Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy/Archive/3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

   WikiProject Final Fantasy Archive    This discussion page is an archived page of a WikiProject Final Fantasy page,
so its contents should be preserved in their current form. Please direct comments to the main discussion page.


Contents


WPFF Archives

[edit] Deletion of RPG characters.

As part of the present proposal to expand the criteria for speedy deletion, it has been suggested that all RPG characters that do not have a basis for existence in a book or other offline medium should be deleted. I suspect this was well-intentioned effort but seems unreasonably broad. Since this would seem to call for the elimination of all or nearly all articles in Category:Final Fantasy characters, I figure that this community needs to be made aware of the impact of this proposal.

See: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/7.

Dragons flight 01:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the heads up, i already voted against this. --ZeWrestler 01:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, so if this thing goes through we'll have to junk all the templates and links to the characters. Which could be a good thing, only because it will allow more cover for the actual game articles without giving time and energy to a more broader score that could be considered redundant anyway. EreinionImage:RAHSymbol.JPG 05:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I voted against it, too. Others need to be aware of it, as well. Would this proposal get rid of all the Pokemon articles? Perhaps the members of the Pokemon project need to be told about this. --Dalkaen 06:26, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Couldn't hurt to tell them. --ZeWrestler 11:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm wondering if they really can delete the Final Fantasy VII characters since they do appear in media outside the game, like Advent Children. Opposing it will still save the other FF characters, though. ~ Hibana

[edit] Some problems I've noticed in FF articles

I just found out about this project, and I'm probably joining in, but for a slightly different reason than most of you. One of my biggest pet peeves on Wikipedia is when fans take control over articles about anime and games and add unnecessary fluff (I even made a wikiproject dealing with it yesterday). One of the worst offenders is consistently the Final Fantasy articles (the games are all very popular). The controversial titles often have long "criticism" sections (there were ones for FFIX, FFX and FFX-2, another user deleted the one for X, I deleted the other two), consisting of deeply subjective commentary on the games which does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Discussions on the internet is not "controversy" on a level that means it should be mentioned in an encyclopedia, however widespread the opinion is (I agree that the voice-acting in FFX was terrible, but that's still my opinion and nothing more).

On the other side of the spectrum, the good titles (FFVII, FFVI) frequently get more subjective sections added, this time dealing with why the games are so fantastic. Both problems undermine the credibility of the articles and those who edit them. If you have room for it, I'd suggest that you add another point: that the articles are conformed to a neutral and unbiased viewpoint, to better turn them into proper encyclopedia articles. When I have time, I usually clean up writing and delete unnecessary cruft, but it'd be nice to see someone else helping out.

I think the best example of how a FF article should not be done is the one for FFVIII. The character descriptions are overly long, there is a subjective "place in the series" section, a subjective "allegory" section with an extremely dodgy analysis of the story, and the icing on the cake: a self-aggrandizing "fanbase" section, as if this were of importance to someone not in it.

You can take a look at the Wikiproject here. It's still in its infantile stages, but I think it's a good idea. Harp Heaven 13:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

  • That actually sounds like a good idea. I was reading over the FFIV article today and saw someone deleted the crtism section. By all means. Making the articles NPOV very wise for a project like this. Especially if we are going to want to get articles to reach FA status. --ZeWrestler 13:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with your broader points, but I think we differ on specifics. Critical reaction is important to note, and deleting those sections en masse is a mistake. The quality of the writing is extremely questionable in a lot of cases, yes, and cleaning it up is definitely something we should spend some time doing, but I don't think writing off the entire concept as NPOV is valid. If there is a significant trend of criticism amongst online communities, chances are fairly good that it represents a broader popular reaction, and there's absolutely no reason we shouldn't offer a summary of such criticism as part of the general overview such articles are intended to provide to the uninitiated. Such summaries need to be properly cited, obviously, and written with extreme care and neutrality, but, looking at your project page, I have to disagree in the strongest possible terms with your stated goal of "removing NPOV criticism and "widely held opinions" unless they can be substantiated by notable journalists or credible sources." A review or other "credible source," even if widely distributed, may not represent anything more than the opinion of one individual, which is, by definition, nn and unencyclopedic. "Widely held opinions" (provided that we can provide sufficient evidence that such opinions are indeed widely held) are much more important in portraying how a title was actually received by the public. – Seancdaug 17:41, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from, but realize this: one man writing what he has observed on messageboards and during conversations with friends is still one man writing on behalf of some pretty poor substantiation. If it were possible to get hold of a poll of a decent size or any similar thing that dealt with the controversial stuff (the upbeat tone of FFX-2 or the battle system in FFIX), it'd probably warrant an inclusion. Only then is it possible to gauge the reaction of the "fanbase" (probably the worst of weasel terms) properly. Anything else is guessing and extrapolating, which has no place on wikipedia. A poll like this would in my mind constitute "a credible source" and allow for the addition of a "widely held opinion".
Granted, the opinion of one individual is not notable. But to suggest that one needs to hold some kind of poll to gauge popular reaction to a title is a bit silly: an oft-repeated criticism can be reasonably presented as either a major critical trend, or, alternatively, a vocal and notable reaction, both of which can be encyclopedic, if presented properly. That is, of course, the key, and something all of the articles do indeed need to work on. Passing something off as a typical popular reaction when it's really just the feelings of one editor is a problem. If we're going to present an opinion as a popular trend, we need to be able to cite and support a fairly large number of distinct individuals from a variety of different sources to back up that claim. But I maintain that, under the right circumstances, it's perfectly valid to make claims such as these. To pass over the frequent criticism of games like Final Fantasy VII or Final Fantasy X-2 amongst certain vocal segments of its audience is to present a distorted picture of the game. We shouldn't be mistaken for supporting either a pro- or con- position, but we should recognize that such controversy exists. – Seancdaug 18:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
This is where you lose me: how would we be presenting a distorted picture of the game if we did not cover online reaction towards a certain game? Wikipedia is not Amazon.com or GameFAQs. It's not there for readers to make informed purchases, nor is it a soapbox for commentary and discussion. Also, as far as I've observed, online fan communities for Final Fantasy tend to consist of individuals that take the series very seriously and are biased towards the "dark" instalments like FFVII and FFVI. For all we know, we would be presenting the opinion of a minority, where the majority of teenagers who do not post on internet discussion forums enjoyed the lighter, more upbeat tone of FFX-2 (which was positively received by most professional reviewers, I might add, in addition to having a lot of good reviews on GameFAQs). Take the article for Batman Begins. It has a section for "critical reaction" where the score on Rotten Tomatoes is cited, along with quotes from famous reviewers (Roger Ebert) and the IMDb rating. IMO, this is a good way of showing the quality of a title without pandering to a minority or a majority. Game Rankings could be used as a substitute for Rotten Tomatoes. Harp Heaven 13:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
It's not the "online" reaction that is of concern, per se, and we shouldn't be at all interested in "showing the quality of a title" to begin with (NPOV and all, as I'm sure you know). What is relevant is how people reacted to the game, and while noting the opinions of "famous reviewers" can be part of that, I do not for one second believe that EGM (or whatever we're counting as "famous" for our purposes) more accurately reflects the opinions of the people who have bought and played a particular game than the opinions of a bunch of people on an Internet message board. If anything, the group of amateur online critics is a larger, and very likely more representative, sample than the group of professional magazine reviewers (as far as that goes). Beyond that, there's no reason we cannot present "minority" opinion, provided we can make a reasonable case for its notability. Even if criticism of a particular game is only limited to a comparatively small group of online fans, if that group has been particularly vocal, or illustrates a particular phenomenon well, then it most certainly is notable. Again, that does not mean that all online grousing is encyclopedia-worthy, nor does it excuse us from our fundamental editorial responsibilities of upholding Wikipedia's NPOV policies, but to write off any non-"famous" reaction as NPOV out of hand is misguided in the extreme. – Seancdaug 00:42, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
I think the worst part about the criticism sections is how they force opinions about the games down your throat. Sure, they use the terms "some fans", but they are still very aggressively written and of little use to someone who is not in the FF online mojo. I think a standard we can all agree to is that these articles can be read and enjoyed by people who are not familiar with the games.
Agreed. – Seancdaug 18:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Regarding your opinion on quotations from professional reviewers, I disagree. If a title received mostly positive reviews, a sample positive one will enhance the article and give the subject credibility. If reviews were mixed, cite both positive and negative ones. If reviews were bad, cite a bad one. Maybe I was unclear on my project page; what I meant was not "a notable journalist", but "notable journalists", meaning that the reactions of the entire spectrum of magazines, newspapers and major online sites should be covered. If the majority complained about "Feature A", mention it and provide a quotation. Harp Heaven 18:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
But I disagree here. The professional critical reaction to a game is substantially less important to the long term profile and significance of a title than the response of the much larger segment of people who purchase and play that game. Obviously, the two are not mutually exclusive (journalists writing about a game would, I hope, have played it to some degree), and a case can be made for including both. But to restrict our ability to summarize the reception of a title to only that which major magazines (or whatever) have said on the subject is, IMO, frankly ludicrous. If I, as an outsider looking for information on how a game like Final Fantasy IX was received, my interest is not going to be what a journalist, or a group of journalists, wrote about it when it came out, but what sort of things the larger group of FFIX players had to say about it. You can say what you like about making sure we actually are representing a major trend that can be accurately presented as significant within the game's audience, and you'd be right. But suggesting that professional journalism is the only credible source we can go to is a mistake, and an even more egregious example of "guessing and extrapolating" than that which you are railing against, IMO. – Seancdaug 18:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
You must be skimming what I'm writing: I never suggested professional journalism from major publications be the only source. What I said was that unless we can back up fanbase or critical reaction with a larger number of reviews or votes from credible sites (GameSpot rankings and Game Ranking), it has no place in an encyclopedia. We might inadvertently be presenting a distorted view based off of a minority. There is a significant vocal minority that thinks Javier Solana is the Anti-Christ (literally), but that doesn't mean it should have a section of its own. Many people think Ann Coulter is a skinny, lying bitch, but that doesn't mean it needs to be mentioned in an online encyclopedia.
Whyever not? You're absolutely right about being able to back up our claims, and, as I've said, this is indeed something we need to focus more attention on. Not just regarding popular reaction, mind you, but in general: very few CVG articles have any references listed, and I can pretty much count the ones with more than one or two on one hand. But if we can in fact back up a claim that "many people think" one thing or another (in other words, prove notability), then I would argue that there's every reason to mention it in an online encyclopedia. Perspective, as you say, is the key element: if we're talking about the views of a minority, we need to be very clear about that. But I hardly think that merely presenting a minority opinion as such presents a distorted picture of a particular subject. – Seancdaug 00:42, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

However, I do agree that the reaction of the playerbase is more important than professional journalism. The problem is how to gauge that reaction. Gamespot rankings (with thousands of votes) are a good idea. As are the results from Game Rankings. If someone had the patience to read through the user reviews on various sites and note the frequency of certain key issues, we would also be one step closer to providing a credible source of information for fanbase reaction Harp Heaven 13:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

My major problem with Gamespot (or any other site with a similar format) is the lack of support. They can give a good idea of whether or not a game whether or not a game was received well by the public, but give a very limited explanation as to why. And saying "the public liked Final Fantasy VII" is valid, but not particularly helpful. But I'm entirely in agreement with you on the rest: reading (and citing) full-length user reviews probably the most effective (if not entirely unflawed) method of getting at some idea of how a game was received by its audience. And it should most definitely be de rigeur for any sort of section on critical reaction to a game. – Seancdaug 00:42, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Criticism is important in articles, to give a good idea about the game besides from the story, but the problem is that fans criticise the game some way while other fans complain about another aspect of the game. In a forum, you can see on post about how bad the game is and then how good the game is and then how bad it was once again. Different people perceive the game a different way and that, even among professionnals too. If we include a critic, it should be widely accepted that this point in the game is bad or good, depending on the critic. Maybe we should make a special discussion between participants of the project as to which critic we want to keep, maybe come to an understanding like which thing is good or bad in a specific game while keeping a professionnal looking criticism made by us, which means fans for most of us. So it would still be fanmade but professionnal. We should anyway come to an understanding as to what is relevant and what's not relevant and which could make the articles look biased. – DarkEvil 03:17, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chrono Trigger

Here, I signed myself up as a member the other day, but this WikiProject DOES include the Chrono series, right? If not, take my name off. Chou. Peaceman 01:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  • We've been a bit coy about what this project does and does not cover, actually. Frankly, I'd be more than happy to include it, given the similarities between the Chrono games and the FF series, and because I think the Chrono articles could benefit from the attention. That being said, the precise focus of the project, as stated, is the FF series, and I can't speak for anyone other than myself. But I'd be more than happy to (formally or informally) include it as part of the effort. – Seancdaug 01:50, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey thanks!! Peaceman 02:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Since we are including this under the project, i went ahead and started a Category:Chrono media category to begin with orginzation of the media. Also, Peaceman, I noticed a lot of your images you uploaded have no copyright tags. If you took the screenshot from the game, remember to add the {{game-screenshot}} copytag. --ZeWrestler 14:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To Do list

Since we are working on Chrono triger series within this project, so we add sections to the to-do list and the index for Chrono triger related articles? --ZeWrestler 18:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I personally think that Chrono Trigger, while having been included in the Final Fantasy Chronicles compilation, doesn't fit well with the main project to-do list. We have a lot of work to do, the main focus should be directed on real Final Fantasy pages or expanding the articles regarding aspects of the Final Fantasy universe. Including Chrono Trigger in the to-do list may slow the project down a bit. I can't think of any way for this to work without losing focus on the main series. This is my personnal opinion, maybe Seancdaug and other regular editors can provide some better thinking about this, a way to make it work. – DarkEvil 03:31, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sample Page

Template:SampleWikiProject

[edit] Quote

I've noticed a lot of character pages have a lot of quotes on them. (See FFVI characters) would it be a good idea for us to move these quotes to their respective wikiquotes page? --ZeWrestler 13:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I've always felt a little bit weird about having quotes sections in articles. It just feels... unprofessional... to me. That being said, I think it would be best if we kept the number of quotes to a minimum (two or three per article, maximum), and moved the rest to Wikiquote (which already has a FF quotes section, IIRC, though it's a bit of a mess). I'd also suggest that it might make sense to try and work the quotes that we do keep into other sections, as it pretty much forces us to prove their relevance. Sorry if I'm being a bit vague, here, I'm still formulating my opinion in my own mind. I may come back to this later :-D – Seancdaug 00:47, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
I vote we move the lot to wikiquote. After all, that's what it's there for. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:13, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:FinalFantasy series (reprise)

Is it just me or does someone else think this list is getting a little too extensive? This huge box looks ridiculous on some of the FF pages and out of place with other wiki-coding around it. I dunno, I was just thinking maybe a simple template like one in the sandbox might be more fitting? What do you think? — Cuahl 17:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I've modified the template slightly, mainly for formatting. It looks a bit better now, but is still fairly bulky. I'd kind of like to keep the spinoffs and errata in the template, as other series templates (like Template:Zelda series) have them, but I'm not deeply tied to that position one way or the other. Anyone else have any thoughts? – Seancdaug 17:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Take out Ehrgeiz (cameo at best) and any unreleased games (mostly on matter of principle). If anything I'd take out the "compilations" section. Nifboy 18:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Really? In all honesty, I would consider the compilations list to be more important than either the spinoffs section or the "other media" section. With the last two, we can make the case that they're tangential to the series itself, which can't really be made with the compilations. Plus, it reflects the reality of the way things are categorized here on Wikipedia better: the compilations are placed under Category:Final Fantasy games along with the games themselves, while the spin-offs are not (Category:Final Fantasy spin-offs). – Seancdaug 19:08, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I like the way the template looks now. It has a more professional feel to it. --ZeWrestler 19:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Airship goal

We have an FF airship article. Do we need to leave the airship goal on our goal list? --ZeWrestler 13:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

  • If you feel like removing it, remove it. No point it being there if the job's done — Cuahl 14:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, its been removed. --ZeWrestler 14:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I restored it and struck it out. I think that it makes sense to leave completed tasks up for a while so we can get an idea of what we've accomplished recently. Not sure how long we should leave it sitting there, but my vote goes for "until the list gets too long" ;-) – Seancdaug 17:43, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy album infobox

Hi everybody, I've tried an infobox for Final Fantasy albums on this project's sandbox. This is my first infobox. Seancdaug is the first one who thought about making an infobox for the series and it was a great idea. I'd like to know what you think of it and if it's ready to become an infobox. You can enhance it if you think of a better way to make it work. I am not experienced in making an infobox and I don't know if I did it right. – DarkEvil

[edit] Links to albums/other related articles

I didn't even know there were any articles on the FF soundtrack albums until I went to the WikiProject page and noticed the example link of FFIV: Celtic Moon. I think it would be a good idea for the main articles on the games to contain links to the pages on albums related to the games. --Zilog Jones 20:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Some pages already have a link, like Final Fantasy VI and Final Fantasy VII. A link should be included on every page, yes you're correct. – DarkEvil 01:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just wanted to draw attention to the Final Fantasy airships article.

The Final Fantasy airships article got strikethrough because it is mainly finished. However, the Final Fantasy XI section never got any text and stayed a stub section, containing only two screenshots uploaded by me. If someone knows about Final Fantasy XI and it's airships, please write something in that section so that the article could be "completed". – DarkEvil 02:12, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

I've noticed that a lot of redirects to some Final Fantasy pages were made, some of them long ago. When some of them were made, it was probably not thought of that the Final Fantasy related pages would grows that much. Some redirects are incorrect, at least for me, like Ultros which redirects to Final Fantasy VI while, no matter how silly he is, could have his own article since he has so many appearance in the game. Gestahl too is a bad redirect since he has his own article at Emperor Gestahl. – DarkEvil 17:41, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I think a lot of those redirects are automatic: Ultros used to have his own article, which was removed as non-notable and ostensibly merged back into the main Final Fantasy VI article. I'm not sure recreating articles such as these is a very good idea, IMO: appearing multiple times in a single game does not make a character particularly notable. The Gestahl redirect is a mistake, though. – Seancdaug 18:13, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
The Gestahl redirect was corrected on July 23 by Hibana so it's fine for that one. If I clearly understand, I should change the pages redirecting to Ultros which then redirects to Final Fantasy VI. This is OK, but at least, we should maybe include more info somewhere in a Final Fantasy VI page, the main article maybe lost info of Ultros over time as the only place where he is mentioned is there: "They are Cait Sith (called Stray in US release), Midgar Zolom (a snake swimming on the world map of Final Fantasy VII called Terrato in the US release), and Chupon, an ally of Ultros who appears as a summon in Final Fantasy VII under the name Typhoon." Only a simple word about him. Someone searching about information on who this Ultros guy we are talking about is may have a hard time. – DarkEvil 18:50, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion from archive

Here be the points from the recent archive. If I've missed something you wanted to carry over, why not post it again or copy it over instead of moaning at me please. The following are discussions of key value and those in the past week. — Cuahl 01:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What qualifies as a Final Fantasy game?

We'll work on the SaGa series and Seiken Densetsu series, but not necessarily apply the Final Fantasy standards. Category:Final Fantasy spin-offs

[edit] When were games released?

See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy/Release dates

[edit] How should the soundtrack/album articles be organised?

  • As seperate articles if of significant importance
  • Under relevant pages if they exist
  • Any confusion/questions, start a new talk discussion

[edit] Which names should be used?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy/character names

[edit] A-Z of Final Fantasy articles needed!

[edit] Things to do!

[edit] Character classes

(See archive also)

  • Should we move the classes from (character class) to (Final Fantasy), such as Black Mage (Final Fantasy), and make the (character class) articles disambiguous? They just seem so cluttered the way they are now, and it would make it easier to standardize them. ~ Hibana
    • I think so, after all, most article are called like that. A good exemple would be Weapon (Final Fantasy). I vote for it, but before moving a page, I'd wait for the approval of one more person. – DarkEvil 19:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Does anybody else agree that this should be done? I'm pretty anxious to begin. :) ~ Hibana
    • I'm not sure, myself. It seems like it would be difficult to provide full articles for some classes, and splitting up, say, Thief (character class) between thieves in the Final Fantasy series and thieves in other video games almost seems a little excessive. That being said, it would make administrating the articles easier from our perspective, except that I sort of expect that we'll be getting semi-regular merge requests.... I honestly dunno. – Seancdaug 16:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • We can't make the "(character classes)" Final Fantasy only because FF takes these character classes from Dungeons and Drgaons. So, if it should be anything it should be D&D related. Which sucks. But we can use the infobox on every page and make it standard (ie. every page has certain information in it). We'll need to include D&D somewhere, so how about we have a few sub-headings on the character class pages.

Top paragraph - standard in all articles, minor description of the character class, but not limited to Final Fantasy games. Reference - what the class refers to. White Mage will have something like this while Beserker has ties with the history books, and some others are D&D-created. Final Fantasy - here's where the FF-status comes in (so it's the most obvious and significant section). We'll have to include how the class appears in each FF (remember Bard and Songstress is practically the same thing), what magic they use etc. Can you tell I've been thinking about this for some time? If you have any ideas on what the standard should be we should decide on something before someone starts the change. — Cuahl 16:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I vote to merge all FF-class related articles (back) into Final Fantasy character classes. Even Black Mage is stubby, and the "reference" section feels like fancruft (mythologycruft? Cruft in any case). The creation of articles for general RPG archetypes (demonstrated by D&D's usual warrior/thief/mage/priest setup, replicated by every damn RPG in existence) could serve as a sort of category in which FF's fighters and D&D's fighters (and popular game XYZ's fighters) could both be included. Nifboy 21:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I kind of agree, actually. With very few exceptions, there's simply not much to say about any particular class: basically, what its specialties are and what games it appeared in. That's a short paragraph, if we're pushing it. Plus, we could avoid the whole space sharing problem we've got now. I'm leaning towards moving "our" information into Final Fantasy character classes, and providing a sentence or so link from the relevant "archetypal" article (something like, "the Fighter has also appeared as a class in the Final Fantasy series of computer role-playing games," or whatever). – Seancdaug 02:09, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree with that. If after we merge them together and they expand some, then maybe we can think about seperate articles, or Final Fantasy physical class and Final Fantasy magical class or whatever — CuaHL 10:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with the the part saying that articles like warrior/thief/mage/priest should be reserved to the character class in general and not only Final Fantasy. However, I have a problem with pages like black Mage, where these things invented in video games or did they exist in already elsewhere as black magic already existed outside of RPGs in occult art, I myself don't know and just wanted to make sure. If Black Mage can refer to something which is not video game and RPG related, the page should be something like Black Mage (character class). – DarkEvil 02:20, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that there is no point in making character class articles FF-exclusive - and I like your format of the pages. I think if we really got to working on these articles they could be really good and we wouldn't have to merge them all back into the main article. Speaking of the Bard/Dancer/Songstress thing...should Bard be used as the title of the page? In Final Fantasy V, Bards and Dancers are different - Bards inflict possitive status effects on the characters and Dancers infict negative status effects on the enemies. I believe the same goes for Final Fantasy Tactics, except that each class is gender-specific (Bards are male, Dancers are female). Songstress is definitely the same as a Dancer I would say, but are Dancer and Bard really the same? They are both very related, but should Bard be the title of the page? Or should Dancer? — Warpedmirror 03:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Well there's a good point. Maybe Bard should keep its article, and Dancer and Songstress spawn its own version? — CuaHL 03:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Location article updates

(See archive also) I feel like List of Final Fantasy IV locations has too many subheadings and just clutters the menu. Does anyone agree?--John Lynch 00:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I honestly think it's better to have too many subheadings than too few. If nothing else, it allows us to link a specific location via anchor linking. Since the menu can be hidden, I don't really see a problem with it, but we could also throw together a manual menu in place of the automatic one, and leave out second level subheadings (though I'd prefer not to do that, I think it's better than eliminating the subheadings altogether...). – Seancdaug 17:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Seancdaug. — Warpedmirror 03:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I've merged all the individual Final Fantasy I locations into the main article. It needs to be spruced up, however, since most of the places haven't been written about yet. ~ Hibana 19:01, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sample Page

Template:SampleWikiProject

[edit] Links to albums/other related articles

I didn't even know there were any articles on the FF soundtrack albums until I went to the WikiProject page and noticed the example link of FFIV: Celtic Moon. I think it would be a good idea for the main articles on the games to contain links to the pages on albums related to the games. --Zilog Jones 20:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Some pages already have a link, like Final Fantasy VI and Final Fantasy VII. A link should be included on every page, yes you're correct. – DarkEvil 01:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy airships

The Final Fantasy airships article got strikethrough because it is mainly finished. However, the Final Fantasy XI section never got any text and stayed a stub section, containing only two screenshots uploaded by me. If someone knows about Final Fantasy XI and it's airships, please write something in that section so that the article could be "completed". – DarkEvil 02:12, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

I've noticed that a lot of redirects to some Final Fantasy pages were made, some of them long ago. When some of them were made, it was probably not thought of that the Final Fantasy related pages would grows that much. Some redirects are incorrect, at least for me, like Ultros which redirects to Final Fantasy VI while, no matter how silly he is, could have his own article since he has so many appearance in the game. Gestahl too is a bad redirect since he has his own article at Emperor Gestahl. – DarkEvil 17:41, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I think a lot of those redirects are automatic: Ultros used to have his own article, which was removed as non-notable and ostensibly merged back into the main Final Fantasy VI article. I'm not sure recreating articles such as these is a very good idea, IMO: appearing multiple times in a single game does not make a character particularly notable. The Gestahl redirect is a mistake, though. – Seancdaug 18:13, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
The Gestahl redirect was corrected on July 23 by Hibana so it's fine for that one. If I clearly understand, I should change the pages redirecting to Ultros which then redirects to Final Fantasy VI. This is OK, but at least, we should maybe include more info somewhere in a Final Fantasy VI page, the main article maybe lost info of Ultros over time as the only place where he is mentioned is there: "They are Cait Sith (called Stray in US release), Midgar Zolom (a snake swimming on the world map of Final Fantasy VII called Terrato in the US release), and Chupon, an ally of Ultros who appears as a summon in Final Fantasy VII under the name Typhoon." Only a simple word about him. Someone searching about information on who this Ultros guy we are talking about is may have a hard time. – DarkEvil 18:50, July 24, 2005 (UTC)