Talk:Final Fantasy VII/archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Congratulations

I see a barnstar! Good going, everyone. The cardinal RPG is now at featured status. Though I'm not a fan of the stubby gameplay paragraphs, but eh. --Zeality 17:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Previous title/next title in series box

Somebody added this box back to the article (it was removed a couple of weeks ago), but I'm going to remove it again due to the fact that it really contributes nothing to this article, and it's quite open to debate which title precedes Final Fantasy VII and which follows it. There's a vast overlap in terms of time period among the prequels (Last Order, Before Crisis and, presumably, Crisis Core), as all three do/will either go right up to before the beginning of Final Fantasy VII, or carry over into after its events have already begun. The same is true with the sequels/interquels/whatever the hell they are at this point (Maiden who Travels the Planet, Advent Children and On the Way to a Smile). It's simply too open to argument and not worth trying to analyze with all the overlap that goes on. Especially when you have some individuals who only think of the "big" titles (Crisis Core, Before Crisis, Final Fantasy VII, Advent Children and Dirge of Cerberus) arguing with somebody who thinks we should account for the side stories as well (Last Order, Maiden and On the Way). Ryu Kaze 00:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I was wondering where they went at some point but then I thought about why they were even needed if all the links to the different titles are in the infobox below and placing a timeline would just get confusing. Axem Titanium 00:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overuse of links

There is a lot of overlinking in this article, especially links to regular English words that are not especially relevent to the subject. According to the style guides, you should only link words for definition if they are "technical terms". I don't think "sequel", "dungeon", "grassland", "magical", "ranch", "tribe", "plateau", "submarine", "electricity", "skyscraper", "spititual", "espionage", "lion", "speech", "ninjas", "pilot", ""rocket", "cat", "immortal", "blonde", "miniskirt", "pants", "mimic", etc., etc. are technical terms. Kaldari 00:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Axem's seen to it, and done a great job of it. Ryu Kaze 03:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler Warning

I read through this page and saw a picture of Sephiroth killing Aeris with no spoiler warning whatsoever. I know most people have played the game, especially if they're looking at this page, but shouldn't one be there? InvertedSaint 11:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to the archive for that question. --Anibas 12:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to go against your reasoning, Anibas (and the other editors), and I also should mention that I agree that the spoiler warning is useless in an encyclopedia; but since the 98.4% percent of articles that I had read here on Wikipedia used it (when it should) I thought I was going to see it here. Why the Wikipedia editors are making an exception? Or better yet, Why the spoiler warning isn't already banned in all Wikipedia? -- Stahn @ 200.127.76.32 00:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question. Perhaps the editors of many other wikipedia articles have failed to graduate from the internet forum mentality which violently punishes unmarked spoilers and into the encyclopedia mentality required to make useful contributions here (note that the article says encyclopedias provide "comprehensive" knowledge, ie uncensored, neutral knowledge). Axem Titanium 00:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, but I still don't understand why the Spoiler warning has been removed? I put one up recently but now it's gone; I think it's the least we can do to keep people who haven't played the game from finding out any spoiler info... (Jinx9117 01:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

I think it would be a tragedy if wikipedia ever consciously tried to prevent people from learning. Axem Titanium 05:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This has been beat to death especially in the archives, there will be no spoiler warning. The editors don't want one, they will delete them if you put one on. This does not need to be discussed again. Its over, sorry anyone who wants one. Just because other parts of Wiki uses them it does not mean this article will. Any more discussion will be like beating a dead horse, its dead it isnt going anywhere. J-Axe

[edit] Reasoning

I read through some of the archive mentioned above, but the discussions don't entirely stay on topic. Could someone please summarise the reasoning for not including a single spoiler warning at the start of the article (or nearby)? I understand and support the arguments for including one. Thanks. - Chris Wood 20:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Copy and paste from Talk:Sora (Kingdom Hearts):

It is the consensus of WikiProject Square Enix and WikiProject Final Fantasy not to include spoiler tags because:

Wikipedia is not censored, as shown by what Wikipedia is not and the content disclaimer available at the bottom of every page.
Spoiler tags add nothing to the article. It's quite plainly obvious that a Wikipedia page about a topic is going to have spoilers on that topic. If you don't want to be spoiled about it, why would you even come to read it?
Spoiler tags break the flow of the article by clearly marking where spoilers can and cannot be. Limiting the article in such a way would force the editor to rearrange the article to its mutual degradation.
Spoiler tags are inherently POV because who are we as editors to say what is and what isn't a spoiler? Where is the line in a game beyond which information is considered a spoiler? Is there such a line? The opening scene of a game wouldn't be a spoiler to someone who's played it but to someone who hasn't bought it yet, it is a huge spoiler.

There are other reasons but if you really feel strongly about it, go to WP:SE to talk to them. Axem Titanium 22:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:SW, which is part of the Wikipedia Manual of Style, spoiler tags are clearly recommended. Why does WikiProject Square Enix feel the need to go against this guideline clearly described by the Manual of Style that all Wikipedia articles should follow? Jagged 85 22:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't understand the decision, then you haven't read the archived discussion, nor this one, very well. The decision is a result of Wikipedia being inherently full of spoilers. It's an encyclopedia, not a fansite, and it should not have to baby people with spoiler warnings. One would assume, by reading the title "Story" or "Plot", that there would be spoilers ahead to begin with. Also, the game has been out and available for purchase, rent, or borrow from acquaintances of people who might want to play it, for almost 10 years. Spoilers become a given after a certain period of time, even with a video game so popular as Final Fantasy VII. Nique1287 22:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

HOLY CRAP YOU PEOPLE ARE FREAKING INSANE!!! i don't know what the heck y'all are blindly, fanatically obsessed with or why, but i really do not think it is knowledge, which implies some potential practical sense.

yes, i have read all the crap. DECLARING THE ISSUE DEAD DOES NOT KILL IT! hello, this is a rapidly growing and evolving WIKI... i don't understand how you can just set it in stone and disregard the optinions of anyone else who might join Wikipedia just becuase you got here first?

look, a spoiler warning, which yes as you have so nobley proven is voluntary, good for you, IS NOT CENSORSHIP!!! you want to know about the spoiler? GO AHEAD AND DISREGARD THE WARNING AND FREAKING READ IT IF YOU WANT TO! it is not censorship to have to move your eyes down half a degree to read the rest. you can do it, it is your choice. it is NOT however your choice to NOT read an unwarned spoiler! if you read it, it's to late. do you get this? choice, no choice, but there is no censorship involved.

i guess no one can force this on you, but do we not think that maybe a majority opinion is more important than your personal, i would certainly consider quite radical, anti-spoiler-warning opinion? is this article for the people, or for you? the only way you are getting away with this is the fact that yes i'm sure 99% of the people viewing this article have already played the game through a long time ago. but what population of the world do you think that is? even if you restricted your sample to the english speaking world, i'd be _VERY_ surprised if over 5% of that world has played final fanstay VII. so, is the wikipedia for the world, or only for gamers? there are a LOT of people outside of the gaming scene, including me and i am a video game fanatic. do you want to encourage them to experience the joys of gaming, or mess up thier experiences and tell them you couldn't care less?

as i have said, i love video games. i am cheap and picky though, and take my time with them. i've known about ff7 since it came out, and many of my friends played it, and i watched some of it as well. but i was saving it for what i felt was a good time for me to play it. i happened to be surfing the wikipedia as i often do, was checking out Amano, and thought i'd check out the ff7 article, as my knowledge of it was still pretty vague, and maybe i'd be inspired to start playing it now, and if so how much i'd want to and how much i'd be willing to pay for a copy (BTW, i really do not think i have EVER been in a store that sells used video games that didn't have several complete copies of ff7 for peanuts, ie <$20), etc. etc. i thought it was a bit odd not to see a spoiler warning, but hey, this is the wikipedia, every applicable article has spoiler warnings, they must just be really careful or something.

ha-ha! good joke, guys! real funny.

think about it this way: how often do you get complaints about lack of spoilers here? then, factor in everyone else who was pissed off but didn't bother complaining. now think about all the people who would complain if there were spoiler warnings. other than yourselves. okay, let me guess: zero? again, is wikipedia for the people, or for you guys? i don't know what is up with this fanatical anti-spoiler-warning conspiracy, but it should be planely obvious that a LOT of people do not like spoilers, or else well i guess spoiler warnings wouldn't exist, right? and wow hey look, pretty much the entire rest of the wikipedia uses them... but i guess they all look like total crap, right? right... i have no idea how you freaks got to be in charge of this, but it is really scarry to me that radical fanatics can hijack whole sections of the wikipedia, and i hope someone higher up fixes this once and for all.

i don't care how long a narative work of art has existed, any human being, no matter when they are born or with whatever means, has the right to experience that work of art wholy and as it was intended. you do not own final fantasy, you do not own wikipedia. they belong to humanity now for all time.

Wikipedia:Spoiler warning

Elgaroo 22:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, chill. Take a deep breath, and a break, and make sure you're in a calm state of mind before reading this, because I can tell you now I'm not going to intend to attack or insult you at all, but if you're worked up about the issue it may come across that way. Ready? Okay.

Now, as for the issue, it has been discussed over and over and over again. The same conclusion has been reached every time: Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia isn't here to coddle readers who haven't experienced the items spoiled in the story. Leave that to fansites. Also, you say yourself that probably 99% of the people who read this article have already played the game. If that many of the people reading it have already played it, then why put a redundant warning on the page just to cater to the last 1%? The fact that Wikipedia may contain spoilers is contained already in the Disclaimers section, a link that is found on the bottom of EVERY page on Wikipedia. The Content Disclaimer reads, and I quote, WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE. You can read it right here.

Honestly, I used to think spoiler warnings were a good idea too, but reading the archives of these discussions, and looking at the pages like the disclaimer (which I hadn't looked at before, but which any responsible user should read, in full, before they use the site or the program or whatever the disclaimer in question pertains to) I don't think, at the very least in the case of video games, that spoiler warnings are necessary.

In the case of anime or manga, those series can get expensive on DVD or even in paperback, so unless you feel like breaking the laws in place in most countries regarding downloading stuff like that, it's sometimes hard for people to get the whole series to watch or read, so I can see why spoiler warnings could be used for such. But for video games, especially games older than a year, or games for consoles which are now practically obsolete (Many stores have phased out their sales of PS1 games and products), they're much cheaper than anime (Compare the cheapest boxed set of Neon Genesis Evangelion DVDs I could find, at approximately $100 Canadian new, or a series of 12 volumes of manga costing $10 each (rather low for a volume of manga, as far as I've seen, in Canadian currency), adding up to a whopping $120 before tax, to even the newest videogames like Final Fantasy XII, which only $70, at the most, and a game like Final Fantasy VII can be bought for under $25 new, if you know where to look) so I do not think spoiler warnings should be used on these articles, since they're so much easier to obtain.

Also, majority doesn't rule Wikipedia. It's truth, and fact, that rule Wikipedia because, when it comes down to it, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia shouldn't have to be politically correct and have spoiler warnings and all those bells and whistles. It should state the facts, and be done with it. Nique1287 00:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This is really funny. I have no idea why people are so overreacted on reading spoilers. I personally have no objection to reading spoilers before reading the actual story. They tell you what will happen, so what? You still don't know how it happened or why it happend or when it happened, and more, what happened next. It is not the spoilers that ruin the gaming experience, it is the fact that you kept thinking it is going to ruin something ruined it.

Yes, the majority of people using wikipedia have not played the game, however, more reasoning is that: They probably will not play it for the rest of their life. They are not gamers, given, and the majority of them is not going to be one. Meaning the majority of them is not going to care about reading some spoilers here are there since they are not going to play the game. A single picture is not going to spoil the game, commercial trailers have that picture and people know that scene is going to appear even before playing the game. And anyone who is cool enough to read the section called Plot or Story or Summary of Compilation and find some plot summary, should not lose their head and complain about them having spoilers, especially, in the Content Disclaimer, already stated Some of these articles contain warnings, but many do not..

However, I object to the reasoning about spoiler tags being censorship. It does not censor anything, people can still read all the contents. It is simply stupid and useless if the section title already suggests the article contains plot summary. Face it, articles for work of fiction is going to contain plot summary, which is spoilers(though I have no idea what it spoils). MythSearcher^talk 02:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

really? i went back and read all the discussion archives (back to June 2005, at least.) please, go and read: Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning. to quote: "This page is part of the Manual of Style, and is considered a guideline for Wikipedia. The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here. Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines."

really, you could spend days reading the incredibly lengthy, heated, and often repetative discussions, but i can real easily summarize the relevant results:

spoilers and spoiler warnings have been under discussion since 2002. a Request for Comment (WP:RFC) was finally made in July of 2006 in order to finally figure out a consensus resolution. every imaginable argument was made and many solutions were pondered. it was finally decided that spoiler warnings stay, the guidlines were modified slightly, and then put in place.

once again, you can see them here: Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning. they are real guidlines. some people still bring things up on the discussion page, but it's mostley just the same arguments refuted many months ago that they didn't bother going back and reading.

if you don't like spoiler warnings, you can easily hide them using a CSS rule, as explained at Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning.

users who deliberately remove and guard spoiler warnings from obvious spoilers are executing political guirella warefare against established guidelines against consensus and spreading disinformation and should be banned.

i'm putting warnings up now. anyone who takes them down does so against wikipedia consensus.

Elgaroo 21:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

and sorry, but the image has to go too. put a cut-link to it if it is so necessary. --Elgaroo 21:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to read through your almost-two-full-pages of ranting about the issue, because frankly I'm out of patience with people trying to get spoiler warnings on these pages. It's a guideline, not a policy, and WP:SE has decided not to follow it, as per the reasons outlined in the archives. If you wish to protest, do so on the WP:SE page, not here, and DO NOT add spoiler warnings again as they will be considered vandalism on these pages unless the decision at WP:SE is changed. Nique1287 22:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

almost two full pages... not sure what you're getting at there... but where is this decision by WP:SE not to follow wikipedia guidelines on spoiler warnings? i have searched WP:SE and WP:FF in thier entirety (feel free!) and have found only two mentions of spoilers anywhere, in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Final_Fantasy/Manual_of_style which states:

"The first paragraph does not include any spoilers."

and

"Spoiler warnings will not be used in sections under story headings, such as 'characters' and 'plot'."

my warnings around the "characters" and "plot" sections are NOT "under" or "in" the story headings, but encompass the entire "plot" section, in line with pretty much every other wikipedia article with spoilers. so there is a consensus, and it apears to back me up. so i think you should, if you wish to protest, do so on the WP:SE page and blah blah blah.

i'm just trying to be bold and do what i and many others appearantly feel is right, so no one else gets this game trashed for them. please do not threaten me or try to antimidate me, especially without knowing all the details and/or actually deliberately lying and misleading people on Wikipedia!

Elgaroo 22:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My point is that you're saying an awful lot to protest something that's already been decided. Also, the second point about spoiler warnings in that Manual of Style means that they will not be used to mark spoilers in sections called Plot or Characters, which means that your spoiler warnings went against that rule, since they were in the Plot section. Also, your "apparent many others" mean nothing, since Wikipedia is not a Democracy and is therefore not ruled by the majority unless the minority concede. And it is NOT apparent at all that those who wish to put spoiler warnings on the page ARE a majority, that's just something you've claimed in this resurrection of the discussion. Wikipedia is decided by policy, and Wikiproject Final Fantasy has "apparently" (to use your wording) made it their policy, as part of their manual of style, not to use Spoiler warnings. As such, they will be considered vandalism, on any and all pages under that Wikiproject, and removed promptly. Thanks for proving our points. Nique1287 22:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

no, the plot section was in the warning section, not the other way around. a box around a ball is not inside the ball, nor is it a part of the ball. if i HAD actually put the tags INSIDE the plot section, that would be different. if it's supposed to mean something else it should state that clearly, and i would hope these guidelines would come from a consensus. you guys are protesting an aweful lot about something that's already decided as a wikipedia guideline. i do not understand what is the point of you carving out a tiny speck of the Wikipedia as your fortress against everyone else and effing this up for people. as you can very plainly see in the archives of Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning, if you would just go and look for yourself already, pro-warning proponents were very clearly in the majority wikipedia-wide, and i find it hard to believe that WP:SE and WP:FF would be so incredibly different than the whole rest of the wikipedia, though i did notice that the guy with the biggest mouth through all the discussions back there is very heavily involved here as well. if you are not aware of the majority opinion on this of your project members, then appearantly this RADICAL guideline was not reached by consensus, and should be put up for comment. Elgaroo 23:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, just because it's a GUIDELINE doesn't make it a POLICY. You should look up the definitions of those two terms, and then perhaps get back to me on why we're obligated to have spoiler warnings on these pages, when it's been decided by WP:FF and WP:SE's communities, at least, that they shouldn't be used on their pages. Yes, Wikipedia: Spoiler warning has a lot of archives advocating their use, and perhaps there was a majority THERE for using them, however those archives are not the archives of this discussion or the Wikiprojects under which this article falls. Really, it's just a tag, and if people are reading a section clearly labeled PLOT or CHARACTERS or STORY without having played the game then honestly, I think they have no right to whine about the game being spoiled. Aside from the fact that the game is cheap to buy and play on your own, and since many gamers already have the game in their libraries it's probably pretty easy for people to borrow as well, it's not as though it's difficult to find a copy and play it (there are even Playstation 1 emulators for the computer these days, look at that, you don't even need the console!) and get the 'spoilers' before you go reading the sections that are very obviously going to have spoilers in them on an encyclopedic article. Nique1287 23:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

okay: "A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."

so, what is SO special about square/enix that it should be pretty much the only exception i've ever heard of on the entire wikipedia? i'd think it would have to have a pretty big reason, right?

i do think it would be different if these projects did have consensus based guidelines in oposition, but i still have yet to be pointed to any definate indication as such. PLEASE link me to an unambiguous style sheet stating this. PLEASE link me to a RfC along these lines. i've requested this before. i'm just afraid that there's really just a few of you and you're bullying everyone else, or scared them off already? so far i have seen serious arguments from 1 person.

there are actually TWO instances of spoilers outside of the plot/character/story sections.

i see spoiler warnings on every other relevant wikipedia page, and not seeing them here ASSUME THERE ARE NO SPOILERS. is that not a logical conclusion, or do you just not care, one or the other?

you are making the same arguments that have been refuted in discussions months to years ago.

i could have played ff7 any time since it came out if i wanted to... i might have even bought a copy at one point, but i wanted to play it when I wanted to, not when sony or square or you want me to. that is my right, and you can't give me crap for that. what about someone who just managed to get out of poverty, for one example. they have no right to experience these games as you did, because they were too poor when they were first published? i would think that if ff7 is such a great game, people will still be playing it decades if not centuries from now, as i often play games from years or decades ago. if you really liked these games you would care about anyone who may some day play them more than about how effing pretty your article is or how harcore and obnoxies your crew is.

Elgaroo 00:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

(Random unindent)

Look, I'll summarize everything that's been said, in a different way. Wikipedia: Spoiler warning is a guideline, not a policy. Therefore, you don't technically have to follow it, it's just recommended. The editors at WP:SE and WP:FF choose not to follow it. Therefore, on featured articles at least, we do not have spoiler tags. As a result, about once every week or two weeks, someone will, on one of the 6 Final Fantasy FAs, add spoiler tags. They are then reverted. This means, that on average, out of the hundreds of people that view these pages a week, only 2 or 3 have enough of a problem with reading spoilers in a plot section to do anything about it. This, you may note, is not a majority, if that even mattered, which it doesn't. The last person to argue about spoiler tags at any length, besides yourself, was, if I remember correctly, back in late July. There is not some great mass of people agreeing with you, it's just you.

Additionally, if someone wanted to play FF7, why would they go and look at an encyclopedia article about it first? If I was going to play, say, FF12, to pick a good example, I definitely would not go read an article about it. Even if I skipped the spoiler-tagged section, just the intro would spoil the game for me- I know nothing about the game, the plot, the characters, nothing. The entire article is one big spoiler. Which is why WP has a big spoiler tag linked to from the bottom of every article, as said above. You read an article to learn things you did not know before. We should not have signs saying that the next section might contain things you don't know- that's the point.

A random comment- please use capitalization, it's hard to read what you're saying sometimes. --PresN 06:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've read the entire mater and think that the reasoning against them is utter garbage. Cases in point:

Wikipedia is not censored <- Spoiler tags are not censorship.
Spoiler tags add nothing to the article. If you don't want to be spoiled about it, why would you even come to read it? <- Information OTHER plot or story details, perhaps? I tend to read up on the setting and reception portions prior to purchase of a game.
Spoiler tags break the flow of the article by clearly marking where spoilers can and cannot be. Limiting the article in such a way would force the editor to rearrange the article to its mutual degradation. <- Opinnion.
Spoiler tags are inherently POV because who are we as editors to say what is and what isn't a spoiler? Where is the line in a game beyond which information is considered a spoiler? Is there such a line? The opening scene of a game wouldn't be a spoiler to someone who's played it but to someone who hasn't bought it yet, it is a huge spoiler. <- The lack of spoiler tags is inherently POV because who are we as editors to say what is and what isn't a spoiler?

The basic and accepted definition of what is a spoiler when relating to such things as movies, books, or video games is information reguarding the course of the plot, events within the plot, and developmental progress of the story. You can't really get much more clear than that. I will admit, however, that so long as spoilers are relagated to ONLY the Story and Plot sections of an article marking them as such is fairly redundant. Xyex 22:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Long story short, you're not going to get much agreement on these pages from people who have been editing these pages for a while.

"Spoiler tags are not censorship." <- How, exactly, are they not censorship? They don't conform to your familiar and perhaps narrow definition of censorship, perhaps, I'd grant you that one, but censorship isn't always about removing content.
"Information OTHER plot or story details, perhaps?" <- Generally, reading about a game in an encyclopedia should imply spoilers to begin with, even outside of Plot/Story headings. Heck, reading an entry in an encyclopedia about ANYTHING should imply spoilers about it. An encyclopedia isn't here to coddle its readers. Leave that to the fansites.
"Opinnion." <-It does disturb the flow and the aesthetics of the layout. Having two big lines with text in between moves all the text around, and especially where spoilers should be expected, they're redundant and not exactly pretty to look at.
"The lack of spoiler tags is inherently POV because who are we as editors to say what is and what isn't a spoiler?" <- Er, not quite. You haven't addressed ANY of the points that were made in the post you quoted there, you just attempted to throw it right back with minor wording changes.

It's also in the WP:FF Manual of Style to avoid spoiler warnings. Spoiler warnings will continue to be considered akin to vandalism on these pages. Nique1287 22:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I would like to see a spoiler, regardless of what these 'editors' choose. Referring to the statement above, "I read through this page and saw a picture of Sephiroth killing Aeris with no spoiler warning whatsoever. I know most people have played the game, especially if they're looking at this page, but shouldn't one be there? InvertedSaint 11:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)", I too was a bit surprised, as I know a number of people that have not played the game, and frankly, seeing this picture definitely ruins a major portion of the story. Jreinstedler 03:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, sorry, but it's part of the WP:FF Manual of Style, and it's an unofficial policy by WP:FF and WP:SE editors not to include spoiler warnings. Nique talk 03:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banned

I heard this game was banned in the United States but couldn't find any information on it. Anyone know anything about this?

--204.116.124.117 02:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Rumours, rumours, rumours are easily proven wrong.

If it is banned, you will not be able to find it on legal selling sites, and there will not be North America versions MythSearcher 03:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That was a hoax. Sorry you got duped. I can't believe some people are still spreading this rumor. It was simply satire, and obviously so, given the (fake) article in question used such phrases as "Mario could not be reached for comment" and "Tifa's breasts could not be reached for comment". And does anyone really think Hillary Clinton would claim that Tifa's breasts are "ruining our children's future"? Ryu Kaze 13:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

With you crazy Americans and Nipplegate I could easily believe that someone indeed claims that Tifa's breast are "ruining our children's future". But that article was fun to read. (Btw, you have to many quotations in in Final Fantasy VII, not only are 36 and 68 identical, all these quotes tedious get into an article, that doesn't have it. *sigh*) --Anibas 15:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaia?

The world of FFVII was always mentioned as "The Planet" in the game, and in the Advent Children. I do not recall it ever being named "Gaia". --Truten 20:40, 6 September 2006

The helpful reference right next to that information in the article leads here where it confirms that fact. Axem Titanium 19:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's also mentioned on the official Dirge of Cerberus site in the Final Fantasy VII Tribute section. Play the hangman game. At one point, it asks for the name of the planet, with the correct answer being "Gaia". The name was also used in the original game, actually, though not so obviously as it should have been. It was only used as part of the name of the ice area before the Northern Cave. Ryu Kaze 14:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

On the Square Enix website it states that the planet's name is Gaia, well then guess what, IT'S GAIA!!! Ceres009 14:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PC Version

There's very little information on the PC version of this game and it's weakness in sales compared to the playstation version, plus it's criticisms from the port. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.186.95 (talk • contribs)

Do you have any sources regarding its poor sales/quality? Axem Titanium 16:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, other than the fact that I can personally vouch for the fact that the movies were lower resolution in the PC version than the PSX version, I don't know what else there is to say about it. Well, maybe that the quality of your MIDI driver affects the quality of the music within the game(though the PC version comes with its own Yamaha MIDI driver), but that's about it. Those are the only real difference between the two games. The resolution for the FMVs is lower, and the music quality is different, since the quality and tone of the music is dependant on your MIDI driver...--Vercalos 08:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I heard the translation in the PC version was a lot better, so should we mention that too? Ryu Ematsu

[edit] Characters

Hey guys! I'm new to this site so I don't know how to do much(the editing help page helps but I have trouble understanding it) but I see a characters portion on the boards but does anyone else think it would be better if that changes to a characters table like in the twin peaks page? If told how to do it, I would go ahead and do that if you guys want.

Idk if that is such a good idea, on the character section there is a link to ALL the characters in all the connected FFVII storylines. And a good number of those characters have full articles of there own, so a character box would be kind of redundant. J-Axe

[edit] Reviving 'RPGs', etc.

The article makes a few references to the game popularising 'RPGs' outside of Japan, but I'm a little uneasy at this because it makes no distinction between JRPGs and Western style RPGs which were already very popular outside of the Japanese world (not necessarily on consoles), such as the Ultima series, Elder Scrolls series, Bard's Tale series, etc.

This might be the fault of poor sources rather than the article writers but I think it's quite an important distinction to make. Xzamuel 12:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

-I've added a quick sentence in the 'Legacy' section that addresses this. I can't say to have any sources specificly (which I understand is cause for removal in such a wonderfully documented article) but I believe it creates the deliniation between American D&D-esque RPGs that were what a RPG was until FFVII put the concept of a Japanese RPG onto the map. Final Fantasy games, as well as possibly the Dragon Quest titles, will always stand as the benchmark of what defines a Japanese RPG and FFVII with all it's popularity seems to be the game that made the Western/Japanese distinction commonplace. --Black Orpheus 08:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, thanks for that but in typical Wikipedia style it seems to have been reverted by someone without explaination on the talk page. I'll aim to edit it in as neutral sounding way as possible and hopefully he won't change it without discussing it first. Xzamuel 14:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR. No matter how perfectly neutral you make the article sound like, if it is unsourced or unreferenced, it will be removed. An alternative method might be used (the {{fact}} tag could be used to add a small citation needed after the sentence) but it will make the article sound really bad and really unprofessional. I believe there are published research about this and if you can find one, you can actually use it as a source. My suggestion is to create a new article about the difference between Japanese and Western RPGs is there is a source(or sources). Just add a link to that article on this page after you have created one.

However, I must show some counter samples here. Diablo and Warcraft, Starcraft campaigns are also straight forward without any freedom for the player to choose from. And there are indeed Japanese RPG like Seiken Densetsu 3 that have 3 different endings depending on which character you chose. More examples could be listed if necessary. MythSearcher 15:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well the distinction is quite a well known and well recognised one. I could find sources, however I was thinking it would perhaps be easier to just say put 'console RPGs' instead of Eastern/Western, as there are Western RPGs made in the style of Japanese ones and vice versa, just as you can get American made Anime, or Japanese made Cheeseburgers. The term 'console' RPGs is a much less grey area as the majority of console RPGs tend to be in the Japanese style, before FF7 RPGs were primarily a PC genre. Oh, and the level of freedom isn't necessarily the major difference (though it does tend to be a big factor...). I'd say it was more to do with the general aesthetic and methods of character advancement/customisation that made the distinction, but as I say I will try to find a sourceable article when I get the chance. Maybe even get around to creating the Wiki page on the differences myself. Xzamuel 16:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a big difference between "subculture" like PC RPGs mostly are, and "popular" in the sense that you get the main character of the game on a Pepsi box. When you've got something on a mass merchandise deal like Pepsi, you've arrived popularity-wise.

There are definite differences between the cRPG and PC RPG worlds, however. One could argue that PC RPGs did not become popular until Diablo hit. (and even then, only Diablo actually -became- popular.) Also, although the market for RPGs is wider now, that doesn't mean they are selling any better than they were as a percentage of the overall game market before FFVII's release. Most cRPGs do not have the same appeal as Final Fantasy, even though they may be theoretically angling for the same market. (if you don't design for a large audience, you won't "automatically" get a large audience's attention) Tcaudilllg 23:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FF7 technical demo

I think this article should mention the Final Fantasy VII technical demo, since searching for "Final Fantasy technical demo" redirects to this page. - The preceding comment was made by Grevenko Sereth 18:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII section well enough. ~ Hibana 15:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Final Fantasy Forums

Okay this is really pissing me off lately. Every time when I add a link to Final Fantasy Forums.net, it's been removed by some other random person. For god's sake, would you STOP it already? I mean come on, it's a huge community forums to discuss all the FF series including FFVII so I don't seem to understand why it shoudn't be on the list! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkishblade (talk • contribs)

Keyword: forum. Forums are inherently unreliable sources and therefore don't deserve links. Also, I really don't care how big it is, there are plenty of other forums with similar numbers of people. Finally, Wikipedia is not an advertisement for your site. Axem Titanium 00:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is not a place for advertisment, then why the hell do you have those links in the list already? So the other sites are fair and my site is not? How pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkishblade (talk • contribs)

Because, the other links actually have reference material. They actually contributed sources to this article. MythSearcher 05:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well in that case, then I will contribute a few articles in here so I can add up a link to my forums, I guess. And there is nothing you can do to stop me from removing my link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkishblade (talk • contribs)

I think you misunderstand what is meant by "contributed sources to this article". By editing wikipedia, you don't gain the right to advertise. Your link can only be present if it is used as a reliable source for some of the information in the article. But, since it's a forum, it's completely barred. Axem Titanium 00:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Differences between "FFVII International", "FFVII International PSOne Books" and "FFVII International Ultimate Hits"?

Could anyone please tell me the difference between these various Japanese versions of Final Fantasy? For instance, does "FFVII International Ultimate Hits" contain the additional fourth CD of goodies that "FFVII PSOne Books" does, and was this included in the original "FFVII International" release? I need to know whether buying the "PSOne Books" version is worth it or not, because it's generally more expensive than the "FFVII International Ultimate Hits" version. Mogura 13:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy narrative technique

I found a narrative technique mentioned on wikipedia. It boils down to this definition: a kind of reversal, where things the people thought were thought to be true, but in reality were false. I've been looking all over for the name of that technique for weeks. I can't find it. It may be in FF7, or in Final Fantasy. I don't know.

I'm at sefiros@gmail.com. Thank you in advance.

The term you're probably looking for is peripeteia, an element of Greek tragedies, although this isn't the best place to be asking since talk pages are not supposed to be chat rooms. Axem Titanium 15:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compilation = Seperate entity?

There wasn't a whole lot of discussion about why the compilation suddenly needed to be crammed into the FFVII. Personally I felt that the compilation itself, and this page, looked much better when they were seperate entities. FFVII technically isn't even part of the compilation, and there's no consistency in this series if the compilation is jammed into the FFVII article yet Fabula Nova Crystallis, which is notably not as large in content at the moment has its own page.--Claude 06:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a big discussion somewhere and in the end people though that the Compilation page would just end up being a link database to other articles with a short introduction but hardly could be considered an article in its own right. The Fabula page is probably going to get much bigger since it is still largely in development, but I don't know. Maybe it will be merged into the main FFXIII page as well. Axem Titanium 15:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The compilation has been stated to run its course for at least another 10 years. The current content is most likely going to double or triple in the meantime, further stretching out the article. At least on its own page, it wouldn't be this crammed.--Claude 06:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compilation naming?

Maybe this is completely unimportant but I've noticed that most of the articles for the Compilation titles add a colon ":" that doesn't appear on official sources:

With the exception of Advent Children, Square Enix seems pretty consistent with the "-Final Fantasy VII-" name scheme and they all lack colons. Should we move the pages there? Axem Titanium 22:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that all the pages and references to the compilation games have been moved/edited, I have to say that they look really ugly. Was that move completely necessary? -ryand 10:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes, because it is the official name. Anything else would be fancruft or simply incorrect. Axem Titanium 20:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case, could you provide some links to back up your point? All I can find thus far are the html titles of the SE pages - I haven't found a reference to any of the compilation titles that use that format. And titles of the pages should hardly be taken as an official reference to the name of the games. -ryand 04:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Crisis Core page I already mentioned uses that naming scheme for both Crisis Core and Before Crisis. This and this cover Dirge of Cerberus and Lost Episode. Advent Children here.

On the Japanese site, here, here and here clearly show "-ファイナルファンタジーVII-" which means "-Final Fantasy VII-", including the dashes. Here, "ファイナルファンタジーVII" goes straight into "アドベントチルドレン" (Advent Children) without any colon. Axem Titanium 22:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I guess you were right then! Thanks for the clarification. -ryand 15:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad that was done with relatively few conflicts. Thanks. Axem Titanium 22:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of the articles should probably be moved to the appropriate pages. Dirge of Cerberus -Final Fantasy VII- redirects to Dirge of Cerberus: Final Fantasy VII. Likewise, Crisis Core -Final Fantasy VII- redirects to Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII. Shouldn't it be the other way around? 65.120.2.112 07:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too Many Footnotes?

Is there such a thing as too many references? This article has about 7,000 words of text and about 4,000 words in references. Some items in the article have two or three external references each. This seems like an almost useless amount of reference material. Is that possible? Is it too much? Phlake 18:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Heck no. Basically, it's a good counterpoint to all over-paranoid verification-demanding silliness - we can't make exceptions, right? Secondly, People say Wikipedia is all about pop culture rubbish; we can at least say that pop culture rubbish is what makes this world great, and point to this article and say not only do we have good pop culture rubbish, but it's well-sourced too. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

All Deletionists agree: 100+ sources is always a good thing. Besides, a LOT of the references are actually fascinating to follow. --Elar agirl^Talk|Count 04:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Rather too many than too few IMO. It's the best way to satisfying the No Original Research guideline. Sockatume 15:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page getting really long

When looking at the page recently, I realized that the page is almost 100 kb in size. (Well, 96, anyway.) I noticed that some sections, like Story, are essentially put entirely on this page, and take up a lot of room. Other sections, including Setting and Characters, have their own separate pages but still have extremely long sections on this page. For example, the Story section takes three full PageDowns at 1024x768 screen resolution, with size 12 font and the window maximized, and Setting takes one and a half PageDowns at those same settings even though it has its own page. I was just wondering if anyone else was concerned about the page size, considering Wiki's general suggestion to limit pages to 50 kb. I know that it's just a suggestion, and sometimes a longer page is better, but I do think some of the information on this page could be moved to other pages, especially Story to its own new page, without crippling the quality. Nique1287 20:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we need a short summary of the story here, and brief outlines of the key characters, but I don't think we need to move the existing content to subarticles. I think we just need to nuke it. Having a full-length detailing of the story is frankly dicing with copyright infringement. There's little there that can't be gleaned from actually playing the game, so it's of dubious value. It's not collecting anything secondary sources together, it's just paraphrasing the game itself. Sockatume 21:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a huge discussion about this at the featured article discussion. Basically, we are going for comprehensiveness in describing the story in the shortest way possible. The page itself hasn't increased in length since being promoted to FA and I'm pretty happy with the literally bare minimum story description. Axem Titanium 22:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaining group members

I quote: "During this pursuit, the group gains several new members: Yuffie Kisaragi, Cait Sith, Vincent Valentine and Cid Highwind." - as far as I can remember, Yuffie and Vincent were not actually crucial characters in the game, and were gained by the player completing so-called 'optional quests' to acquire them. Regardless of whether they were acquired, the game could still be completed. Maybe someone could consider changing that line? --Janipewter 07:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

From what can be inferred by their inclusion in other Compilation titles, I believe the "canonical" version of the game's story would include their admission into the party. Axem Titanium 20:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Both of them are in AC, so the official storyline has them joining at some point. Koweja 20:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Janipewter 10:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compilation section

Since User:Jagged 85 doesn't seem to want to, I've created a place for discussion of splitting the Compilation section. The page was originally merged here per discussion at WP:FF (here). Personally, I echo their feeling that there really isn't that much to talk about in the Compilation besides what's already there. By itself, it looks short and out of place and doesn't have much room for expansion (believe me, I just tried and failed miserably while looking for new stuff to say). Anyway, long story short, I think the section should stay here because it doesn't look good as its own article and would end up becoming a collection of links to other articles (something that's already achieved by the FFVII template and category). Axem Titanium 02:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this article is already too huge. 96K is already three times the recommended size of 32K. I've read some of the discussions on the merger but haven't yet noticed anyone mentioning this important point (or maybe I didn't search hard enough). There is no need to merge the Compilation here when having a sub-article would serve the same purpose and reduce the length of this article by at least 14K at the same time. Jagged 85 12:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a Featured Article. Yes, it's a long page, but it is informative and it saves the trouble of having a bunch of stub-articles. Compilation would be not much more than a stub on its own, so it's better off on this page. Nique1287 15:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Article series, the sub-articles should be of good length themselves. The Compilation section is so short as to be stubby and awkward on its own (and with little room for expansion). While it's true that it's good to be bold in editting articles, the guideline has a caveat to not be reckless, especially when it could be controversial and/or you're editting a featured article. Also, don't simply revert back to your version as soon as you post your rebuttal. Wait a while to see if your given reasons reflect consensus before unilaterally taking action. As it stands, I've seen User:PresN, User:Nique1287 and myself revert your changes, implying that you are not on the side of consensus, but don't be discouraged. Perhaps more information in the future would make the Compilation suitable to being its own article but that future is not today. Axem Titanium 19:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)