Talk:Creatures of Final Fantasy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For a March 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Final Fantasy Bestiary

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	CVG Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
CVG To-do: edit  Gaming Collaboration of the week: Baldur's Gate series Expand: New CVG Articles, Normality, Pac-Man World 2, Operation Flashpoint: Elite, Call of Juarez, Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, Ford Street Racing, Betrayal at Krondor CVG Peer Review: List of F-Zero titles, Kya: Dark Lineage, Wii Remote, Dynasty Warriors 4, The Sims 2, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Kirby's Dream Land, Electronic sports, Fire Emblem, Dante (Devil May Cry), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Final Fantasy XII, Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit), Classes in World of Warcraft Cleanup: Age of Mythology, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, Betrayal at Krondor, List of Nintendo trademarks Merge: Deletions / Essential articles / Magazines Assess and Prioritise articles (Log)

This article is part of WikiProject Final Fantasy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Final Fantasy-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.

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 1 DarkEvil's recent work 2 What should be included 3 Related games 4 Final Fantasy XI 5 A-M split 6 Distinction 7 i am the creatore of this page 8 galleries? 9 Images 10 "Non-sentient?" 11 Title 12 Creatures of Final Fantasy 13 Creatures that could be added (?) 14 FFXI Bestiary 15 Sourcing 16 This article and OR 17 Chocobo Merge

[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)
                    • Actually the official guides have everything fought in the games under a 'monsters' section. That includes humans and beasts. --Vanguard 15:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
                      • Because it'd be rather silly for a strategy guide to leave out human opponents. Nifboy 16:42, 28 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?

But where do you draw the line? No matter how it's phrased the delineation between Beastiary and Races is going to be arbitrary since the games do not organize them in that manner. I do, however agree that sentience should not be a qualifier for this. Perhaps we could do something like:

"The following is a list of some of the creatures and monsters from the Final Fantasy series and the titles in which they appear. For a list of culturally developed races and beings, see the Races of Final Fantasy."

But again, that leaves creatures that don't quite fit into either category. I don't think rephrasing it will solve the problem because you have too many creatures that don't fit. What makes the Qus of FFIX a race, and the Goblin a monster? Judging by their equipment and clothing they are just about as technologically and culturally advanced as each other. The are just as uncommon as each other (if anything, I would say Qus are more rare since you can count them on one hand), so population can't be an indicator. Neither one of them have any impact on the global socio-economics of the worlds. So what makes a Qu a race? Is it only because we interact with them within the plotline, or that we have a party member who is a Qu? That's hardly a logical reasoning to classify them as a Race and not an intelligent creature. No matter how you slice it the delineation will be highly arbitrary for some creatures. I think we should keep the phrasing simple, and assume the Reasonable person arguement. --Daedalus 19:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[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)

[edit] Creatures of Final Fantasy

I felt enough progress had been made to warrent an official move. Now, all we need to do is copyedit, reference, and expand the history a bit (and maybe make some inclusions/omissions). Also, about the images...I feel that, since these are the most common creatures, we should limit each section to one image of the creature. That'll really help us win the fair use battle. — Deckiller 00:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be titled "Monsters of Final Fantasy" or something like that? "Creatures" implies that the races of Final Fantasy are also included, but they aren't for some reason which would appear arbitrary to most people. Kariteh 11:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The naming was based on the category of FF creatures; this page also contains a section for chocobos. Perhaps a link to the races page in the lead section will help clear up confusion? — Deckiller 12:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Monster is such a connotative term. "Creature", on the other hand, does not have any connotation other than "not a race". --Daedalus 16:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the connotation is that these entities are what the player fights in the different games of the series. "Creature" definitely doesn't imply "not a race." Kariteh 21:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

But that's not necessarily the case. You don't battle cactuars in FFX2, you don't fight Chocobos in FFVIII or FFIX, some creatures in FFIX are non-hostile, etc. Monster connotates an unnatural aberration that should be destroyed, which is not necessarily the case in FF. Creature connotates any living thing and some things that resemble living things, which is most certainly the case. Are you to say that a Chocobo is a monster? The games don't even consider them monsters so why should we? --Daedalus 23:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely the connotation intended. What FFIX creatures are you referring to? Currently, the FFIX creatures that appear in this article are all monsters encountered in battles, no Oglops or things like that. You fight Chocobos in FFT and FFXII (and perhaps FFXI, I'm not sure about this one). They are definitely considered monsters in FFT, and they appear in the Clan Primer (monster catalogue) in FFXII once you killed some. You encounter them in battle in FFVII too, although they run away before you can kill them. I think the term "creature" is too broad because one would think the races of the series would appear in the article too, but they don't. Moogles for instance can be considered both "creatures" and "race", but they can't be considered "monsters", so that's why they appear in the Races article. Chocobos can be considered both "creatures" and "monsters", but not really "race", but they appear on this Creatures article whose definition is too broad. Kariteh 10:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

But that's exactly the point. Monster is too specific, and creature was chosen so that it could be broader. And some of these creatures are most certainly NOT unnatural abberations that must be destroyed, else Chocobo doesn't belong on the list. The list here is to denote iconic figures of the series, not to create a beastiary, and not to be a list of things that you fight per se. Perhaps Chocobos are fought in some games, but that is an auxillary use of them, their primary use in the series is to be a mode of transportation replacing horses to give the game a more unique and exotic element. The creatures I'm referring to in FFIX are the Pop Quiz's, Ladybug, Yeti, etc. Most of them are pretty much palette swaps of existing monsters that you fight, but they serve a very different purpose. I do see your point about moogles, but they were first introduced as an intelligent and developed race and have become more so in succeeding games, so they belong in races. By the way, Races is going to go through a similar process and will be trimmed and consolidated as well to show only the most iconic races. --Daedalus 17:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creatures that could be added (?)

I used http://www.ffcompendium.com/h/monster.shtml as a reference:

• Abaddon/Abadon appears in VIII, IX, X, Crystal Chronicles.
• Adamantoise appear in all numbered titles except FFI, and also in Mystic Quest.
• Bandersnatch appears in V, VII, IX, X, XI.
• Death Claw appears in III, V, VII, VIII, XII.
• Hecteyes appear in II, V, VII, IX, XI, XII.
• Minotaur/Sekhmet/Brothers appears in I (Dawn of Souls), III, V, VIII, XI, Tactics, Mystic Quest.
• Mu appears in VI, VII, IX, XII, Crystal Chronicles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kariteh (talk • contribs) 15:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
  • We felt a lot of those were too minor to be put into their own sections; however, we might be able to mention them in the others section under a general context. We don't want to turn the article into a list. Ones like Minotaur and Bandersnatch and even Adamantoise can be used as examples of myth/culture origins. — Deckiller 17:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I left out a few monsters which were minor but present in the majority of the FFs (like Funguar). I think these 7 deserve to be mentioned. Death Claw, Hecteyes and Mu especially need to be mentioned IMHO because they're quite unique to the FF series. The article should remain a general article on the "Creatures of FF", rather than an article on the "Creatures of FF inspired by myths and folklore". Kariteh 09:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • A lot of those can be mentioned in the other section in a paragraph about original monsters. — Deckiller 15:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Perhaps we can create a final paragraph in the "others" section for any notable "original creations", like Demon Wall, death machine/the weapons, and death claw. — Deckiller 21:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Actually, I'm a bit lost on the criteria used for this article though. I mean, why do the Chimera and Cockatrice have their own sections? They could or should be put in the Other Creatures section like the other monsters inspired by mythology. Similarly, I'm trying to find the classifying difference between the Iron Giant and other original monsters such as Death Wall and Death Claw, but I can't find any. Kariteh 18:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
            • The criteria was loosely based on the creatures with the most appearances and most available information without delving into OR and so on. It's more of a case-by-case basis and a balancing act, because we want to avoid list-like criteria. The idea is not including every monster in final fantasy; it's to pick the most notable 10-12 or so and generally describe other monsters/influences using examples. — Deckiller 21:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FFXI Bestiary

I think the link for a FFXI bestiary is a bad choice. It is very outdated, and barely used at all. How about FFXIclopedia's bestiary? --Jopasopa 00:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

Once I'm done with the character class sourcing (which is going to take some time; I have no sources for III, Tactics Advance, and a few other claims in the article), I'm going to move on to here. Here's the problem; I only have ONE reliable source available that will help us prove which monsters came from where and so on, and that's the XII official strategy guide. I need to know if people have the following official strategy guides:

• Final Fantasy Origins (or I and II advance, whatever it's called)
• Final Fantasy III Advance
• Final Fantasy IV/Chronicles
• Final Fantasy V/VI/Advanced/Anthology
• Final Fantasy VII
• Final Fantasy VIII
• Final Fantasy IX
• Final Fantasy X
• Final Fantasy X-2
• Final Fantasy XI
• Final Fantasy Tactics
• FFT Advanced
• and so on...

Otherwise, this page will already be in dire straits w/o reliable sources. — Deckiller 12:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I used to have more, but currently I have the official strategy guide for FFVII and FFX2. It should be noted, however, that I have encountered many discrepancies between what was in the Beastiary of FFVII Stratguide and what was in the game. But "Verifiability not Truth" I suppose... --Daedalus 21:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Those are great. If you can find page numbers and whatnot, it would be absolutely excellent. The same goes to X-2 and the character class article. If we can get the X-2 sourcing finished for FFX-2 tonight, we can probably go for GA pretty soon for that article. — Deckiller 22:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've gotten some of the strategy guides, and started sourcing things. (FF3 Advance, two 7s, 10, 10-2, Chronicles and Anthology) I'm building up a userpage that has the relevant pages of stuff in them, so that people who don't have the guides can use them as sources, I'll post it at WP:FF once it's built up a bit. As an aside, I'd like to ask rhetorically, what moron thought that placing the FF3 monsters in order by level rather than alphabetically was good idea? It takes forever to find anything. The FFX and FFX-2 ones are much better. --PresN 06:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've managed to find an FFVIII guide, so that fills that void. --Daedalus 22:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article and OR

I'm worried that we won't be able to find sources such as where monsters got their origins; in other words, people might read it as light original research. I feel we have no choice but to keep it in, because otherwise, the article lacks necessary depth. I think it's a necessary burdon, and it may hinder this article from getting GA, but at least it will be of decent quality nonetheless. — Deckiller 10:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've found some hits for Final Fantasy mythology, but I'm a little reluctant to use this one: [1]. I'm not sure if it'll be considered "reliable enough". — Deckiller 10:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Are thesises supposed to be reliable sources? There are 2 listed as references in this article. Kariteh 18:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we extrapolate the references that the thesis uses? Those would almost assuredly be RSs, I'm not sure about the thesis itself. --Daedalus 20:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Published scholarly papers (read: ones on scholar.google.com) are considered reliable secondary sources, within reason. We need reliable secondary sources, not reliable primary sources. Things like strategy guides and published papers syntesize primary sources so we don't have to (thus diminishing OR). — Deckiller 00:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahriman, which maybe can be refered to a clan or cult or whatever in ff2(i wouldent know i gave up that j-pop shit just after it had destroyed my whole beatifull Spira with its boring dorky girls.(on contrary to how theye were in ffx) but, Ahriman is a creature of myth, like the cenutaur n shit. It means evil or wizard, im not enterly sure but you guys should check it out).

[edit] Chocobo Merge

Just wanted to bring to everyone's attention a discussion thread that pertains to this page that was started on another page: Talk:Races of Final Fantasy#Moogle Merging??. In this section someone is questioning the recent attempts to merge Chocobo into the article. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(copied here from Talk:Races of Final Fantasy#Moogle Merging??) I have created a trimmed-down, reformatted version of the Chocobo Page to be included as a section for Creatures of Final Fantasy. My draft which can be found here is still quite large, so It'd be nice to get a few more eyes to go through it and remove what they feel is unnecessary and clean it up a bit before I perform the final merge. Also, any sourcing that you can provide would be much appreciated. All further discussion of this should occur in Talk:Creatures of Final Fantasy#Chocobo Merge and not here. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 19:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I trimmed it down a little and fixed some typos. It still needs work though. Kariteh 22:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)