Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy/Archive/4

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   WikiProject Final Fantasy Archive    This discussion page is an archived page of a WikiProject Final Fantasy page,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] Featured Article Drive

Peeps are currently working on Final Fantasy VI. To help out, go to the articles Peer Review.

  • Do you guys think the article is ready for a regular peer review by non-CVG people?--ZeWrestler Talk 14:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I already replied on ZeWrestler's talk page but I'll do it here too to make it easyly accessible. I think it is, we'll get more regular help and fancruft is already removed from the article for the most part. The censorship section is encyclopaedic enough, only missing some references that will be added one way or another. This article is good. – DarkEvil 15:24, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • I found a source and put it into the referance section of the article. if there are no other comments by tomorrow, i shall close the CVG peer review and start a regluar peer review. --ZeWrestler Talk 00:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The article has been moved to the regular peer review. You can work on it at Wikipedia:Peer review/Final Fantasy VI/archive2. --ZeWrestler Talk 13:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The article can use some more help. Its getting a lot closer to voting time. Any additional help from members here would be great. --ZeWrestler Talk 17:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy VI FAC

At this point in time, I believe that the FFVI article has reached a point where it is ready to be considered as an FAC. As a group, editors from this project have worked on the article for nearly 2 months. Since then, Final Fantasy VI has received a lot of work to get its status raised to FA. As of today, I have closed the peer review for the article and nominated the game for FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Fantasy VI. Great work to everyone who has contributed to this article and helped make this what it is today. Now the final phase for the FA drive, please read the article over and vote appropriately on whether or not the article deserves to become a featured article. --ZeWrestler Talk 14:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cid

A while ago, Warpedmirror provided these links Cid as an Oglop; Cid as a frog; Cid as a man to the different forms of Cid from Final Fantasy IX. I managed to take in-game screenshot myseld of the three forms of Cid, in PNG format, which makes them a little bit smaller file size, and non-lossy or non aparent loss compared to JPG. Here are the links to the in-game screenshots: Cid as an Oglop, Cid as frog & Cid as a man. I didn't know if you wanted these instead of the one on Cid's page because my human Cid is a little bit smaller due to being a screenshot directly from the game while the other one was probably resized. – DarkEvil 00:40, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Be bold, DarkEvil — Cuahl 01:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy XI expansion packs

I've never played Final Fantasy XI, but I was wondering if Final Fantasy XI: Rise of the Zilart and Final Fantasy XI: Chains of Promathia (both are stubs) can be merged with the main game article. Then again, I have very limited knowledge on MMORPGs and expansion packs, so these might be deserving of their own articles. Can anyone shed some light on this subject? — Warpedmirror 23:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

There's a good point, but I don't think they should be merged with the main article. How about Final Fantasy XI expansion packs article? That way it can be updated should more be released, and it would be long enough for it's own article. The reason I don't think it should be part of the main article is because the expansion packs are seperate entities in a way. I don't know much about FFXI but I know someone who will. — CuaHL 23:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
If we're going to merge the two articles into one, we might as well put all of the relevant information into the main Final Fantasy XI article: in either case, someone looking for Final Fantasy XI: Rise of the Zilart is going to be redirected, and, unless space is a serious issue (honestly don't know), then we might as well keep the information consolidated. That being said, I've never actually played Final Fantasy XI, so I'm probably not gonna be much help on this one. Does anyone here who's actually played the game have an opinion? :-) – Seancdaug 02:03, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Style guide

We really should organise some wort of style guide (when I say we, I mean I will later ;) for the Final Fantasy articles. I've been proofreading a few lately, and I see a few things occuring that don't follow Wikipedia's guidelines. If we want this project to succeed we really should work on following the rules. It's only simple things like repeating links (ie. Final Fantasy in the title, but then Final Fantasy futher down, when it should be italicised) etc. I hate nagging, but I'm trying to bring in Wikipedia policy. — CuaHL 17:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, people so seldom italicize game names when they do in fact need to be. --Dalkaen 13:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Can people please add to Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy/Article style and then we can create some sort of guideline help for FF-edits? — CuaHL 23:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks, Wikiquotes?

Should WP:PJFF expand past just Wikipedia? — CuaHL 17:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

  • There have already been a conversation on the Peer review page about moving the characters pages to Wikibooks, but really extpanding to Wikibooks just now might not be appropriate, we haven't even got an article to FA status yet. I'd say, once we have an article at FA status, it'll mean we have found the needed standard for editing a Final Fantasy page which we will be able to more easily apply to other pages, after that, I'd think about maybe expanding a little to Wikibooks, but then, we also could work on Chrono, Xenosaga and other games like them before that. – DarkEvil 18:38, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • There is already a section for characters on wikiqoutes. We could easily move character quotes over to wikiquotes. Other than that, we don't really have a standard yet. I personally think we should keep our character pages on wikipedia. But, we need to take the articles to the cleaners. Remove POV material. --ZeWrestler Talk 18:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

No no, I don't mean move any articles, I mean should we focus on other FF-related material across the Wiki. Should we manage Wikiquotes for example? I should have been more specific. — CuaHL 19:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

  • cough* — CuaHL 22:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New suggestions for reworking Final Fantasy articles

  • New thought that came to mind. People are saying that we need to put in information in this article that is not picked up through the game and gamefaq.com. Why not at a section about what were the games sales like? --ZeWrestler Talk 18:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not against it, if we can find enough information to make a section about it, that'd make a great improvement. What about a section talking about the references to myths, legends, religion, and so on. I mean not just saying that there are references, but actually describing what they are as we should know that all Final Fantasy games have a lot of those. – DarkEvil 23:12, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Thats a good idea. Now should we do it as a game specific idea or should we make one umbrella article?--ZeWrestler Talk 01:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • It's a good idea, but a tricky one. Too often such references sections can get overwhelmed with original research/speculation or even just plain fancruft: talking about, say, the repeated references to Norse mythology in Final Fantasy VII might be worthwhile, or Biggs and Wedge, but mentioning every single random encounter monster that happens to have a mythically-derived named is probably overkill. But I think this is the sort of thing that would be better discussed over on Talk:Final Fantasy VI, or even the Final Fantasy WikiProject talk page. – Seancdaug 02:04, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • Move it over to, Final Fantasy WikiProject talk page. We can discuss it there because it could affect multiple games. As for the sales idea, that one still stands, but needs some digging to find sales records. --ZeWrestler Talk 02:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think such sections would be worthwhile. Once you get past the overused cliche fantasy monsters (like Phoenix) it's mostly obscure, unrelated mythology from there on out. I mean, look at Shiva. The only thing the two have in common is a name. There's no point in trying to tie two unrelated things together. Nifboy 03:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, besides stuff like shiva, is there anything closly related? --ZeWrestler Talk 04:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
          • You know, I proposed the bit about mythology, but I myself don't know deeply all that is related with more than a name, but I'm sure there is. The only one I've got at reach right now is the Couerl, but it's not a mythologic monster, it's just a creature created outside of Final Fantasy, for science-fiction. I'm sure that there are, however, some really close mythologic or whatever references. Maybe what would be easier would be to make not necessarily myth, legend, religion section but inspiration section. I know that Moogle are inspired out of a mix of a Mole and a Bat (not a cat and a bat as most people think) as the Japanese name Moguri is composed of Mole and Bat, so I think there would be much more things to put in an Inspiration for the game section or something like that. This is probably my last edit for tonight so I won't be able to answer back soon. – DarkEvil 04:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
            • Is it important that Moogles are mole/bat hybrids? Unless it is, I think we can leave it out. Nifboy 04:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
              • This does more belong to the Moogle article (it already does), but it was just used as an exemple, if such a section is to be made, we'd need to find game specific information. If we could find information for game-specific thing like I mentioned for the moogles (but not this obviously), but more than only one phrase, I'd think it'd be interesting and non-gamefaq-ish if such a word could exist. If not, then we'd sure need at least some new sections to think about because the way the article is right now contains a little bit too much fancruft, following the review, after this will be removed, the article will be considerably smaller. – DarkEvil 13:22, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Items in Final Fantasy

I was thinking of starting an article about the various items found in the Final Fantasy series. We already have a few lists of locations and articles on summon magic, traditional magic, and character classes. It seems pretty fitting to me to have one because it's something that's remained relatively constant throughout every game. Of course, it would have to include common items like Potions and Pheonix Downs, but it could also be a place for special items like the Slave Crown. It could also explain the differences in the item systems of the games, such as how Final Fantasy II only allows items to be used in battle if they're equipped. I'd like to get everyone's feedback on this. ~ Hibana 18:33, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • An article like that could be useful, as long as it doesn't go into the area of fancruft. Other than that, it would deffinetly serve as a way of removing small articles about items that wont really receive much growth. --ZeWrestler Talk 18:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I think an article like that could be very efficient, and could be a good way to do away with some limited-growth articles. — Warpedmirror 23:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's true, if we take the Slave crown article once again, I don't think it can expand further than that, it already contains all the necessary information. Putting articles like that one in a list, it would improve accessibility to see all items and also eliminate unneeded pages growing into fancruft, being careful not to put fancruft in the new list itself. My answer to Hibana is, go ahead, make that article, it will probably be a great help towards improvement. – DarkEvil 00:15, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this is a good idea, but there need only be one article to cover all the final fantasy games put together. it just needs to have the main recurring items (phoenix down, soft.. etc), and the major key items, (slave crown, black materia, whatever). --alfakim 00:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I think two seperate articles - List of items in Final Fantasy and List of key items in Final Fantasy are idea for Pheonix Down, Ether etc. and Slave Crown, Ancient key etc. respectively. — CuaHL 22:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • If I remember correctly, when I played through Final Fantasy II, I don't think there were key items besides Key Words, this game does use a game play system different from others. The idea is good, two articles would be better since they are really two totally different categories. – DarkEvil 23:55, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and created List of items in Final Fantasy and List of key items in Final Fantasy. If someone doesn't mind expanding these? — CuaHL 00:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Just a note about what DarkEvil posted earlier — Final Fantasy II does have key items, except I think the official term is "Event Items" — some of which are the Crystal Rod, the Dragon Egg, and Sunfire. These are listed in the regular items list, with icons beside them that look like treasure chests to make the indication that they are not normal items. They can only be used at specific times in the game (whereas Potions can be used at any time), and can be asked about using the Memory system. — Warpedmirror 03:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • No problem, except these will still go in the Key Items article and have a note mentioning the name of them. This is what works with other articles (eg. Overdrive is Limit break) — CuaHL 03:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm having a bit of trouble coming up with a format for these articles. I'm really just caught between using the styles of Final Fantasy magic or Final Fantasy bestiary. I've also got finals this weekend, so I'm kinda short of time as well :D. Any suggestions? ~ Hibana 19:38, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • I posted this comment to the new List of key items in Final Fantasy talk page a few days ago: "While this page is certainly better than the old Slave crown page, I have to wonder how necessary it is, really. I can't see much benefit to having a encompassing list of key items from the series on Wikipedia: the vast majority simply aren't notable, and those that we can make a case for noting (like the slave crown) could just as easily be mentioned in passing in the appropriate article for the game in which they appeared. This page just seems like distinctly fancrufty clutter, IMO. Anyone else have any thoughts?" For what it's worth, I still don't see the distinction as being important enough to merit two seperate articles, and, furthermore, I'm not sure we want to be tackling either as a list. An article discussing the way in which the Final Fantasy series uses items makes sense, and including a list of the most notable recurring items in that article seems perfectly reasonable. But framing either article as a simple list seems like an invitation for fancruft, and, on it's own, I can't imagine the information will be particularly useful to anyone. – Seancdaug 03:17, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • My rule of thumb for items' notability is this: If the item could not be found in an explanation of the plot, or would fully explained there, it doesn't deserve an explanation elsewhere. Slave crown, Black materia, etc, fall under this category. Nifboy 04:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy bestiary

[edit] Images

If you haven't seen it lately, take a look at Final Fantasy bestiary. The work User:DarkEvil has done is incredible.. and the amount of images included is insane. But that worried me just. The article shouldn't really be a image link dump, and we should be showing images rather than linking them right? So here's what I propose (to all who have opinions on this). How about after every mention of the creature we put a small image after it, and then people can click links knowing they are images they're clicking on. It's hard to describe, so I threw what I was thinking up at my sandbox, here. What do you think? Links or little pictures? Great work though, DarkEvil. — CuaHL 03:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I hadn't took the time to work a different style (too much time passed into taking screenshots, finding decent screenshots for some and adding them to the page). I liked the idea, though I don't know what it'll do with slow modem users, taking longer to show images, the text could appear distanced with nothing between it for a long time, though I'm no expert on the thing since I've never had a slow connection. If it's O.K., this new model is great, I liked the 20 px and 25 px better than 15, can't decide which one yet. – DarkEvil 04:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • The example on Cuahl's sandbox looks just too busy to my eyes. Too much to look at. --Dalkaen 04:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree, but I made the example I did because I thought there were too many links in the article which make that look busy. Compare them both - article and idea — CuaHL 06:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • First off, great work to DarkEvil. Secondly, I am curious with this article in existance, why do we have Races of Final Fantasy as an article still? --ZeWrestler Talk 12:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Because Final Fantasy bestiary should cover only monsters against whom we fight, while Races of Final Fantasy should cover the races like the Cetras, Moombas and other races that are never fought. But if you look, for now, the Final Fantasy bestiary does contain the Moombas and the Cetras and the Races of Final Fantasy does cover the Tonberry. Anyway, it's just my opinion of what these articles should cover. – DarkEvil 22:12, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • The true definition of a bestiary is to give information on imaginary beasts or creatures, so Races of Final Fantasy should still stay as not all things appearing in Final Fantasy are creatures, many races are human and won't be covered in the bestiary. – DarkEvil 03:00, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • Erm... I'm not really sure about that. Most manifestly non-human "races" in the series are certainly creatures: Moogles, for instance, or Nu Mou, or Guado, etc. The only way I can think to really divide the two articles is by intelligence: beings portrayed as sentient (Moogles, Viera, Guado, et al.) belong in the "Races" article, while traditional "monsters" (Goblins, Marlboros, Behemoths, etc.) belong in the "Bestiary" article. Even then, it's not really clear cut, as the definitions tend to slide depending on the game. Look at the Tonberry for an example: recent games (Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles and Final Fantasy XI, notably) have been portraying them much more along the lines of a race than a monster, giving them their own uniquelly Tonberrian culture and whatnot. If we weren't dealing with such large lists already, I'd suggest that the two be combined, but that's probably going to result in something far too large to handle. – Seancdaug 02:54, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article Size

Continued from: Talk:Final Fantasy bestiary Official discussion: WP:Help Desk

How about subpages? Like Final Fantasy bestiary/A-M and Final Fantasy bestiary/N-Z? Would that be within Wikipolicy? — CuaHL 04:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Seems like the answer was in favor of Final Fantasy bestiary (A-M) and (Final Fantasy bestiary N-Z). I'm not doing the move right now, I'd rather get some sleep. Anyway, someone else probably will do the much needed transfer soon enough if not me. It's already 1:30 A.M. where I am and it's been a lot of days since I've had some real sleep. Wikipedia is addictive, be careful. – DarkEvil 05:34, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • I couldn't agree with you more. Its like a drug. --ZeWrestler Talk 12:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: Done. Relevant text is now at Final Fantasy bestiary (A-M) and Final Fantasy bestiary (N-Z). There's something about it I don't like, though. — CuaHL 07:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • What is it you don't like. Are you talking about the intro text, or the text for each monster? If it is for the monsters text, I also don't like certain bits of text. Some are fancruft, mostly written by me, as I was trying to explain some images. At first, when you write it yourself, you don't see it and then when you reread the text, then you see that it is not really encyclopaedic. – DarkEvil 13:31, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure yet. I think it needs other people's opinions... but I don't like the way the Final Fantasy bestiary page looks at the moment. It needs another person's enlightened view I think — CuaHL 18:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • For that, I must say that I completely agree as the article mainly has mine and yours opinion besides some minor edits by others. An entire article that's so big need to be composed of more than only one's view. If someone has some spare time, could they try and help with the look of the page, this one is difficult. – DarkEvil 19:03, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • I know I've been absent a lot recently, and have been out of the picture while everyone else was toiling away at the article, but I have to question some of the entries: things like Ark, or Dullahan, or Cetra, or Moomba, or Genome, or whatever... basically, anything that has appeared in only one or two games... why are we including them? Because some of them seem quite arbitrary: why does Demon Wall get an inclusion while, I don't know, Archaeoavis doesn't? Clearly, there is a role for the page in covering the true standard-bearers of the series (Chocobos, Goblins, Tonberries, Cactuars, Mindflayers, Marlboros, et al.), but it seems that creatures only appearing in one or two games should be dealt with within the context of the games in which they appeared. The page(s) are already massive, and continue to grow, and it really seems that there doesn't seem to be a great deal of rhyme nor reason to its growth at this point. I guess the real question is: what is notable for Wikipedia's purposes, and what would be better suited to something like one the FF wikis? – Seancdaug 03:04, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiportal?

How about a Wikipedia:Wikiportal for Final Fantasy? What does everyone think? Also, are we covering Wikibooks and Wikiquotes? — CuaHL 04:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm personally not against a wikiportal, it's just that I'm afraid this could sound a little pretentious considering there is already the Computer and video games portal. Then again, James bond has its own portal and Final Fantasy has really a lot of articles and is the main interest of a lot of people. I couldn't find any other video games series portal, that would be a premiere, I think. Wikibooks and Wikiquotes, could be covered, but really should be less concern for now, except if someone feels he can't contribute a lot on what is currently being edited, he could try Wikibooks and Wikiquotes. – DarkEvil 05:30, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well I'll wait until I get a few more opinions before creating one, but if you take into account the amount of articles there are (and that's an incomplete list!), the Final Fantasy section is quite large - and growing. Maybe I'll make a mock up page on my sandbox for now — CuaHL 10:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so I went ahead and made one. I read all about them, and it says as long as we can provide the content and manage the Wikiportal it's all good. I don't see any harm in it, but with the amount we;ve got on, we're going to have to reorganise this Wikiproject sometime soon and clearly see where the fixes need to be done eh? — CuaHL 11:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Only in the time of one night's sleep, two major enough things happen, first, you make the wikiportal which is fine to me if it is o.k. with wikipedia policies. Thanks for including my picture as a featured picture, although it was based on yours I think. And then, a proposal for a major reorganization of the wikiproject, also made by you. I'm going to put my thoughts on it at the bottom of this page. – DarkEvil 14:32, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • The page looks good Cual. I am all for it for most of the same reasons DarkEvil just mentioned. --ZeWrestler Talk 12:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New WikiProject?

Hey all. I have a proposal - hear me out :). User:Seancdaug started this WikiProject with the Final Fantasy editors in mind, but I don't think anyone expected this much. It got me thinking - there must be an easier way to organise the Final Fantasy pages and project and that. Looking at the amount of pages there are, and then thinking about the amount of pages there actually could be (I do mean quality articles, not stubs) - there are a lot. To be honest, I think that deserves its own community, and I don't think we need to rely on WikiProject CVG all the time (I'm not saying they won't be any help..).
I think it's time we rearrange the front page of this Project and bring in useful things like the index, the to do list, and the date catalogue etc and make them more useful to those in the project.
Also, how do people feel about making a FF peer review? That way we could have a page where people could say "proof read this for me" or where me and DarkEvil could get another opinion on the Final Fantasy bestiary. And how about our own collaboration of the week/fortnight/month where we can all help each other? I'm useless at explaining things, but maybe you catch my drift. I'm also interested in finding out who's still actually involved in the project. Ideas? Comments? Flames? — CuaHL 14:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

  • O.K., I'm going to answer by the easiest question first which is who is still actually involved in the project. As you know, I am. Done for this one. I think the Final Fantasy bestiary page kind of pushed you for the FF peer review thing, because we did not get a fast answer for this one. The project already exists, why not create our peer review. As long as we agree we don't have biased opinions on Final Fantasy articles. I do think I could do a non-biased review. The real problem is realy, have we enough people, serious people? – DarkEvil 14:50, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • That's what I was wondering to be honest. I think the project would benefit a lot from a peer review section too, but it's if we have the people or not. — CuaHL 17:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Interesting ideas. I've been here since the begining of the project, if we want to make this into something more, by all means, if we have the man power to do it, then lets. I started a roll call to find out how many active memebers we have on this project. --ZeWrestler Talk 13:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roll Call

Ok, in responce to the topic above, the question has been asked how many of us are still active in this project? Now is the time to find out. sign this list if you still activly contribute to this project with # ~~~~ --ZeWrestler Talk 13:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  1. ZeWrestler Talk 13:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. DarkEvil 14:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC) working on Races of Final Fantasy
  3. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:39, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Derktar 04:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC).
  5. Hibana 04:09, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  6. — CuaHL 16:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC) (Not really around as much. Every so often I'll get chance to be back here so I'll be on then)
  7. PiccoloNamek 08:11, August 10, 2005 (UTC) Anything related to Final Fantasy X is totally my bag, baby.
  8. Lockeownzj00 19:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC) working on Races of Final Fantasy
  9. Alfakim | talk | contributions
  10. Warpedmirror 18:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  11. Seancdaug 02:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC) (Still around, but technically on vacation, so I'll be basically incommunicado for a while yet)
  12. Made2Fade --Made2Fade 10:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  13. Cswrye 23:12, August 18, 2005 (UTC) (I haven't been active for a while due to a bad Internet connection, but I hope to get back into it soon.)
  14. Darkstar949 21:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC) - I'm acting as a floater
  15. Amren (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC) I'm concentrating on improving FFXII right now.

[edit] Template:FFVI Places

This is just to inform you guys that I've put this old template for deletion since the List of Final Fantasy VI locations makes it unneeded and it is currently unused. – DarkEvil 05:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Final Fantasy VII locations

I mentioned this on the List of Final Fantasy VII locations talk page, but I figured I should draw some attention to it here as well. Here's what I said:

The word Midgar is actually cut off in the article because the top left hand picture covers it up. Any idea how to fix it without messing up the whole layout? --Vanguard 14:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Junon is also the same. I've noticied that the pictures move to fit all the words in properly from western continent and onwards. Since the whole layout scheme changes there, maybe it should be the same for eastern continent to? --Vanguard 15:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

To be honest I think it may be best to get rid of all those small pictures, what purpose do they actually serve other than messing up the whole formatting? --Vanguard 15:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Since there are a lot of images on that page, is it right to even have them there? If someone can figure out how to format the page properly without the image/word overlap in some sections, then that's ok by me. If not, how about removing most of the images and just having a few for the major locations? --Vanguard 15:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)