Talk:Tifa Lockhart/archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP:FICT

Contents

[edit] Love Section: disappeared

BRING IT BACK

Why? 84.182.113.112 16:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Edit needed

In the history of the Nibelheim incident, someone has given information on there being only 2 MP's in the Shinra group. There were in fact three, one was lost when the ropebride collapsed, Sephiroth stating that they didn't have time to seach for him when Tifa pointed this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.0.66 (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Love section/Koibito controversy

So according to Mirlen, he was going to write up a little "test essay" or something involving the koibito information in the Love Section, show it to us and see if it was good so it could be added to Wikipedia. Well, several months have passed by and there's been no sign of that little "test essay" at all.

I can't help but wonder, did Mirlen even plan on writing that at all, or was it all just a little scheme to stop all the drama that was going on? Wouldn't surprise me if it was. 68.43.65.255 03:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.65.255 (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

It's unlikely that's gonna happen anytime soon. Don't wait for it. -Eileen- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.185.108 (talk)

Actuallly, I do have it saved on my file. I asked third party sources who were well-knowledged on FFVII (and someone who doesn't support either side of the Love Triangle War) to edit the little "test essay", and they said it was subtly riddled with OR, and that it would be impossible to write such a topic without interpretations and OR. I decided that at the end, it would best not to post it at all, as I have gotten the same concenus from others. Part of absence was not due to the fact that I was plotting "a little scheme to stop all the drama that was going on", but due to a wikivacation I had to take because of real life, such as school work and exams. It was not to avoid you, or to carry out a "scheme." I'm sorry it took so long for me to respond to this and I understand your impatience, but I wanted to clear up the misinterpretation that I was avoiding you and/or this topic. —Mirlen 22:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Love

Who keeps writing stuff that obviously is a violation of a request to keep the Cloud/Aeris/Tifa debates objective? Cause it plain to see that this is only half of fanbase opinion. Keep this off or else I'm blocking the next person that writes it. -Eileen-

"Another point of interest is that the Japanese version is more romantic towards Cloud and Tifa. This is seen in several scripts in which a very deep connection between them exists, even to a point in which they can hear each other.

There is also a term, created by the Japanese, for the relationship between these two characters: Cloti. It is a cobination of their names Clo for Cloud, Ti for Tifa. It may be used in several ways such as "I'm a Cloti fan," as long as it remains pertaining to their romantic relationship."

I consider this original research (more specifically, one of many possible interpretations, not necessarily being the one of the creators), and therefore removed it as of Wikipedia:No original research. I'm removing this because of what I said before and your gonna tick off a lot of Cloris fans. Besides there should be no double standard. If nothing can be written bias toward Aeris than that goes for Tifa as well. By the way if by romantic you mean Cloud giving Tifa the cold shoulder than you've been successful. Square Enix isn't stupid, it doesn't want to alienate half of the fanbase by making the Japanese version bias toward Tifa. It's the player's choice. I'm saying this again, keep orginal/fanbase opinions off Wikipedia. Keep it in the forums. Here's a question: If Cloud loves Tifa so much than how come she doesn't know how to communicate with him, (he turns away from her and doesn't answer her question) and Cloud is living in Aeris's church and he wants to ask Aeris for her forgiveness. See, Square Enix has tried to make both sides happy. -Eileen-

You just proved how bias you are with your last paragraph, and my question still wasn't answered. Honestly, if you're going to write two paragraphs in retaliation to what I've written, it might as well be something that, I don't know, DOESN'T DODGE THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED.

That is all 69.47.126.6 18:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was presenting what the Cleris fans might say. I actually like Cloud being with Yuffie. But I erased your stuff because its original research. As you yourself said

"Another point of interest is that the Japanese version is more romantic towards Cloud and Tifa. This is seen in several scripts in which a very deep connection between them exists, even to a point in which they can hear each other. There is also a term, created by the Japanese, for the relationship between these two characters: Cloti. It is a cobination of their names Clo for Cloud, Ti for Tifa. It may be used in several ways such as "I'm a Cloti fan," as long as it remains pertaining to their romantic relationship."

That is what is in violation of Wikipedia:No original research, because it is your interpretation. Please read the note that is written about in Love section that I'm reproduced from Tifa's page.

"Do NOT add any LT views here, especially as this is more a matter of interpretation/speculation than documented fact. Until Cloud/Tifa or Cloud/Aerith are proven as the canon couple from SE's own words, do not add how fans think "so and so" is an item. Wikipedia is about what HAS happened, not what WILL or MAY happen. Remember, speculation is avoided on Wikipedia, as stated by our policy."

So that why I erased your comments for those two reasons. -Eileen-

Didn't Nomura confirm that Cloud and Tifa were together by the time of Advent Children? I believe that info is in the Reunion Files, and when I find that particular line, I'll add it in. I have access to the book and I can read it. -MOG-

Not only does Tifa get jealous when Cait Sith reveals the Cloud/Aeris fortune in the Temple of the Ancients, and not only does Tifa OBVIOUSLY try to say that she loves Cloud when it comes time for the Gold Saucer date, not only these things but also in Advent Children it's obvious that they're married. Armyrifle 19:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The Love section is gone because some people can't be neutral about it. Everyone face it: who Cloud Strife loves isn't important nor has it been officially solved and never will be. It's the player's choice so I don't want anyone saying Tifa & Cloud are married because it is not true and I also don't want to hear about Cloud and Aeris. Neither woman will ever officially be Cloud's woman. This is lame! -Eileen-

[edit] Tifa edits

User 68.226.119.234, your recent Tifa edits have been erased because they are not fit for an encyclopedia and are not what is quoted in the Sheila article that is referenced so keep it off of her page. Thanks. -Eileen-

[edit] Does Tifa use her Limit Breaks in Advent Children?

During the fight with Loz, it looks like Tifa uses her MeteoDrive Limit Break to throw Loz into the pews. Banjotooie142 19:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Several characters in Advent children use what appears to be their limit breaks in Advent Children (some blatantly, like Cloud's Blade Beam, and some are kinda iffy, like his Finishing Touch or Tifa's Meteodrive); however, as far as I know, none of these were officially confirmed by SE. I'm not sure if this merits a line anywhere in the article though. -ryand 06:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You could technically say that Tifa uses all but one of her limit breaks (Dolphin Blow) during the fight with Loz. She starts off with a series of quick punches (Beat Rush) and a kick, is repelled/zapped, performs a sliding kick (Water Kick) that Loz jumps over, punches Loz into the wall, jumps off of the wall and pillar and kicks Loz again and knocks him backward, then kicks him again while performing a flip (Somersault, shown in slow motion). Then she is blocked, kicked back against the wall, where Loz hits the wall. Tifa then pushes him aside, and kicks him downward into the floor (Meteodrive). Loz then grabs her foot, swings her through the pews, and throws her into the wall. She lands on the wall on her feet, pushes off, and flies horizontally into Loz, dragging him along the floor (Final Heaven), then throws him into the air, grabs him, and throws him into the floor (Meteor Strike). It's not really definitive though since nothing is exactly the same as it was in the game so it's all open to interpretation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.82.10.128 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 20 November 2006.

[edit] Limit Break comparison

For the most part no, she does not use Limit Breaks. The movie uses her moveset from Ehrgeiz, which included very distinct limit break attacks in-game (performing a hold move on the opponent brought them out), none of which she uses in her fight scene in the film. The sliding kick is just one of her Ehrgeiz attacks, whereas she does also perform a Waterkick in that game. Likewise for things like Dolphin Blow and Meteodrive.

Beat Rush - Any series of punches could be interpreted as this anyway, but shouldn't it be two punches to the midsection followed by a crouching uppercut? I'll leave it to you to look for this during the fight scene.

Somersault - The backflipping kick she does is from Ehrgeiz. Somersault was a separate move which required a grapple; during Somersault she kicks herself off the opponent, whereas her Ehrgeiz backflip attack is just part of a three hit combo. Run and press High Attack three times.

Waterkick - Tifa has a sliding kick in Ehrgeiz, but Waterkick is a sweep. Run and press Low Attack for this slide.

Meteodrive - Meteodrive is a suplex, which she clearly doesn't perform in AC.

Dolphin Blow - Infringingly similar to a good ol' Shoryuken. She doesn't use this in AC.

Meteor Strike - She unmistakably tosses Loz into a pew with this move.

Final Heaven - No way. She wouldn't have time to charge it anyway.

So in conclusion, Meteor Strike is the only of her seven limit break attacks that actually makes an appearance. The rest are Ehrgeiz moves, or just pure originality to keep us going during a martial arts sequence. ReloadPsi 14:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ....................

Why doesn't anyone write her (or anyone's, for that matter) Limit Breaks? I've watched Advent Children, and didn't know what people mean when they mention the Limit Breaks they saw. Thank you, anyways. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.213.195.191 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 3 December 2006.


[edit] 75.16.139.81

75.16.139.81 made this comment in the main article after adding a section about The Advent Children Reunion files. I have moved it here.

this information was stated a long time ago until Aeris fans got angry and erased the factual info of Cloud and Tifa having any relations together. If you dont believe this information is stated if searched in many fan bases

AntiVan 05:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not that Aeris fans got angry, it's a violation of the note on the love section to not express fan pairings. 67.142.130.46 23:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Eileen67.142.130.46 23:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

How come on Tifa's page the love section is rather limited while on Aerith's page its rather large, this seems to be really unfair. -Franki-

[edit] Note

I added some more to the Love section and I hope that everyone likes it. Cheers. -Eileen-—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.185.108 (talk)

I moved it here.
It is important to note that Cloud loves both Aeris and Tifa. A conversation in Wall Market is evidence of this, he is overprotective of both girls although they are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. Tifa is also Aeris's closest friend, they are always seen talking together when Cloud and everyone travels to a new area, and when Aeris died, Tifa gently touched Aeris's hair and bid farewell to her friend. Also in Advent Children, Tifa can sense Aeris's presence and despite their affections for Cloud, they have eternal friendship.
I consider this original research (more specifically, one of many possible interpretations, not necessarily being the one of the creators), and therefore removed it as of Wikipedia:No original research. It's not because I don't like it, it's because it is violating the rules. --Yuuki Mayuki 18:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attempted sabotage

Some loon has sabotaged the page and replaced it with nothing but an indecent picture of the character and some gibberish. I managed to restore it, but something has to be done; this isn't the first time I see something like this around here. MARQ 21:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Business as usual in Wikipedia. *sigh* I don't really think the article is vandalised often enough to warrant protection however - most of the vandalisms on such non-mainstream articles is slow-burning... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That apparently happens alot. Should we ban the violaters because it is not fair to protect it since most people respect Wikipedia? I could give you the list of IP addresses that violate it, if you want on your talk page. What do you think? -Eileen-

[edit] Name of Tifa's martial art

I added in the main page that Tifa is an expert in the Zangan-Ryu martial art. It's given as that in the Ehrgeiz instruction manual, and since her instructor's name is Zangan, I don't doubt it (something to do with the practice of sticking -Ryu after an instructor's name or something if s/he's teaching their own personalised art or whatever; I'm no expert on the subject). Sure, Ehrgeiz takes place in our Earth, not FF7's, plus it's all non-canon but it makes sense. I'd cite Ehrgeiz' instruction manual as the source if I could only find a scan of the blasted thing. Anyone out there able to scan it and upload it as proof? User:ReloadPsi 17:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sabatoge

Someone has been editing in incorrect and complete unacceptable things in this page. I don't know that much about the game so I couldn't edit. Can you please fix this problem soon. Thank you. NCvla08 May 22,2007

[edit] She has Ample Breasts?

Is that even necessary? We all noticed. No wonder this article is B.

68.49.1.207 01:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty amazing. I notice this article has had some little edit wars of that. Considering how famous that fact is about her, it would be incredibly childish not to mention it in her article. The obvious question would be, "Why are we omitting this incredibly obvious fact about her?" and we'd have to live with the answer being, "Because we are immature and blush whenever 'such things' are mentioned." – Lilwik 08:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
While I can understand that if the information is well-known, it should be included. I think however that some people here would prefer it if it was done more tastefully. Since the information is in the lead paragraph, I, and I believe other editors, think that may not be the best place for it. That and along with a description of her, which I don't think it is necessary given that there is a picture of here directly to the right. Also I don't think the term ample as it's used here doesn't fall under WP:NPOV. I've always seen ample as a subjective term.
I'm not saying it should be deleted because we can't have any naughty stuff on wikipedia, but I think it should be mentioned in a more encyclopedic manner in a section other than that lead paragraph with a source. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 18:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC))
'Above average' is subjective, but let's face it, that's what her bra size is. While the sentence could be more 'sensitive', ample in this instance seems alright. 203.59.16.166 18:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The reader can tell she has been designed with large breasts. The only way it needs to be mentioned if there's information on why the developers decided to give her such large breasts. — Deckiller 19:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the picture says a lot already, that's what it's there for. The same goes for the rest of the description about her appearance.(Guyinblack25 20:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC))
I think that a picture is a poor excuse for encyclopedic content. Maybe it is worth a thousand words, but an encyclopedia is not a picture book: if there is something to be said it should be written out if possible. Every character who is worthy of an encyclopedia article is worthy of a few words about what he or she looks like, in addition to a picture, especially if there is anything notable in his or her appearance. -- Lilwik 00:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The point is that there is no need to mention her breast size, unless the developers or reviwers have made note of it (controversial or exceptional claims require such sources). — Deckiller 01:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
What does verifiability have to do with this? Are you suggesting that it isn't an accurate description? I think that perhaps the word 'ample' is used more for being tasteful and polite than it is for its dictionary definition, but we all know what is meant and there is no doubt that it is true to one extent or another. The fact that there is no need to mention it is completely trivial, since there is no need for her to even have an article; it just happens that she is a notable character and this is a notable distinguishing feature. We don't need to mention it, but we do because we want to have a thorough and complete encyclopedia.
According to the dictionary, the word "ample" suggests something that is in greater quantity than is sufficient, but in this case it doesn't make much sense since there is no purpose for which this amount of breasts is ample. One might ask, "More than sufficient for what purpose?" It seems that we are already pushing the limits of encyclopedic correctness in favor of political correctness. We could simply say "unusually large" but wouldn't that be less tasteful? -- Lilwik 02:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
While I'll concede that maybe "ample" is the best word that comes to mind right now to tastefully describe it, I have to say that I still think that the lead paragraph probably isn't the best place for it. Also regarding, "verifiability" and "accurate descriptions", according to one of Wikipedia's official policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Look, we're not trying to get rid of it to be childish or censor the article, we're just trying to stick to Wikipedia's policies and principles. (Guyinblack25 15:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC))
Lilwik, no matter how obvious it is, I see no official sources claiming she got large breast, or ample breast, unless you can source it from some reliable and verifiable source(i.e. not fan sites or forums.), it will be considered speculation and point of view and should not be in wikipedia articles. It is not about political correctness or anything of that sort, it is just that you have been fighting for a sentence that you cannot provide any sources other than your own speculation on the subject, and thus it must go, and unless you can find reliable sources to support your point, any edits attempting to add back that word can be consider vandalism since the point is already opposed by so many and yet no source could be found to support it being there. MythSearchertalk 16:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you really think this isn't about political correctness? It sounds like you are searching for a justification to hide the real reason, which still seems to be political correctness. It is obviously verifiable; just look at this talk page and notice that everyone seems to think it is perfectly obvious from any picture of her. Would you say that is isn't verifiable that she has brown eyes or black hair? Even if you can find another source for those things, the picture makes them perfectly obvious and no more verification should be needed than that by anyone. Would you call her black hair speculation?
Also, official sources are being over-rated. This article is not here to repeat what Squaresoft tells us. If there are no usable sources for information beyond the company that created her then perhaps she isn't notable enough to have her own article, after all. It is a fact beyond dispute that her large breasts are numerously and consistently the topic of fan sites. Any particular fan site is not a reliable source, but we cannot simply ignore something so blazingly obvious. Surely there must be some reliable source that mentions how she is treated by fan sites. -- Lilwik 23:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides, the word "ample" means "sufficient". Sufficient enough to satisfy the fanboys? The wording itself is POV. Do you see porn star articles stating that they have "ample breasts"? No, because it's an adolescent thing to say. — Deckiller 17:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Using some actual source with my own speculation, that kind of breast size is pretty common around the anime, manga, game female characters during the 90's, by the book Pretty Character Chronicles ~ The History of Animation Heroines 1958~1999(ISBN4-8124-0543-2 and I still don't believe I actually bought a book like this) which lists ALL anime female characters from the very first anime in 1958 to the latest in 1999, and thus it is nothing uncommon out of the book that we need any mentioning in the article unless a reliable source could be found to claim it is worth mentioning. MythSearchertalk 17:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
There's well enough pictures in the article to make the point obvious anyway. Kariteh 17:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree w/ pictures. Also, it isn't notable, because A) it isn't referred to in the stories, unlike Naga the Serpent ir Eiken B) It isn't unusual for anime characters.Algr 20:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The stories don't make things notable. (Naturally it isn't in the stories, since it wasn't a design choice; it was simply a necessity of the number of polygons they could afford to represent her, giving her a bit of a clumsy, blocky outline.) You certainly couldn't claim that everything mentioned in the game belongs in the article. Being unusual for anime would make it notable, but it is hardly a necessary condition. What makes it notable is vast amount of fan attention that it has given her. In a way, perhaps "ample" is a good word for it, because her breasts really were sufficient to get fanboys drooling. (I'm not saying I prefer the word, though.) We're not here to retell the plot of FFVII, we are here to talk about Tifa as a character and how she impacts the real world; that is exactly what makes her notable. (Well, perhaps I should say that we are not here only to retell the plot of FFVII.) -- Lilwik 23:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
We certainly don't claim that everything in the game belongs in the article, that's why information that reads like a game FAQ is removed. Unfortunately, the vast amount of fan attention does not make it notable either. It may make it notable to fans, heck I think Final Fantasy is a very notable series but that doesn't make it notable to the world. As per WP:JNN, "Notability requires an explanation so that other editors may be able to verify the claim as well as seek sources". Unfortunately, there have not been any sources to support this claim of her having ample breasts, and the only explanation of why it is notable is that because the fans think it is and because they are right there for everyone to see. Because of that, the information has been removed. Sorry. (Guyinblack25 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC))
I'm not saying exactly that the vast amount of fan attention makes her chest notable; I'm more precisely saying that the vast amount of fan attention is itself notable. How can it not be notable? Even you are calling it vast. If that's not notable, then what is there about her that is notable? Of course, the article is not entirely fictional fluff and I wouldn't complain even if it were entirely fictional fluff, but little details about how they chose shorts or a skirt for her seems to be bordering on trivia. In contrast, Tifa's large chest is bordering on an internet phenomenon. I would be surprised to find that it would be worthy of its own article just about that, but only just barely. It is crazy that people would suggest that we not even mention it.
On the other hand, I'm not saying that Tifa's chest or the fan stuff around it is notable. I'm just saying that it is the most notable thing that we could put into this article. If no one outside of Final Fantasy fans think Tifa is notable, then we could just delete the entire article on the basis of notability. I've never seen the point in deletionism, but video game characters do start out with doubtful notability. Aside from this internet thing regarding her breasts, what is notable about her to someone who hasn't played FFVII? -- Lilwik 01:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
For example, take a look at this: http://www.rpgamer.com/editor/2004/q4/121304pb.html
I'm not saying that this is a reliable source. A peer-reviewed journal would be better, but it looks respectable enough that I trust it, and just read what it is saying about the legend that Tifa has become and why. -- Lilwik 02:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, go find a reliable source, following wikipedia's policy, it should not be a self published source. If you can find a source saying a lot of fans noticed her ample breast or better, Tifa got ample breast you can reference it and add it into the article. If not, there is no use in keep discussing here because we know you point, it is just not how wikipedia works and we cannot add it in. MythSearchertalk 04:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, forgive me for saying this, but it sounds like you're saying that the only notable thing about this article is that there are is a "vast" (quoting you, this is the first time I've seen this much conversation about her breast size) number of fans around the world that think Tifa has big breasts. If that were the case then this article would about "Fan's perception of Tifa from Final Fantasy VII", which it is not. Though you feel it would be childish not to mention it because we would be immature, I can't help but think that it is childish and immature for you to insist that the number of fans that think she has large breast is the most notable thing about the character.
This is not an article about Tifa's breats. It is an article about Tifa, a main character in the highly notable Final Fantasy VII video game. Does being in the game make her notable? No. Does her being a crucial part of the story? It adds to the character's notability. Does being a character in the first Final Fantasy game on the PlayStation and being designed by a notable character designer? Yes, it adds to the character's notability too. Does that make her the most notable character ever? No. Does that mean that we can put whatever we feel is notable in there? Yes and no.
Since we are basically guests on Wikipedia's website, we have to play by their rules, and some of those rules have already been mentioned many times over. As editors, the burden of prove lies on our shoulders. If you're so adamant about adding that content, find more reliable sources. The article you found is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough. The more reliable sources that are added, then the less people can dispute the content. (Guyinblack25 05:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC))
I am saying that the internet attention focused around her breasts is one of the most notable things about her. Of course, FFVII is one of the most notable games ever created, right up there with Chess and Go. Seriously, it is a really amazing game, but that doesn't make each individual character all that notable, as you said. I'm not saying that the fan attention focused on her breasts is worth mentioning, I'm just saying that it stands as one of the most notable features of this character.
I think we both know that this is about political correctness, not Wikipedia rules. People have suggested that it is POV or speculation, but that is obvious nonsense. I might not have proof that the fan obsession with Tifa's breasts as suggested by the editorial a linked is actually as strong as it seems, but at the very least no one can say that it is speculation or POV to say that she has large breasts, any more than it is speculation or POV to say that she has brown eyes. Similarly, the fact that she has large breasts is verifiable by almost any of the many pictures that are available of her, including ones that are in this article. Maybe we need more sources to say that there is huge fan interest in her breasts, but we all know that it's true and no rule is preventing us from stating the obvious about her chest. We can hint at the facts even if we are forbidden from saying them.
I personally have no idea where I could find an authoritative source to comment on the behaviour of fan sites and internet forums. I don't really care about that; I'm not an editor of this article. I just noticed this talk page while browsing and thought I'd point out how silly it is to be shy about describing this character. (Also, I found it interesting that her breasts were made large just to make it easier to draw her in polygon form. It's a shame to lose that, if its true. I was sure that I had read that somewhere in this article, but now I can't find it, not even in the history. Perhaps it is my mistake.) -- Lilwik 08:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
That is the problem, all of these internet attention focus could just well be speculated, just because you happen to be in forums that occasionally talk about it. The polygon thing is also unsourced, and thus taken away sometime ago. MythSearchertalk 09:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Look, I've tried being civil about this, but you refuse to even acknowledge the guidelines and official policies outlined by Wikipedia. When Deckiller gave you the link, (controversial or exceptional claims require such sources), you responded back with "What does verifiability have to do with this? Are you suggesting that it isn't an accurate description?", which basically makes me think you clicked on the link, saw the title, Verifiabilty, and didn't even read the policy. Added the fact that you then began to say "the picture makes them perfectly obvious and no more verification should be needed than that by anyone." Which is why we then began telling you that reliable sources were needed, to which you responded "official sources are being over-rated." You have also been saying that this is about being politically correct, meaning that we are trying to censor the article and all of Wikipedia because we can't have naught thoughts like "ample breasts". That is in my opinion, just your way of circumventing the policies and guidelines we told you should follow. Look, there are articles about the Breast, Sexual intercourse, and the word shit. You don't see use ranting and raving on those talk pages because we think they're naughty articles. Before you respond, I honestly suggest that you read the following policies, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research. Feel free to have the last word also, because the general census of the discussion looks like the information is to be omitted until the proper citation is found, any such acts to include it could be seen as vandalism and could lead to the contributor being blocked. (Guyinblack25 12:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC))
So you noticed that I asked what verifiability has to do with this. Did you notice that no one has presented the answer to that question? Have you read WP:V yourself? There's nothing in there that answers the question either. I imagine if you had read it or any of the other policy articles, you would have cited particular sections of those articles rather than name-dropping the entire article. When you don't cite a particular section, it makes it harder for readers to realize that there is nothing relevant in there because they have to sort through the entire article.
I notice you quoted me inappropriately out-of-context. I was actually talking about official sources, since that was what was mentioned in what I was replying to, and its true that official sources are overrated. This article is not supposed to be an advertisement for Squaresoft. Sticking to official sources is not an ideal, we should have a broad range of reliable sources. Currently it seems that almost everything in our references list is either quotes from the character or employees of Squaresoft, all very official but that's not a good thing. I very much was not saying that reliable sources are overrated, so don't misunderstand me.
How does my saying you are trying to avoid naughty stuff circumvent policies? I've read the policies that you've pointed out and there is nothing in there that says to me that we can't say "ample breasts." If the policy has nothing relevant to say, then it doesn't even need to be circumvented, but it leaves me wondering what the real reason is for your objection to "ample breasts." I'd take your word for it that it isn't about naughtiness, but you haven't given me any alternative explanation.
Here is what I see in those articles:
  • WP:WWIN -- I don't see what you are trying to say with that one. Do you think I'm saying that Wikipedia is something which it is not? If so, what? It doesn't seem to me that I'm making any unusual claim about Wikipedia. If you are trying to bring up some obscure rule that shows that we cannot say the obvious about Tifa's chest, then you should at least go to the trouble of pointing it out explicitly, rather than gesturing to a long list of things that supposedly has the rule.
  • WP:NPOV -- This article talks entirely about point of view. Is there a point of view from which Tifa does not have large breasts? I cannot see one. The view from the rear is my best guess.
  • WP:V -- This article talks about verifiability. It is the most surprising, because it is so very short. Surely anyone who actually looks at it can quickly see there is nothing in there that is useful here. Tifa's appearance can be verified over and over by an endless supply of official images of her, including the ones that have been fair-used from Squaresoft into this article. WP:V is talking about assertions that are likely to be challenged, as in: "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." Tifa's description is both not likely to be challenged and it has a reliable source cited.
  • WP:NOR -- This is about putting things into Wikipedia that you have invented yourself. Are you trying to say that some editor just invented the idea that Tifa has large breasts? Are you saying that it just popped out of thin air with no basis in anything reliable? Have you looked at Tifa? -- Lilwik
No Original Research also deals with the synthesis of material. Also, there is a difference between saying "large" and "ample"; ample is POV, large is a common sense observation (although still something rather juvenile to say. We don't comment on other characters' breasts or hips). — Deckiller 01:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I've never liked "ample", either. It seems like its trying to use a flowery word to make it sound less juvenile, rather than just using the right word for it. I think "large" is the appropriate word in this case. I see no particular reason why we should leave out details of the appearance of the other characters, since these characters are always used in visual media; meaning they are there to be seen and are identified by what they look like. Even so, I think Tifa is a special case because of the internet attention surrounding her chest. Even if we cannot find a good source to explicitly mention that attention, it seems reason enough to mention her chest in the overall description of her. At least there is no good reason not to mention it. -- Lilwik 02:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:V tells it all, it is NOT that the picture cannot be verified, it is how you keep saying "Considering how famous that fact is about her" that is not verifiable. It would be a simple fact that everyone can see that she got big breast, but is it worth mentioning? Given that most of the anime style female characters have big breasts compare to real life people?
About WP:NPOV, NPOV is about NPOV from editors, if there are sources supporting POV, than it would be perfect to stay. Like the sentence I have added, the official sources claims her to be cute, so it can stay, while a lot of people out there are simply hate her looks because she got big eyes(those anime haters out there). While editing the article, we cannot comment on anything we see and feel, but stick to the facts only. The colour of her hair and eyes and the style of her hair is NOT relative, thus it is there, yet her breast size IS relative(big compare to what? Common? what is common?) It wuold just be as inappropriate to add a sentence saying she is tall or short, because there is no known reference point to it. Like I said, if you compare it with other anime characters, her breast size is nothing out of the usual, and thus I do not agree on her having big breast, and you have your counter arguement here, while none of us can have any reliable sources supporting our point of view, and thus it does not go into the article. MythSearchertalk 07:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
You're saying that large breasts is POV, but cute is not POV? Her being cute is very obviously POV. It's just exactly like the sort of example they give in WP:NPOV#A simple formulation. Being cute is not a fact; it is an opinion and if you want to say that she is cute you've got to say it in one of the ways they suggest in WP:NPOV. You admit there is dispute about her being cute and yet you call it NPOV? You must not have read WP:NPOV. It says "By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean a piece of information about which there is some dispute." Citing someone who calls her cute does not make it NPOV; you have to say, "Final Fantasy VII the Perfect considers her cute," or something like that, just as WP:NPOV finds clever ways of saying "The Beatles were the greatest band."
I admit that it turns out that I was mistaken. I thought it was perfectly obvious that she has large breasts and I assumed that no one would seriously dispute that. However, it turns out that at least Mythsearcher does dispute it, and that makes it at least a borderline opinion, depending on how unusual Mythsearcher is in that. In my own defense, however, I'll point out that you can find someone to dispute anything. In WP:NPOV it says:
There are bound to be borderline cases where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously
Sometimes being tall or short or having large breasts is not a matter of opinion. Would you fault the Shaquille O'Neal article for calling him tall? It doesn't actually do that, but says some things that come pretty close. I doubt we should take any dispute about Shaq being tall seriously, just as I doubt that we should take your dispute over Tifa's breasts seriously. Some things are too obvious for POV to be an issue, but since there now is some dispute about it, it has become a borderline case.
I will also admit that if it really is the case that there is a POV problem with it, we will be forced to drop it. To rephrase it, we would probably have to say something like "Millions of fans consider her breasts to be large," but even though I am sure that is true, I cannot imagine where we would find a reliable source to cite for that. Just to be clear, a citation alone does not make something NPOV; you have to say it in an NPOV way, as I just did there. -- Lilwik 10:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
You do not understand this, if the official sources claimed she is cute, then it is not POV in stating so in the article, I am at a NPOV state, where I just simply quote the official source. In my POV, I simply do not accept that at all(I like Aerith more if you want to know). I am shocked by the fact that the official source claims Tifa to be cute but said nothing about Aerith, but still, because of NPOV, I must report what the official sources said, and thus I have added the line in. neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources) the official source is definitely a significant view, and a reliable source, that is why it should be added in. If anyone can reference a significant source saying she is ugly, be my guest and add it in. That is what NPOV means. MythSearchertalk 13:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
We have to represent all significant views, but we're not supposed to represent them as facts. We can't just say "she's cute looking", not even if we have a source to back it up. This comes directly from WP:NPOV#A simple formulation:
Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."
You've admitted that there is serious dispute about Tifa's cuteness. I admit that it is a minor thing, a tiny bit of POV that I wouldn't even waste the effort to edit out, but that doesn't make it right. If you want to include it in the article then you've got to at least explain how the policy I quoted doesn't apply to it. I'm aware that the official sources claim she is cute, but that doesn't mean that there isn't serious dispute. Even I have my doubts about her cuteness.
Plus, think again about what you've said. Do you really think it would be okay to add "She's ugly" if we find it in a reliable source? That would mean this article is contradicting itself. It can't have both "She's cute" and "She's ugly." No one wants to see this become a self-contradicting mess of an article; you are misinterpreting policy. -- Lilwik 21:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This is what you do not understand, if you can find a source saying she is ugly, then the sentence will become something like although the official creaters consider her cute[ref1], osome consider her ugly[ref2] This is what NPOV means, you have to present both of the claims even when they are contradicting, but of course you need to present them in a well contructed sentence, not having she's cute and she's ugly without explaining the situation. Since there are no reliable sources claiming her ugly, the official sources represent facts, our pov thinking she is not cute cannot change the fact that the creators wanted to create a cute character. MythSearchertalk 06:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
At least we agree on something. It is a fact that the creators wanted to create a cute character. However, it is an opinion that they succeeded. You haven't addressed the statement that I quoted from WP:NPOV, the one about how we are not allowed to assert opinions. Are you deliberately ignoring it, or do you think that it doesn't need to be addressed because whatever you would say goes without saying? From my perspective, it seems to be very clear that it is telling you not to say things like "She is cute looking" in this article, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. If you want to put something in the article that seems to go so strongly against policy, then you should at least directly confront the part of the policy that seems to say you cannot do what you want to do. Otherwise, sometime soon someone is going to revert it based upon NPOV. -- Lilwik 09:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to change it to something like She is supposed to be designed as cute looking or The creators thinks that she it cute, which of course sound really stupid but yes, they might be better suiting to the policy. On the other hand, what we have now is not NPOV, since it is a direct quoted sentence, I did not alter any facts from the sentence. I did not quote a sentence saying the creators wanted a cute character. I quoted a sentence saying she is cute looking (and opposing to that she got powerful skills), and thus I added in the direct quote instead of modifying it, which is definitely no against the policy of representing fairly and without bias all significant views. The official view is a significant view, and it is pretty fair if you ask me, that sources are directly quoted instead of modified. In my POV, she is not even powerful, she is like the only character that still deal under 2000 damage at the end of the game on single hits while others are at least doing over 5000. The sentence could be totally not accurate yet since it is from a reliable source, directly quoted, it suits the policy well. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Since it is verifiable and reliable, it could stay. MythSearchertalk 16:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It is verifiable that her creators think she is cute. It is not verifiable the she is cute. Unfortunately, the article currently says the latter, and therefore is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. It is odd that you would not see that, since you were arguing against ample breasts using NPOV, and cute is far less NPOV in her case. -- Lilwik 19:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I see lots of discussion on the size of the breasts, but none on the firmness of the breasts. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 22:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We should start a discussion on whether they're fake. Since, based on the above, that's not against policy</sarcasm>. — Deckiller 22:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Lilwik, I must say, I've never seen a discussion go on quite so long over something such as this. Tell me, is every as fervent about their beliefs as you are where you're from? (Guyinblack25 16:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC))
I'm not part of this edit war. I just find it amusing how the editors of this article are twisting around Wikipedia policy to make it say whatever they want it to say. There's nothing interesting about being prudish, but when you try to argue that policy supports the prudish position then things start to get interesting. And then, of course, there's the thing about cuteness. Isn't it every editor's duty to fight against misinformation and mistaken interpretations of policy? -- Lilwik 09:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Discussion has been added to WP:LAME. — Deckiller 16:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Rightfully so. Fictional boobs, people. ' 07:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Arguing over Tifa's breasts? That is ridiculous! Everybody except for Deckiller go sit in the corner! LOZ: OOT 18:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How is "large anatomy" handled in other articles?

Dolly Parton: "...well known for her large bust and low-cut, tight-fitting costumes."

Lara Croft (fictional): "I just wish that when she was taken out of my hands they hadn't made her boobs so big. ” —Toby Gard, [10]

Dirk Diggler (fictional): "Diggler's movies were very popular, possibly due to his huge penis." (And repeated again in John Holmes article.)


I think we could borrow the phrase from Dolly and apply it to Tifa's introduction. It's accurate (well known for large bust) and tasteful (tight-fitting costumes), and really nothing anyone should object to. Plus, we have established precedent that other wiki articles refer to body parts if/when that's what the person or character is famous for. - Theaveng (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If you cannot source well known, quit adding unsourced information into the article. You don't even have the actual size of her breast to compare with others by simple math. MythSearchertalk 02:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
"Don't erase other editors contributions" is the wiki rule. "Locate a citation" and/or tag it with {{Fact}} is the proper procedure. - Theaveng (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The proper procedure is talk about it before making a disputed edit. The problem is discussed 3 months ago, and is decided by consensus that it should not be there. If you still cannot provide a citation, the proper procedure is view it as adding in disputed content and reverting the edit. You have sufficient time to find a citation, not add it in then hope for a citation. MythSearchertalk 12:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I'll go edit the Dolly Parton page. After all they don't have any actual "proof" that Dolly is well-known for having large breasts. - Theaveng (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
That is better, but you might want to ask for a consensus over there. MythSearchertalk 14:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] At least we know Tifa's not a child

(Although I bet someone will demand a citation, proving that she's not a child.) Well at least we can all agree that Tifa is not flat-chested (no breasts). That should be self-evident even to imbeciles. - Theaveng (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If you go read WP:RS it is very clear that common non-disputed information could be added, this is mainly a consensus problem. However, if it is disputed, you need to have a source before you add it in. Also, if you need source of her being not a child, she is 20 years old in FF VII(8 in the memory scene), and 13~15 in BC(two different plot sections). thus she is definitely an adult in FF VII according to Japanese standards. MythSearchertalk 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Easter egg.jpg

Image:Easter egg.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Tifa and Cloud - I thought they did NOT grow up together.

The current article describes various shared events between Tifa/Cloud as children and young adults. But. Later in the game, wasn't it revealed those events were actually Tifa and ZACK (the black-haired soldier)? I'm fairly certain the storyline revealed that Tifa/Cloud were complete strangers who had never met prior to Cloud's stumbling, confused and riddled with amnesia, into Tifa's hometown. ----- i.e. Tifa's childhood & young adult experiences were with Zack, not cloud. - Theaveng (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Tifa and Cloud are child friends and Zack and Aerith were together. This is not only in the original story but also in FF VII:BC. MythSearchertalk 14:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Guess it's time to take FF7 for a third playthrough. - Theaveng (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Before you go do that again, try to get a guide book and read it, it will be much faster(without the enemy encounters, at least) and also, please read the WP:RS and WP:V to see what kind of sources and citations are reliable. I can write an online description in wikia and yahoo answers at any time, and I can intentionally add in incorrect information like Tifa and Aerith have lesbianism behaviours or information based purely on my own point of view like Aerith is a better girl than Tifa and may risk no deletion in both of these sites. It might get deleted in wikia, but nobody knows and nobody can be sure that no false information is in those articles, it is pretty much like self referencing I said it in the beginning of the article so it must be true. Online FAQ and walkthroughs are worse, because there can be no fact checking system other than the writer him/herself. Here is an example of good citation: In FF VII, Tifa almost always wears a skirt and this is Tifa Style.Final Fantasy VII 10th Anniversary Ultimania, 2007 P.043, Character in FF VII world, Tifa Lockhart, Trivia number 1 It is a primary source and trivia, thus I am not putting it into the article, but this source is official, thus authoritive, and it got fact checking systems well developed since it is edited by a third party company Studio BentStuff. MythSearchertalk 17:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Heh. Tifa and Aerith make hot lesbians, tho. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, guess why I use that as an example? :P MythSearchertalk 17:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, Aerith does nothing for me. When her famous death scene arrived I thought, "That's it?" It seemed like no big deal; characters die all the time in good stories. I honestly didn't see it as the great catastrophe it had been hyped to be. ----- As for citations, wouldn't the Childhood Tifa/Cloud experiences require sources? ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Technically, it is in game, and it would be plain stupid to source the game N times in the article. Also. as long as it is not disputed, obvious features does not need to be sourced, like the colour of eyes and hair. You removal of such things are just trying to prove you point and is disruptive behaviour. Aerith does nothing for me, too, yes, characters die all the time and most of the time they are my favourite in plot, like Aerith, yet, I am not that sentimental. MythSearchertalk 16:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay thank you. Also, please review this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#CENSORED —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theaveng (talk • contribs) 17:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You do not understand, this has nothing to do with censorship. I don't think she got large breast, so do a lot of people here who opposed the inclusion and thus adding in the data required a source. If you continue to show such disruptive behaviour, I must take further action to seek admin intervention. MythSearchertalk 18:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Theaveng, you have twice introduced incorrect information of a source trying to fake it contains what your non-neutral original research says, and that information is disputed and by consensus was removed from the article by discussion up there. You have reverted over 3 times and tried to warn who tried to do the right thing. Your edits on this page is clearly disruptive and I have placed the warnings on your talk page. What you have done here is purely assuming bad faith and introducing factual error by faking the source contains what you want. You have violated WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL. Please stop, this is wikipedia, not Theavengipedia, you do not own the page, and should follow guidelines on consensus and verifiable, reliable sources with neutral point of view. MythSearchertalk 15:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)