Talk:Characters of Final Fantasy VII

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A summary of this article appears in Final Fantasy VII.
Former featured topic candidate Characters of Final Fantasy VII is part of the Final Fantasy VII characters series, a former featured topic candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the topic for featured topic status.


Archive
Archives
  • Archive 1 - December 25, 2005 - February 26, 2007
  • Archive 2 - February 26, 2007 - January 20, 2008

Contents

[edit] Archived

The talk has been archived again, all discussions appear resolved- or are not active for over several months. Gavin Scott (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tifa has been merged

Tifa has been merged. Now the only Aerith to go. Gavin Scott (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, why was Tifa merged? There was no discussion about a merge; just about whether she is a "central" or "secondary" character. Both Tifa and Aerith still merit their own articles, even as secondary. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Axem here. Mergers should always be discussed. And you can't merge Aerith, Gavin, as it's currently a GA. The Prince (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
While I certainly agree that the Tifa article is in poor shape and should probably be merged in its current state, I think it might be salvageable. However if it can not then it probably should be merged. Also reiterating what Prince said, the Aerith article certainly established notability with both printed and online sources from GameSpy, IGN, GamePro, GameFAQs, Edge, EGM, and gamesTM. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

We've been merging all the other articles, is Tifa to be allowed her own? I don't feel strongly either way, but my problem is if Tifa is allowed her own article I can see people saying that characters such as Barret, or the Turks etc should have their own article...eventually reversing all we've done. Opinions? Gavin Scott (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel that Tifa is important enough to merit her own article, as one of the primary love interests (per precedent with Rinoa in the Chars of FFVIII article; Rinoa is a similar case). Also, it doesn't feel right leaving out the last corner of the love triangle between Cloud, Tifa, and Aerith (or square, if you count Zack). Axem Titanium (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
She should have her own article just because she's a love interest? That sounds quite in-universe. I think she does merit her own article, but only because there are enough out-of-universe information about her (like how she wasn't in the original script of the game, etc.). Kariteh (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI, I didn't say that's the primary reason. I just felt it would be aesthetically pleasing if she had her own article, as part of the triangle. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If the reception section gets expanded, I think she can have her own article. If not, I agree with Gavin. The Prince (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If we build up the article from an out of universe perspective then we should keep it by all means, per WP:Fict. Though, if we merged her I'd like to merge Aerith as well. Regardless, both Aerith and Tifa's entries in this article need to be expanded. Gavin Scott (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC) I just noticed I've done Aerith already- I think Tifa should be expanded upon though, I might have a go later but bit busy this weekend. Gavin Scott (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tifas Role

I know we're having trouble working out Tifa's relation to being either the love interest or just one of two...do we think this image perhaps hints that she is the central love interest? [1]Im not saying its a reference or evidence...just an idea. Gavin Scott (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Major Character" division

There is no justifiable reason for Vincent Valentine and Zack Fair to have the distinction of major characters while the rest of the cast (especially important characters such as Aerith Gainsborough) are relegated to a separate status. This is especially true considering that in Final Fantasy VII, Vincent is an optional character and Zack Fair is not playable at all. This IS an article on FFVII characters - please change the article to be consistent with the source material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.26.107 (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Zack and Vincent are playable characters in their own games. Thus, they are more important than characters who do not have their own games. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not the page for characters of those games, it is the page for Final Fantasy VII characters. Also, being a main character does not necessarily mean that you are important or central - the playable character often serves as a lens. At the very least, Aeris(th) should be given the distinction of a central character. She is at least as important to the games as Sephiroth and can easily be seen as the spiritual mascot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.26.107 (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
As stated in the intro, this is the article for characters of the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII. Gavin Scott (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think it is clearly for all titles in the compilation, noting the sections labeled "Before Crisis characters", "Advent Children characters", "Dirge of Cerberus characters", and "Crisis Core characters". The current criteria for being "central" appears to be being the main playable character in a game and Sephiroth since he's the main villain. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Then the criteria should be subject to re-examination. To disinclude Aeris (the mover) is just preposterous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.26.107 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
State why you think it is preposterous or your opinion won't matter. Kariteh (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I did state why, however briefly.
Aeris is a primary character because she is the mover. While arguments can be made against the idea that she is what drew Cloud to the Shin-ra building and got the ball rolling in the first place, it's fairly indisputable that by the time they got to the Temple of the Ancients, she was giving guidance to their mostly meandering quest. She is also the first to call Cloud's true identity into question.
Aeris is the counterpoint to Sephiroth, the real last ancient, and becomes important enough for him to single out and kill as she is the one with the power to call Holy. Her death becomes one major motivating force for the rest of the team and by the time they know why she died, their goal is to help her save the planet by freeing up whatever is blocking Holy. When Holy does come, it comes with the lifestream, and we see Aeris' face - it is understood that while Cloud killed Sephiroth, Aeris is the one who saved the planet.
Aeris takes a major thematic role throughout the compilation, as well. She guides Cloud again in Advent Children and the source of some of Cloud's inner struggle comes from his inability to resolve the guilt he carries for not being able to protect her. She cleanses Geostigma and by the end is being painted as the force that stands in opposition to Jenova, which is a pretty hefty distinction. By the end credits, it is Aeris and Cloud who we see, rather than all the other characters.
Then, we have the fact that she has an entire work dedicated to her, "The Maiden Who Travels The Planet," I believe it's called.
Is this enough evidence? Frankly, I think it should be obvious from playing the original game that Aeris is of huge importance. If I remembered some of the comments made by the creators to support that, I'd cite them, as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.70.207 (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As she only had a big part in FFVII, and not in the rest of the Compilation, I don't think she's a major character. It's fine the way it is now. PS: Please log in/create an account. The Prince (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

But Zack and Vincent only have big parts in Dirge of Cerberus and Crisis Core, so there goes your argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.70.207 (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. Zack and Vincent are the only major characters in their games. Aerith is one of them in FFVII. The Prince (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
In their games. In the original, they are both wholly optional. Aeris is more integral to the story than both of them. 99.245.70.207 (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It should also be noted that Aeris is one of the three characters (the other two being Cloud and Sephiroth) who appear on the PS1 case to FFVII (or at least the US version, I'm not sure.) Also, discounting the Red XIII ending, she's both the first and last character to appear in the game. She plays a similar "mover" role in Advent Children as in FFVII, being a key source of motivation to Cloud through his visions of her. While I haven't played Crisis Core, it seems most likely that she would be a source of motivation to Zach in that game as well. (Lordparadise (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

If I may suggest an alternative. "Main protagonists / Main antagonists / Other characters" worked well for Characters of Kingdom Hearts. I'm not entirely familiar with the FFVII games, but I believe most of the characters would fall under "Main protagonists / Main antagonists / Minor FFVII characters" along with the specific "Before Crisis characters / Advent Children characters / Dirge of Cerberus characters / Crisis Core characters". Just a thought. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

I think this is an excellent solution, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.70.207 (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
My main criticism of the anon IP user's argument is that it's based on a subjective evaluation of Aerith's importance as a character. On Wikipedia, we must avoid such original research-style rankings and go by the cold hard facts. And the fact is that Cloud, Zack, and Vincent are the main characters/"stars" of their own games. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
But Sephiroth is not. So if exceptions are made for important re-occuring characters, why Sephiroth but not Aeris? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.70.207 (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Since I proposed the current set-up I suppose I should defend it. The Main Antagonist/Protagonist etc will not work her because the article deals with multiple games and other media. The main characters in each part of the compilation are as follows.

  • Final Fantasy VII: Cloud
  • Before Crisis: The Turks- however as there is no central Turk in the game, they don't have a place in the Central Character Section.
  • Dirge of Cerberus: Vincent
  • Crisis Core: Zack
  • Advent Children: Cloud
  • Last Order: Cloud

Sephiroth is the central antagonist of the entire series- Cloud is not the central protagonist of all the games/films however. So thats why Sephiroth is in the Main Characters section. I originally put Aerith into the main characters section as I always saw her as a primary mover- however she does not have her own media and thus, is not in the section. It is that simple- if they have their own game, they are a main character. The main villain over all is Sephiroth. Which is why he is there. Axem Titanium knows what he's talking about here, OR and therefore my personal interpretation of Aerith's role doesnt come into it. Gavin Scott (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you are misconstruing these characters as the most integral to the story, and especially int he case of Vincent and Zack, that's just not usually the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.70.207 (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand that the characters span several titles in multiple mediums, however I believe they still mostly fall into either a protagonist or antagonist role in the overall story. The characters of Kingdom Hearts spanned multiple titles as well. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

I have looked at the kingdom hearts article and the way its split would help not us here, for example- people might want to have Red XIII in the Main Protagonist section- would he fit? No, his role is only major in the original Final Fantasy VII game. This is the same with Barret and Cid. Cait Sith actually gets more airtime in the entire Compilation that Barret, Red or Cid. So does Yuffie- one of those optional characters. Fact is, we have the best solution. Vincent is a far more important character in terms of the overall compilation than anyone other than Cloud- if you consider the large role he plays in Advent Children (His time eclipses Barrets, Cids, Cait Siths, Yuffies, Red XIII's. The fact he has his own game, he is in Before Crisis I believe. Arguably, Rufus has a bigger part to play also. Lets break this down AGAIN.

  • Cloud: Original Game ; Before Crisis; Advent Children ; Last Order; Crisis Core
  • Tifa: Original Game; Advent Children ;
  • Aerith: Original Game; Advent Children;
  • Barret: Original Game;
  • Cid: Original Game;
  • Cait Sith: Original Game; Dirge of Cerberus
  • Red XII: Original Game;
  • Yuffie: Dirge Of Cerberus;
  • Vincent:Before Crisis; Advent Children; Dirge of Cerberus
  • Zack: Last Order; Crisis Core
  • Sephiroth:Original Game; Advent Children; Last Order; Crisis Core
  • Rufus:Original Game; Before Crisis; Advent Children;

If the character plays a major part in one of the games/films then they have that game/film listed next to them in bold, if its a game/film where they are the central character its italic and bold.

So you see why Main protagonist wouldnt solve any problem. As in terms of the entire Compilation the main protagonists are: Cloud, Zack, Vincent...the only main antagonist is Sephiroth...Rufus isn't really a protagonist or antagonist by Advent Children is he...so he couldn't fit into that section...he is simply a major character...more major than Barret, Cid, Red, Cait Sith or Yuffie perhaps...any further opinions? Gavin Scott (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see how the protagonist/antagonist division wouldn't solve any problem. I also don't see why anybody would want to put Red XIII in the antagonist section either, but like I said, I'm not entirely familiar with the entire story. I think we may be looking at the characters in different ways. In my mind I see a clear division of sides among the characters as they relate to the entire story that spans the different FFVII titles. I assume you are looking at them as they relate to each individual game (correct me if I'm wrong).
In cleaning up the KH characters article, we had some characters types that were in between the protagonist and antagonist classification. Riku for example, was an antagonist through out most of the first game, but switched back to being a protagonist. Naminé started out in an antagonist capacity but also switched to being a protagonist. We ended up putting them in the "Main protagonists" because of their overall role. I think Rufus is similar to Riku and Naminé, except he fits into the antagonist role more. But that's just my view point, you obviously have a different one, as I'm sure others here have their own as well. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC))
Apologies, I meant Red XIII in the main protagonist section, however he wouldnt fit in it. The only characters who would fit into the section of Main Protagonist would be:

Cloud, Vincent Zack. As I have shown above all other main protagonists from the original game are only primary in the realms of the original game. It wouldnt solve the problem- Main Character or Main Protagonist, whatever you want to call it it would contain the exact same people. Gavin Scott (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if that's how you see it, then that's how you see it. Though technically, it's all subjective; both your way and mine. By the reasoning you've stated, the organization used of Characters of Kingdom Hearts doesn't appropriately organize the KH characters. But this article is not of high importance on my personal list of things to do on Wikipedia. So if you feel this is the best method, go for it. Just thought I'd give my two cents. Good luck with it and happy editing. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

Its good to have experienced editors give their opinions! So thanks, sadly im not familiar with the Kingdom Hearts story so I wouldnt know. Thanks very much, you too. Gavin Scott (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Title Change?

Would it be better if the article was called, Characters of the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII? Gavin Scott (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ehhh, it's kind of wordy and it seems to be explained well enough in the intro, although it could be better. Also, the original FFVII isn't part of the Compilation. It's correct enough in its current form and more succinct, to boot. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The current title is correct since "Final Fantasy VII" is pretty much the name of a (sub-)franchise, not just the name of a game. This just has to be made clear in the introduction. The current lead is too much focused on the first game; it only gives a passing mention of its sequels then concludes on how much copies the first game sold... Stating how much the whole FFVII subfranchise sold would be more relevant I think. Kariteh (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we should use the lead in Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and as an example. The Prince (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I've made a wee edit to the intro-thanks for improving it though! So I think thats good for now, might need expanded if we wanted to move this up to GA status...opinions all? Gavin Scott (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cait's sentience

It is plainly obvious from the source. Given the fact that Cait says the word 'see', as well as the advent of the sentence as a whole, determines that the sentence has a pre-requisite --- which is obviously the advent of Cait portraying to the team that he "didn't" have feelings or had any sentience within him, and, the advent of Cait using the word, 'I'. If Cait didn't have to choose to sacrifice himself because Reeve would have made him do it anyway, Cait would have used to word, 'we' --- as in Cait and Reeve together. The concept in question is very obvious and was made in the article before it was merged. Some interpretation is needed as long as it coincides with the reference; meaning, that is why you can't copy and paste from books or web sites. 67.204.195.30 (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for not getting into an edit war. Sadly I can't quite make out your argument. I think your saying Cait Sith appeared to have no sentience then, at the Temple of the Ancients we became aware of it. Clearly in Dirge of Cerberus Cait Sith has at least limited Sentience- we can tell just by the way Reeve interacts with him. So if your arguing Cait Sith was a sentient being- then yes, to some degree he was. Gavin Scott (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I also have a hard time following your argument (your use of the word "advent" is unclear). My position is that his degree of sentience cannot be determined and cited from the game scripts without an unacceptable amount of original synthesis and interpretation of the dialogue. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Axem is correct here, if a game designer or some third party stated that he was indeed sentient then we could include it...sadly, its just our interpretation...which is why we cant use it. Gavin Scott (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. If you can't interpret simple dialogue and use it accroding to the fundamentals of logic in relation to the alphabet/english language, then I guess you can't interpret the fact that Reeve had a "change of heart" because he doesn't actually say it, and the director or programmers didn't say it. Also, when protraying that the fortune Cait reads about Cloud and Aeris isn't exactly 'clear', we shouldn't even apply to this because the narrative doesn't actually say it isn't 'clear', and, since the director or programmers didn't say it wasn't clear. Also, there doesn't seem to be any large allotments of interpretation in respect to this arguement because the narrative obviously states that Cait felt pain ("Owwww"); the narrative also states that he felt in general ("She said 'Be Strong'. I feel so happy"); the narrative also states that Cait refered to himself as a sentient being since he used/narrative the sentence: "Theres plenty of stuffed toys like my body around, but theres only one me". If Reeve was talking, then the concept of "only one me" couldn't apply, and, futhermore, we would have to state that it was in fact Reeve saying theres "only one me" (perhaps a bit of self-rightousness?) since the arguement of sentience is still being processed and no programmers or directors actually said it wasn't Reeve. So, if you can't provide footnotes with the narratives statemets and portrayals, I'm afraid we're going to have to rewrite this whole article which is a requisite to that idea.(InternetHero (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the rest of the article. I haven't gone through it with my OR detector ray yet so I wouldn't know. Anyway, there is a difference between substituting a word in the script with a synonym and drawing such conclusions. Saying "owww" and "I feel so happy" do not, by definition, denote sentience so it is too far a stretch to make that statement. As well, the "only one me" thing could just be for comedic/ironic effect but we can't know since Wikipedia operates on verifiability and not speculation about the writers' intentions. Again, I'm not disagreeing with your assertion, per se. I just don't find the evidence sufficient for a verifiable statement on Wikipedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, maybe the word 'sentience' would be too strong of position towards our interpretation of the narrative. Maybe I'l describe the pertaining narrative in a sentence rather than one word. I actually have read most of the rems of use for Wikipedia. You probably read the paragraph below but missed the second paragraph. [2]

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

"Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event.[3] Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims.[4][5] Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." —Preceding unsigned comment added by InternetHero (talk • contribs)

So, you have proved that you are using Original Synthesis which you accept is against Wiki-policy? Personally, I think that its a stupid rule and believe we should be able to make reasonable interpretations as sensible editors...Of course in a project such as this there have to be constraints. Thus, we can all agree with your view, but as you have stated its Original Research and therefore, invalid. Gavin Scott (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. The games' narrative and the game itself is a primary source. The only negative place-holder here is you guys. (WP:PSTS) allows you to: "make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". InternetHero (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The quotes you provide don't really fit that description though, its a vague sentence where the Cat calls itself me or my...doesn't actually infer sentience. Gavin Scott (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and please, Assume the good faith of the editors who disagree with you.Gavin Scott (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. It is not a vague sentence but rather multiple sentences in multiple contexts. Have you even played the game at all? Cait Sith not only says he "feels" happy seeing that Aerith told him to, 'Be Strong', but he also says, "owww". Not to mention that at the very end hetells everyone to not only forget him but explains that there's "plenty of stuffed toys around like my body, but there's only one me". "* make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". InternetHero (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you feel passionate about this issue and the fact that the sources you provide do not give an adequate description of Cait's sentence must be very stressful. Might I recommend you have a look at the Wikistress article and try to take a few deep breaths. We are all working together here! Gavin Scott (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cait's Sentence Poll

As you will be aware there is a considerable disagreement between the editors of the page as to whether the Sources provided by Editor InternetHero are enough to provide adequate evidence that Cait sith is indeed a sentient being. This poll is not to say whether you believe Cait is sentient or not but is purely whether you believe the evidence presented by InternetHero is enough.

The Sources he gives is the Primary Source Final Fantasy VII:

Cait Sith: "She told me to 'Be strong'." / Cait Sith: "I feel so happy." Cait Sith: "I can protect the Planet too! I'm kinda embarrassed..." / Cait Sith: There's plenty of stuffed toys like my body around, but there's only one me!"

Is this evidence enough? to satisfy the rules stated in Wiki:PSTS State you Opinion below. A simple yes or no will suffice.

  • No, personally I believe that per the PSTS policy the evidence provided by InternetHero only meets one of the two points needed to allow the use of Primary Sources, that is "make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." However, I do not believe that his evidence satisfys the needs to "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." InternetHero's information does allow anyone regardless of their knowledge of the game to suppose that Cait may indeed be a sentient being, it does not however provide the necessary evidence to prove that he is. That requires personal interpretation i.e. Original Synthesis. Gavin Scott (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Statement Is it obvious ("easily verifiable") from the game that Cait is sentient? If so, then it can go in the article. If not, it can't. That's what the primary source policy means. If you and other editors don't think it's obvious, then it can't. If everyone thinks it's obvious, then it can. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
My point is that this poll is unnecessary, and indeed improper. I fear there is an unclear understanding of policy here: if there is reasonable disagreement about Cait's sentience, then by definition it is not easily verifiable from the primary source, therefore one cannot use the primary source to support it, and must look instead for secondary sources. Simple as that. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, Internethero however believes that he can put the evidence in regardless of the others editors opinions as we are "mistaken". So this little poll is an informal way of showing editorial opinion, essentially you too are saying that in the circumstances we should not include the piece on Cait's sentience. Gavin Scott (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Essentially yes. Btw, if what you said about internethero were true, then he would not be on the talk page talking about policy and seeking consensus. Please try not to take disagreement so personally that you mischaracterize people's positions. Btw 2, I haven't seen a reason from you about why something that talks, expressing emotion and self-consciousness, is possibly not sentient. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe he is, its the fact that the evidence given doesn't prove it, as Axem has shown, also Internethero has made several edits which were rv after..."I didn't know every1 who provides contributions along with references had to get your divine blessing 1st." springs to mind...I would ask you to assume good faith in what I am trying to do here, that is get an effective consensus on this issue. Its easy, fair and I believe effective. We're not debatign his sentience, rather whether the evidence provided proves he is or not.Gavin Scott (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear god, man, that was a week ago! His last edit and he's been on talk since! And you still don't get my point that you have to debate his sentience in order to decide if it is obvious from the primary source, so you have framed your poll incorrectly. (The fact that there would then be some debate rather than "yeah duh" agreement means that the primary source fails as a source for this. btw, have you seen WP:LAME, it's funny! we might be on it soon!) 86.44.6.14 (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think regardless we have shown that there is no concensus on his Sentience and there is no consensus on how best to show there is no consensus...anyway, it is now clear that Cait Sith cannot be labeled as "sentient" in the article based on Internethero's evidence. :) Whats with this animosity anyway...can't we all get along and appreciate that each of us is trying to better the project...at the end of the day we are all a team after all. Gavin Scott (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • NO Is it not possible that Reeve could "feel so happy" or simply refer to his own human body in "there's only one me"? There's too much room for interpretation to make a definitive statement about his sentience from these or any lines in the script. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

He is right about me being a little rude when I 1st started editing. Thanks for clearing up the contexts of Wikipedias' primary sources for me. If its about a consensus we have to wait at least a months time to truly get everybodys' opinion --- or even longer. So far, there has been around 2-3 editors besides me in the discussion but thats hardly enough. I'm going to have to stick with the primary source since the majority of people could still apply the concept of easy verifiability. (InternetHero) 13:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there not a quote that could be taken from Dirge of Cerberus that we could use to show Cait's Sentience, after all Reeve does call him a He and he is shown to work independently and appears to show conscious thought. The case for sentience is certainly made allot strong in DoC than in FFVII Gavin Scott (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
That may be, but we also know that there are multiple Cait Siths. The technology may have improved in 3 years, allowing him to have some sort of AI which is not present in the original FFVII. At best, I think the question of his sentience isn't notable enough to include anyway. Cait is a rather minor character, despite being playable. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, he gets quite a large amount of coverage as it is. However a sentence on his possible sentience can't do any harm i.e.

"Cait Sith appears to have the traits of a sentient being, displaying what seems to be conscious thought when he considers his role in saving the planet or when he appears to act independently of Reeve and is affectionately referred to as "you know who" by his controller in Dirge of Cerberus. However the actual status of Cait's independence is never made clear nor is the issue of his sentience. It is possible that he is simply a very advanced AI system who appears to be sentient. Since his task is to carry out spying and espionage this is very possible. Cait Sith's sentience or possible lack of it is a continuing debate amongst fans of Final Fantasy VII."

Again, unfortunately this is hardly sourceable. And dances around OR. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hollander

"Angeal's father and former head of Shinra's science division until Hojo took it from him." Is this correct? Didn't Hojo take over from Prof. Ghast? Gavin Scott (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vincent, Tifa, and Zack merger

Cloud, Sephiroth, and Aerith seem to have enough potential on their own, but these three aren't showing it at this point. While it may not be impossible to improve these, it would be best to merge them until someone shows that it can be done. TTN (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I can feasibly see Vincent asserting adequate notability given that an entire game was dedicated to him, and tied with the other media he's been it, it's possible. Tifa and Zack I'm more ambivalent on, although I can see Zack asserting more notability after Crisis Core comes out in the U.S. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 21:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

DoNOTMerge!! Vincet is one of the most important characters in the Final Fantasy VII series!! Here are a few reasons;

  • He proves to be of certain importance in understanding small yet significant points in the plot of the game (the whole thing about his relationship to the 'bad' guys, etc... :PXD)
  • Two games have been made about him... (This point ALONE is quite enough to stop the merging process...)
  • His very small role in Final Fantasy VII - Advent Children proved to be of importance where he saved Cloud and revealed very very very very very important plot points in two scenes (After he saved Cloud and in the aircraft!)

Here are a few 'trivia' points on why shouldn't the articles be merged;

  • He's one of the coolest characters in the series even competing with Cloud!
  • He's one of the coolest characters of all time! :D

For the love of God, do NOT merge the articles!! Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel that Vincent and Zack definitely have enough to be notable. Tifa I would say not to merge since it would not be an efficient way to convey the information and she has played a major supporting role in many many games. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
If they have it, you should be able to provide it or provide possible locations that people can check. I'm definitely not saying that it's impossible, but someone needs to actually show it before it's declared fact. As for Tifa, if she needs a larger section than the other "secondary" main characters, she can have one, but we certainly don't keep articles around just because we find them useful. TTN (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I think Vincent is notable enough, per Sephiroth BCR. I'm neutral about whether Tifa should be merged or not, but I think Zack's article should be merged because: it has no information about his creation or reception, no sources, the prose is badly written, and I also think that he shouldn't have his own article before Crisis Core is released. The Prince (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, per WP:CRYSTAL, it's alright as long as it is almost certain to take place, which it is, since the release date has been announced and it's not too long from now. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Vincent I believe requires his own article, as does Zack as they both have their own games. Tifa I'm not so sure about. What is the rationale behind her having her own article, is she really notable enough? Gavin Scott (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Tifa is the most important secondary character in several titles so, on some level, I suppose that importance adds up. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Do they though, and is calling her the most important secondary character not really depending on your interpretation. I mean, it is fair to say Aerith is the most important character after Cloud in the original game and attribute her equal importance in Advent Children. It would be a stretch but its possible. Im not saying Tifa shouldn't have her own article I was just wondering what the notability was. Gavin Scott (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, she has a fair bit of out-of-universe info as well. I recall that in development, her character was added so that Aerith could die. That sounds pretty notable. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we're missing the point of notability here. Notability doesn't stem from appearing in games or having a couple of production notes. It comes from having plenty of creation and reception information due to the games and having plenty of creation and reception information to back up those few production notes. Again, I am not saying that it is impossible for these three to be improved, but we should have some actual proof before using superficial standards of notability. TTN (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Or we could improve first before deciding to merge or not. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, improving the article should be our first intention, merging can take place should we fail to find enough out of game information to add to the article. Gavin Scott (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
That would fall under my criteria of actual proof. I hope I don't seem like I'm trying to rush things. It's just that people often get too caught up in potential notability, while it's not always that clear. If you have actual information or actually know where to find it, that's a completely different story. It just doesn't seem that way from the above comments. TTN (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
So then, are we atleast agreed that Vincent requires his own article, if thats the case will he be removed from the Suggested Merger Box? Majority of opinion seems to favour Tifa maintaining her own article. I believe that it should therefore be kept on the basis that it will be given high priority for a revamp. Gavin Scott (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as only five people in total have really commented on this, it seems a little hasty to remove the tags. I'm certainly not against attempted improvement, but that can be done with the tags still there. I would rather someone just post some sources that set up obvious potential, so they can just be removed anyways. TTN (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought we were all about rushing and haste? Seriously though, are there any specific points in any of these three articles that you think must be improved before they can warrant stand alone status? I mean, as far as I can tell regardless of the state Vincent certainly deserves his own article as he is the main character in his own, and a major character in several hugely successful video games. In fact, other than a lack of sources I don't see what the problem is with Vincent's article. Also, I don't believe a lack of sources means an article should be merged...otherwise I could see a huge amount of articles being deleted. My thoughts turn to a large amount of Historical Figures here on wikipedia whose articles are perhaps very much lacking sources. Anyway, any pointers you think we might need to improve to keep these articles independent? Gavin Scott (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

They need to show the potential to at least reach the level of Aerith. While they have a little bit of relevant information, the current information could easily be worked into this list. Even if Vincent and Zack have their own games, they doesn't need articles without enough real world information to hold them. TTN (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
But they do merit them per the instructions put down in WP:FICT. Regardless of the current content they do have the merit to be individual articles, if research was done they could be expanded further, that research will be done, as editors here have pledged. So surely, it is better for the project and its users that they maintain their individual articles...nothing is gained from merging them here. Gavin Scott (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
For characters to have articles per our notability guidelines and WP:WAF, they need to have a significant amount of (potential) real world information that is completely separate from the parent topic. It's not just "We have two sources; that's good." or "We have a potential indicator of potential sources; that's good." In this case, they should show the potential to reach at least the level of Aerith. At this point, the only show a little bit of potential (based on objective criteria, not subjective opinions), and it's nowhere near needing to be split. That can easily change, though. TTN (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect these articles will be up to standard by the time enough people post here to give some sort of consensus or majority of opinion, since its usually the same few who post here anyway. So, I suppose these articles will remain in the mean time. Gavin Scott (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(to TTN) Either way, sources don't appear out of thin air. It requires time and effort to find good sources. If we were to go through all the trouble to find the sources necessary to prove "potential for notability", we might as well just fix them RIGHT NOW. Alas, not everyone can summon that kind of free time on the spot. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, I'm not trying to rush this or anything. I'm just trying to keep this away from the dangerous road of complete speculation. There is no rush here, so please do take your time on working with them. TTN (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Will you be joining in the search for sources and article improvement? You've made a few good edits on this article already. Gavin Scott (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dirge of Cerberus?

Shouldn't we have a small Dirge of Cerberus section on this page? 71.181.76.56 (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Fantasy Leader

Yeah, the article agreed earlier to have one but User:TTN moved it to the DoC page, a small section will be put back however. Gavin Scott (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vincent a central Character??

This might just be me, but although Vincent is one of the coolest characters of FF7, I strongly disagree that he is one of the central characters. Heck, he's not even an essential part ot the plot or the gameplay because it is just an option to play as him. I don't think he belongs in the same ranking as Cloud or Sephiroth.71.185.242.229 (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Mr. Dude

This page is ranked on both Compilation of FFVII and FFVII importance. Cloud and Sephiroth are both important, being the original protagonist and antagonist. Zack and Vincent are central characters because they get their own games. Zack stars in Crisis Core and Last Order, to an extent. Vincent stars in two games; Dirge of Cerberus and Dirge of Cerberus: Lost Episode. That's why Vincent is ranked that way; he has his own game.WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crisis Core Descriptions

The descriptions for Crisis Core characters had several mistruths and very little information. I just added some more material taken from the Ultimania guide and the game itself.

I do believe Hojo took over as head of the science department from Gast, not Hollander. Hollander and Hojo were both vying for the recognition and when Gast left, Hojo won out because Jenova Project G was a miserable failure. When he became head of the department he basically relegated Hollander to a nobody.

I'll go double check though before making any changes.71.120.201.39 (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted?

Just wondering what happened to the page. A large sum of it seems to have been removed (four 'central' characters remain). Unless lack of sleep has something to do with it, I cannot see any link to a List of Final Fantasy VII characters page or something similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.181.1 (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was just my computer, but I guess not. I think I know what to do; just a sec.WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright! Fixed!WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)