Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy/archive/21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 March Roll call 2 Character pages 3 Banning spoiler warnings completely 3.1 WP:FF Consensus 3.2 Outside opinions and recommendations 3.3 Another opinion 3.4 Hidden notes on pages 3.5 Compromise 4 Why have all of the FF character articles been moved?

[edit] March Roll call

Please sign your name below to show that you are around and still with the project.

1. — Deckiller 22:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
2. — Daedalus 22:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
3. — Axem Titanium 20:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC) (although I'm still not technically here...)
4. — Djsonik 01:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC) (I was taking a long wikibreak, but I'm back!)
5. — Thanatosimii 01:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC) (Around but still looking for somthing to actually do)
6. — RaCha'ar 15:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Girding my loins to start hammering away at Final Fantasy XI with an eye towards FA.
7. — wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Still mostly mop stuff, and busy with RL stuff... but I try to get stuff done eventually.
8. — Gavin Scott Still imposing myself on the List of Final Fantasy VII characters and the Shinra pages.
9. — cocopopz2005 been busy with year 12 but can help around if needed.
10. — Teggles 07:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
11. — Melodia Might as well add myself ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
12. — Judgesurreal777 I'm around, here to help, let me know if you need something :) Judgesurreal777 20:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
13. — anomie I guess I'll officially join, even though my only interest here at the moment is the NES version of Final Fantasy Anomie 21:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
14. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib)
15. — PresN 17:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC) March 26th isn't too late to sign this, I suppose. I'll have to notice next month's sooner

[edit] Character pages

I just finished the rework of the FF8 character list (now Characters of Final Fantasy VIII). I will continue to add script cites. I also merged most of the character articles, except Squall and Rinoa. My opinion is that we should follow a style similar to this and turn the other "lists" into articles. Thoughts? — Deckiller 02:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you really merge most of the individual character articles? Thank you! That's awesome. Personally, I'm going to try to stay focused on the FFXII FA push since, ostensibly, that is the reason I'm editting at all during my wiki-break. I'll be sure to help out with this stuff as soon as I get back for real though. Axem Titanium 02:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool, and thanks. Plus, the article is already near GA status, so hopefully it will set a precedent. — Deckiller 03:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged the map of FF8 into the FF8 article and redirected the location list. Now all that remains is to get all the FF8 subarticles to GA status and I'd say we're done with our FF8 coverage for good. — Deckiller 03:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. This kind of maneuver should be followed for other Final Fantasy games. However, I don't particularly agree with the locations merging. I would've thought a "World of Final Fantasy VIII" article would have the potential for sufficient development information, but I guess it doesn't. --Teggles 03:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) The problem is the lack of context or out of universe info available; I couldn't find much beyond what Ryu and myself found for FF8 and what's already on the page. Although location articles like VII, X/X-2, and T/TA/XII (ivalice), and perhaps Vana'diel can stand on their own for sure. If we dig a little deeper, perhaps we can find info for a World of Final Fantasy VIII article? — Deckiller 04:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing something similar at List of Final Fantasy IX characters, but I haven't gotten around to merging yet, there's a lot of cruft that needs clean up first. Just look at General Beatrix's article, it's a redundant plot summary and a poorly written one, to boot. What you did with FFVIII's characters is essentially the goal I set for FFIX, so now that you're done, I'll use it as my precedent. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 14:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have moved List of Final Fantasy VII Characters to Characters of Final Fantasy VII inline with your edit of Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. I must admit the new title is much better- however, I am going to go about merging the character pages Lucreciea Cresent and Prof. Hojo with the main article.Gavin Scott 19:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I've been a bit cheeky and moved all List of... articles to Charcters of... Gavin Scott 19:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banning spoiler warnings completely

[edit] WP:FF Consensus

Let's just not use spoiler warnings at all, and not just omitting them for sections labeled as plot. Clearly, others agree with this, but do we have a consensus? — Deckiller 16:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agree. "Wikipedia is not censored." Spoiler warnings break apart the prose and screw up formatting. It's ambiguous at what point in a game events must occur to not be a spoiler. A spoiler for one game isn't a spoiler for its sequel. Encyclopedic information is complete. It's ambiguous how long after a game is released that information becomes widely known and no longer a spoiler. Etc... --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 20:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well said. — Deckiller 20:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Agree: Spoiler warnings are useless - whether or not a reader knows if there are "spoilers" ahead. I don't find it reasonable to disrupt the flow and integrity of an article to "be nice" to a few readers. There's also the issue of deciding what exactly a spoiler is - as NicholaiDaedalus put it, "encyclopedic information is complete" - it's impossible to decide what a spoiler is, doing so would be POV and unreferencable. Summary: I don't like them :) --Teggles 09:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Agree: Let's not forget, this is an encyclopedia. I think everyone or near enough everyone who searches Wikipedia knows that it will contain spoilers, the warnings add nothing to the article other than problems. I have removed them from near enough every article I have made additions too, including Final Fantasy. Gavin Scott 17:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Agree: I wasn't aware that they weren't already specifically excluded. At any rate, they're kind of ugly, provide nothing to the article except formatting and flow issues, censor information and are generally synonymous with "plot" and "story" anyway. They introduce POV and are too ambiguous to employ usefully. Axem Titanium 20:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• I think we'll all more or less agree; I'll be bold and change it. — Deckiller 20:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Interesting that everyone agrees here, since it seems to be a pretty big split across WP in general if they should be use. I'm in the "no" camp myself (I find they look ugly, beyond the above reasons), but there are enough people who want them that for now they'll probably stay on most fiction articles... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Very late Agree, but yeah, it is odd that everyone here doesn't like them, when, as the last TfD proved, WP as a whole is very much in love with them. --PresN 15:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: the tons of people who are for the warning probably aren't even aware of this small discussion existing here. Kariteh 20:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Since this is handled among the Wikiprojects as a case by case basis, this discussion only applies to Final Fantasy articles. For all the people that want to add spoilers to FF articles, point them in this direction and let them comment and add their views. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 21:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I thought the FF project already decided to ban them. I started a topic eariler (about six months ago, IIRC) and got some heat for suggesting that they follow the parent CVG project's norm of using them. Hbdragon88 22:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This is mostly a clarification, because before, there were still some templates around. This has nothing to do with your statement, but let me remind people that the decision for a WikiProject to not adhere to a style guideline is that wikiproject's decision to make, not the rest of Wikipedia's. People can certainly express their opinions, but this debate has been exausted, and it is clear that most members of this project are against the tags. — Deckiller 22:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside opinions and recommendations

This was originally a portion of the discussion that I have dubbed WP:FF Consensus, I have seperated these sections out since this discussion expands beyond the scope of WP:FF and it's editors, and discusses points that have developed tangentially from the spoiler warning discussion. I hope this makes our project's consensus more clear to parse. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 23:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Thank you, Kariteh, for raising attention to this in the Village Pump (Policy). I oppose for the following bulleted reasons (largely acquired from an earlier response I had made on the recent FA Shadow of the Colossus:

• Censorship: I do not see it as censorship, as no information is being removed or hidden; it is only being denoted.
• No Contributive Context: While they add nothing to the article, they prevent unsuspecting readers from inadvertently losing something from the subject of the article.
• Spoilers Should Be Expected: Spoilers are most often an issue on entertainment-related articles for which the user may only be seeking basic information out of interest of renting/buying the item; the reader may not be interested in receiving all of the information.
• Flow of Article / Clutter: A limit of spoiler tags may be a break in the flow of an article, as it requires articles to be written in such a way that spoilers are contained together (or else a plethora of spoiler tags can clutter the article), but I have yet to see a case where an article cannot be written with only 1 or 2 spoiler sections.
• Ambiguous: I agree that what is a "spoiler" can be ambiguous. However, I do not believe this should result in a complete nixing of spoiler warnings entirely; but rather I feel such a concern should prompt further discussion to define what information falls under the category of "spoiler" so that we can apply the warnings more appropriately.

I hope this helps spur further discussion. Sláinte! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 22:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not a regular editor to the Final Fantasy articles. Spoiler warnings are handled on a case by case basis; we don't impose their exclusion on other wikiprojects, and we'd appreciate that other wikiprojects do not do the same to us. In the case of Shadow of the Colossus, it's not a WP:FF article, so tags aren't a major issue there unless there is consensus not to use them (and it's not part of another WikiProject) — Deckiller 22:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not attempting to impose anything on anyone: I am only making additional points of discussion and providing a viewpoint that may not have been considered. Please remember to assume good faith. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 22:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It was not a matter of assuming faith; I was just attempting to clarify that consensus will be reached by WikiProject editors and readers, and that any other outside opinions are not likely to be included in determining consensus. I'm sorry if it seemed snappy; I've seen this occur so many times in the past and eat up so much time that it scares me to see it happening again, because the lines are going to be drawn the same exact way. — Deckiller 22:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As some IP asked some time ago, are editors writing the articles for the readers or for themselves? Personally, I don't understand why only regular editors to the FF articles could participate in the debate. If someone isn't a regular editor but is a regular reader, shouldn't their arguments be considered? Kariteh 22:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Readers should also be considered, but those readers should be those who read Final Fantasy pages (in addition to whatever else they read). However, a lot of readers do not know about talkpages or the concept of templates, so it will be difficult to pull them in. Some people who edit generally pass by and add them, or express their opinion on the talkpage. However, pages get thousands of hits per day, and only a couple people express disagreement. I wish I could find a source for pageviews, but the only one available only goes over the top 100. — Deckiller 22:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

When I suggested pointing other people here to discuss their views, I meant people who want to contribute specifically to Final Fantasy articles as that is our project's scope and jurisdiction. Yes, there are other people who advocate the use of spoilers, but I made this clear that this is a case by case basis. We are deciding whether or not to ban spoilers within Final Fantasy ONLY. I don't intend to invalidate what Bossi says, it is a valid viewpoint, but unless editors are contributing to FF, this decision does not concern them. By inviting editors outside of FF articles in, we are opening Pandora's box. This is a controversial topic that we should not be repeating exhaustive discussions on. This is just an attempt to find consensus within WP:FF, NOT consensus within WP as a whole. Since we have the option to WP:IGNORE and this issue is controversial and a case-by-case issue, we as a Wikiproject have the perogative to determine what we feel is best for our project, even if that means ignoring general WP consensus if we so choose. This is a decision limited to the Wikiproject, and is discussed on the main talk page of the wikiproject. Bringing attention to this discussion in the village pump was inappropriate. Should we post there that we might be deciding to merge character articles into their respective lists? We are dictating practice in WP:FF, not WP, and thus it does not concern WP as a whole. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 22:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said. I apologize if my frankness has come at a cost of the reputation of people within this WikiProject, but we cannot open the floodgates once again. It will derail everything. Here's another comparison: an organization has departments. Departments should obvious communicate, but they need a certain level of norms and cohesion to keep things flexible and smooth. The maintenance and manufacturing departments do not tell the accounting department how to debit accounts receivable; sure, they can give suggestions, but it's a departmental decision. China and Russia can tell the United States to conform to an international guideline, but if the US disagrees, they have the right to. Note that this does not apply to policies; policies must be followed. Guidelines do not have as strong of a foundation or consensus, which is why we have a separation of policy and guideline. — Deckiller 23:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Another clarification — for approximately a year, this project has not used spoiler warnings in subjects labeled "plot". Many editors extended this to other articles, to the point where few had any spoiler warnings at all. The discussion was sparked because I added a spoiler warning to a page not labeled as plot, and a fellow WikiProject editor reverted. Then, I wanted to see if anyone with the project had any real interest in using them at all, because of the fact that I've only seen a handful of Final Fantasy articles with them around still. It may have seemed like a "jump the gun" concept, but I saw the same old editors listing their same old reasons for opposing spoiler warnings (and not just in plot sections). Heck, the only reason I started this thread was to not look like an hypocite for adding a spoiler tag to an article. — Deckiller 22:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Question - is there anything harmed by the presence of spoiler warnings? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Community consensus seems to ok spoilers for situations where one would not likely expect to find a spoiler. Even if you guys get a consensus here, I doubt that would be considered enough support for a real ban. If you want something you might be able to enforce then you'll need more exposure for this discussion.

Personally, I no longer care much about the issue. The last time I was in a spoiler debate we generated about a megabyte of text and even had Jimbo Wales comment about it (he doesn't like spoiler warnings either). In that debate, nothing really changed..

I think readers will eventually have to realize that we do include spoilers and that they should expect them when reading about those specific topics. In other words, the readers will just have to deal with it, and it won't be the end of the world.

On the other hand, if something is "major" enough, and seems in a place a reader wouldn't expect it, then I don't see a big problem with spoiler warnings. I don't see them as evil or unprofessional, I just see them as a normal element that you might see on the internet.

But, as I started to say, this discussion here alone is not enough to ban spoiler warnings in articles under this scope. I'm a little surprised to see one of the responses here to someone because they were not a "regular" editor. One thing that gets really under my skin is WikiProjects that feel they have ownership over their articles. No one is excluded from WikiProjects, and you are apart of that project by simply being in a discussion involving that project (you may or may not choose to list yourself as a long term participant, but you always have equal rights). The WikiProject does not make the consensus, but a discussion the WikiProject houses might. Get more exposure to the discussion and then you might be able to enforce something. -- Ned Scott 04:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't completely agree. Like you said, the debate is always locked, the lines are always the same. This situation was supposed to be a minor clarification on how the WikiProject editors felt. I can understand your feeling that we are acting like we WP:OWN the articles, but if WikiProjects cannot make group decisions about guidelines, what's the point of having them in the first place? There's nothing wrong with people stating their opinions and recommendations to see if they can influence the WikiProject consensus, but to hold a straw poll with their !votes counted defeats the purpose of having individual WikiProject style guides, among other things. That's what my reply to the user above meant; the user was welcome to share the stance and opinions, but if everyone else in Wikipedia comes in and begins a straw poll, then of course we'll be outnumbered. We aren't going to impose are opinions about the spoiler warnings to other projects (although we might leave a recommendation if they are used for a section already labeled "plot"). Honestly, I think less harm will be done if this discussion is ceased before it gets blown out of proportion and turns into another megabyte of debate - this time on a different battlefield. Again, I stress the difference betwen policies and manual of style guidelines; manual of style guidelines have exceptions, and I believe it's fair to say that if a large group of editors working on the same group of articles disagrees with one guideline alone, then they should have the ability to do so. Otherwise, we might as well just turn all guidelines into policies. — Deckiller 04:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The point of WikiProjects is to give a centralized place for collaboration, not necessarily to "make rules". WikiProjects can make group decisions about guidelines, but when you know something is controversial, and you know many people might disagree with you, then it's not ok to just ignore that. It would be one thing if you guys really felt that everyone would be ok with it, and then it would be understandable that you didn't go out of your way to make the discussion known, stuff like that is ok. However, this is not that kind of situation. Making a consensus "here" with just those you know will agree with you is not a consensus.

I have to say, I'm a bit annoyed by this line of thinking. Mostly because I don't really care about spoiler warnings as much as I care about people's attitudes about WikiProjects making their own exceptions. What you are asking for here is a way to revert anyone who puts a spoiler tag in an article under this project's scope, and to be able to say "we can do that because we have consensus". That's the wrong way to use a WikiProject, because the WikiProject isn't representing consensus in that situation. -- Ned Scott 05:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we thought it was clear that people knew that this is one of the WikiProjects that does not advocate the spoiler warning guideline. If I had known there was such resistance of us not adding them into our plot summaries (a practice that has occured for the past year, including two mainpage features), I would have approached the situation differently. Granted, not using the warnings at all is a bit more extreme than not using them in sections clearly labeled as "plot" or "appearences", which is why I drew up a compromise below. Also, I'm sorry that you are annoyed by the concept that WikiProjects should have some flexibility with certain guidelines in regard to the articles they cover. — Deckiller 05:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not annoyed by that concept, I'm annoyed when I see users telling other users that their opinions don't matter because they don't edit X group of articles enough. It's fine if this all started in good faith, but don't try to block out the outside when they become aware of the situation. If someone doesn't seem to understand the situation (a newbie to Wikipedia or something) and you don't give their argument much weight because they might not be fully aware of the situation, that's one thing. A "stranger" can come into a situation and be on equal grounds with those who focus more on a group of articles (assuming that "stranger" has logic to back them up). But I'm thinking this is an isolated issue, and that you guys most likely do treat "strangers" as equals. I apologies if I've over-reacted. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's ok; I overreacted above too. My "you're not a regular editor" comment should have been clarified. It wasn't a matter of blocking out those users, it was a matter of making sure the opposite didn't happen, where the WikiPrject's beliefs were blocked out by the wikipedia-wide advocates of the spoiler tags. That reasoning might have been distorted by my knee-jerk reaction. I believe I did end up clarifying somewhere above, so I won't waste time. Most, if not all, of us welcome outside opinions about many issues; a lot of our style guide was taken from opinions of users like Silence. Spoiler warnings are the one exception, it seems. — Deckiller 05:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope I'm not going to upset anyone since I have nothing to do with the WikiProject, but this section did say "outside opinions", so I hope that it's OK for me to comment here. I dislike the idea of an outright spoiler warning ban. I feel that given the plot-heavy nature of Final Fantasy games, spoiler warnings are a common courtesy where spoilers show up in unexpected places. I agree with the compromise proposed by Deckiller at the bottom of the page, except for the bit about

"Spoilers must be kept out of the lead sections of all articles, regardless if the tags are used later in the article. An exception is if the character is notable for the spoiler, or is influenced by that spoiler for the majority of the game. Case by case basis is key."

which I feel I must respectfully disagree with. For example, someone who didn't know what happened to Aerith could quite easily have the story spoiled for them if the plot information about her was found in the lead section. Lead sections IMHO really ought to just contain the minimum information necessary to give an overview of the subject. The current Aerith article has a perfectly informative introduction that doesn't spoil anything. Anyone who wants to find out more can read on at his or her own risk.

Another couple of thoughts people may like to consider - anyone who edits these articles will be well aware of the WikiProject's stance on th spoiler warning, but the casual Wikipedia reader may not be. Since there are spoiler warnings in other parts of the encyclopaedia, banning them completely here could cause some confusion. Also, I may as well add that the argument "is there anything harmed by the presence of spoiler warnings?" is probably not relevant, because in itself that doesn't justify their inclusion. I think there are plenty of good reasons to include the warnings over sections where a reader won't otherwise be expecting spoilers, but "they don't do any harm" is not one of them. RobbieG 19:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dissagree. They might "destroy the flow of a artical" , but honestly is it that big of a problem , its not like a banner add or anything. Also spoilers can ruin many games , personally i saw no warning on ffx and <guess whats next, yeah a spoiler> finding out the ending is yuna lives , and tidas dies (see the picture and subtitle on the artical) ruined the game for me. That is why you need spoiler warnings. Read wp:spoiler and it explains it well. Wikipedia is not a source for just people who spend many hours on it, and should be friendly to all users which includes people who do not read this site firist.as somone below said , I did avoid reading the plot/story section , but pictures should not be spoilers at all, as we all know they are harder to ignore then just text.
  • The paragraphs and paragraphs of text, as well as the headings "story", "setting", and "plot", not to mention the time it took to load the page, did not make you realize that it might cover the entire game, especially if it went into that much detail? — Deckiller 20:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Usually, images do not contain spoilers, and that image just showed an embrace (it did not show Tidus "dying", which is actually not true). I'm sorry that you were spoiled, but at least now you know that Wikipedia contains spoilers. Besides, if the warnings were in place, you would have still scrolled down to read the development and other sections. In that process, you might have seen the images anyway. — Deckiller 20:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • To the user who, disagreed, when looking up an encyclopedia did you not know that the entire game would be revealed? Lets remember this is an encyclopedia NOT a review centre!Gavin Scott 21:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree but I can't be bothered arguing my case except to say I feel spoiler warnings are not censorship & don't disturb flow. Nil Einne 14:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another opinion

Agree that spoiler warnings should be used. I think spoiler warnings were created for a reason: to prevent spoiling! We have 'em on a variety of other articles so I just don't see what the problem is. For me, it would be like going to see two of the Lord of the Rings films and then someone telling me exactly how it ends. Loads of people use wikipedia, why not simply warn 'em that there might be info they'd rather not see. I don't think endings in games should be revealed to those who don't want them to be revealed, especially to such a great series as final fantasy.
Seraphim Whipp 18:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Note. Just realised how late I am about this. Lol.

Seraphim Whipp 18:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

why not simply warn 'em that there might be info they'd rather not see Well, I ask, why do we not censor pictues that people might not want to see either? Not everyone wants to see a penis, even if they goto that article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Simple answer? The page penis is likely to have a picture of a penis on it or information, as that is what the article is for. Final Fantasy games are far more complex. It's unlikely to know what to expect. I really can't understand what the problem is! Spoiler warnings were created for this exact reason!

Seraphim Whipp 19:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Response: Someone who goes to the penis page should expect to see a picture of a penis, whether it offends them or not. Someone who goes to a Final Fantasy Article should expect to see spoilers, whether it offends them or not. It is an encyclopedia article about a game. That means that it's going to be comprehensive. That means that it's going to have spoilers. To expect an article to not have spoilers, whether it has a warning or not, is illogical. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 19:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, at no point did I say that wikipedia shouldn't have comprehensive information or that it shouldn't have spoilers. This debate is about whether or not spoiler warnings should be used. My opinion is that they should; that is what they were made for.

Seraphim Whipp 19:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify: Spoiler warnings are implied because an encyclopedia is comprehensive, the warning that there might be spoilers is redundant and readers should expect spoilers in the articles as that is common sense. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 20:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference is having seen a penis doesn't affect one in any way (well except for some odd people). But it's well established that many, many people prefer to not know the plot before playing a game. No one is expecting article not to be comprehensive and it's obviously implied that articles will have spoilers. What is not clear is when an article will have spoilers. By clearly identifying cases when articles have spoilers, readers can easily choose to skip such sections. Just because your interested in a topic doesn't mean you're interested in spoilers. You may very well have not played the game (or whatever). But once you have read a spoiler, you can't go back and it has greatly affected you. I understand why some feel there is no point having spoiler warnings in plot sections but when a spoiler is unexpected, the spoiler warning does the reader a great service. Nil Einne 14:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

But it's a guideline!
From WP:SPOILER

A spoiler is a piece of information in an article about a narrative work (such as a book, feature film, television show or video game) that may reduce one's enjoyment of reading, viewing, or playing the work by revealing certain plot events or twists. If someone hasn't read, watched or played the material to which the warning refers, they might wish to avoid reading the spoiler before fully reading the work.

Although Wikipedia strives first to inform and so may include spoilers, not all visitors will recognize this function, so some people will appreciate a spoiler notice. An article may contain analyses and background detail not available or at least not obvious in the work described. Where this is the case, some people feel a spoiler notice should be made prominent as a simple courtesy. Some WikiProjects, such as WikiProject Final Fantasy, have decided to limit use of this guideline.

"Readers should expect spoilers in the articles as that is common sense". Not when you're looking at an FF article. As they are quite comprehensive, there is a lot of information. People read the articles in FF for many reasons and not necessarily to find out plot twists or the way a game ends. Please answer me this: what is sooooo wrong with letting people know that a spoiler is ahead?
--Seraphim Whipp 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to express my opinion, and I know that not everyone will agree with me on this. You said it yourself, FF articles are "quite comprehensive", therefore one can expect to see spoilers. Your asking of a vague, rhetorical question does not refute my opinions. The obvious answer, there is nothing wrong with letting people know that a spoiler is ahead. A better question for you to ask should be "What is wrong with a spoiler warning?" which I can answer easily. As I've expressed, I feel that the reader should already know that there are going to be spoilers in the article, thus making the warning redundant, that is the only issue I have addressed in this section. Admittedly it isn't a reason to exclude them, but it is a rebuttal to your reason to include them. For reasons why they should be excluded, see my points in WP:FF Consensus above. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 21:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If I'm reading a section called "Plot", I expect it will spoil the plot. If it doesn't, I'm going to be disappointed. In general, I agree with the compromise posted below. Anomie 21:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on the spoiler logic, I'm sure it would be fine to use this warning:

I'll propose it if no one disagrees. --Teggles 00:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. — Deckiller 03:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden notes on pages

I feel that these hidden notes border on incivility. It might reflect poorly on us, because there is a difference between frankness and rudeness, and sometimes it's hard to walk that line (see any of my comments related to this issue; I'm not happy with them, but I felt it necessary). How should we rewrite them to kindly point new users or readers to this page and our manual of style, as well as the general CVG concept of case by case basis? — Deckiller 23:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

I've drawn up a compromise to this issue to prevent a large debate from ballooning. Please see the bottom of the page. — Deckiller 05:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why have all of the FF character articles been moved?

List of Final Fantasy VIII characters was changed to Characters of Final Fantasy VIII because it includes development information, merchandise information, reception etc. But now all of the other ones have been renamed in the same suit; which should not have happened, they are still normal lists. Why did this happen? --Teggles 07:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

While what you say is correct, the uniformity introduced by the new title brings these articles into line. After all they all link to each other. Besides, Characters of Final Fantasy # doest actually mean anything other than List of Final Fantasy # Characters. Gavin Scott 21:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the moving; our eventual goal is to get all articles to at least GA status, so they will all have to be moved eventually anyway. Also, in the past, I've noticed users mistaking these character lists for something like, say, List of rock instrumentals. The two are not the same; the character "lists" are, more accurately, merged superarticles. — Deckiller 21:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If I can just say, I am sorry if my moving of all the articles has vexed anyone, but it was the direction we were going in. Gavin Scott 21:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)