only allow you to summon them after you manage to prove your strength to them), and there's a "Summon" section (as well as many others that wouldn't belong here if it was just for "non-sentient" beings). Could somebody think up a better wording for that part of the page?
[edit] Title
Why was this page moved to such a stupid title? ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 03:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, actually. The person responsible for the move cited a discussion regarding the Zelda series, which is not directly applicable here, and dealt in large part with the aesthetics of having an article ("the") at the beginning of the article/category title. As it happens, this was discussed by the Final Fantasy WikiProject ages ago, and the consensus was we disambiguate individual games not the overall series: in other words, the article on the main series is located at Final Fantasy, not "Final Fantasy series," and the article on the first game therein is at Final Fantasy (video game), not "Final Fantasy." In any case, the discussion concerned an entirely different set of articles, and because of its limited scope cannot be reasonably interpreted as binding policy or consensus on non-Zelda-related article. I'm going to see about reverting the change. – – Sean Daugherty (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
