Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy/archive/22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Sticky: Roll call - April

Please sign your name below to show that you are around and still with the project.

  1. — Deckiller 06:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. — Melodia 11:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. — anomie I guess I'll stay, even though my only interest here at the moment is the NES version of Final Fantasy Anomie 12:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. — Bluerです。 なにか? 15:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC) — Maintenance of Final Fantasy XII and related articles, such as rewriting Ivalice.
  5. — Teggles 19:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. — RaCha'ar 00:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC) In theory, pushing FFXI to FA. Eventually. When I have time.
  7. —ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 16:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Working slowly but surely on Characters of Final Fantasy IX, I'm looking at GA soon.
  8. — PresN 05:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. — wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. - Just back to fix up the apparent FFVI-related problems. I won't let my prized work die on me. --Sir Crazyswordsman 04:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Sjones23 20:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. — Mohamed 14:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. — Axem Titanium 14:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. — Dr. Gavin 18:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. — Judgesurreal777 02:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC) I'm here, working on the Mana series at Square-Enix project, but also working on Crystal Chronicles, Final Fantasy Chronicles, and getting Chrono Trigger series as a featured topic! On the Final Fantasy front, if anyone want help, let me know. Judgesurreal777 02:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. — ShiraShira 23:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Still buffing the edges on the FFTA and FFXII articles, though admittedly most of the edits have been done logged-off from a shared computer. Waiting for more To Do's that I can do.
  17. — Renmiri 23:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC) still here, though very little action

[edit] Final Fantasy XII box shot

I recently changed the Box art for Final Fantasy XII (Image:Ffxiicase.jpg) to the original Japanese version since the main text on the Japanese box was in English, so I thought the original should be used.

It was reverted with the reasoning: "Please note that the North American cover is used in place of the original Japanese cover because this is the English language Wikipedia and readers would be more familiar with cover art released in English-speaking countries."

I believe that the original Japanese box should be used because:

  • This is the original box.
  • The main text on the Japanese box is in English.
  • The American cover art is used ONLY in America, Europe and other regions also use the Japanese art, not the American.
  • The majority of the world is not American.

Rather than get into an edit war, I decided to post here to get your opinions. I have also posted this on the Video Games Wikiproject. Mattyatty 09:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't want to make a stance on this, let's compare the figures:
  • There are 251 million English speakers in United States
  • There are 25.24 million English speakers in Canada
  • There are 229.85 million English speakers in Europe.
  • There are 17.35 million English speakers in Australia.
  • There are 3.67 million English speakers in New Zealand.
That means you have 276.24 million English speakers in the NTSC-U/C region and 250.87 million English speakers in the PAL region. Which would be the better choice for an English encyclopedia? --Teggles 23:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I think your post just prooves that it's NOT cut and dry. It's close enough that one doesn't have a clear trump over the other. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 00:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Plus, NA was split between two covers. I think using the cover that matches the original release is a good idea, since it was used in English-speaking regions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, as a notable mention, Yoshitaka Amano, the series' image illustrator since FFVII, designed its title logo as with all of the previous logos for the FF series. --Sjones23 20:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Since this doesn't seem to definitively go either way, I'm inclined to go with the NTSC-U/C cover art simply because it's more colorful and features characters on it (personal preference, really, but the aesthetic concern exists). Judging by strict numbers, the US and Canada still have a slight advantage as well (unless each country in Europe gets its own electoral vote, ^_^). Also, all of the other FF articles currently have the NTSC-U/C cover. Anyone else care to discuss? Axem Titanium 21:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
You might as well change the box arts for FFVII through XI, because of that "excellent" logic of yours, Mattyatty. NeoSeifer

Does no-one else think that the cover art used on PAL versions of Final Fantasy is much better looking that that of all other counterparts? It is a personal preference but I think the simple design is great, and all the Final Fantasy's have similar cases, wonderful. Gavin Scott 22:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

All of the other FF articles use the NA cover? I beg to differ. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't care too much either way. Since the divide between the number of English speakers in each region is so close, I think it should come down to a judgment call based on what would look better to readers unfamiliar to the series (ie, whichever one is more eye-catching to someone who sees it on the main page). Axem Titanium 03:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
That wouldn't help either, since it seems to be a cultural thing which one is the one deemed more eye-catching, otherwise only one version would be used to sell the game. To me the Japan/EU one is much more eye-catching than the brightly coloured one, since many games are brightly coloured but few use such a simple design, those the simple one stands out more to me. --84.184.122.72 11:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh, the North American version, unfortunately, doesn't have Amano's artwork depicting a judge. The Japanese, European and Australian versions do, so that is why the NA version was only used in NA itself. Just a heads up. I really like Amano's artwork for the title logo designs and image illustrations. It suits this article similar to the previous games. All of the Japanese and PAL games for the Playstation and Playstation 2 from FFVII onward have Amano's designs on a simple, plain white background. Sjones23 19:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually PAL version of FFVI also has that similar design. See: [1] --Mika1h 19:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

So, what's the consensus? Kariteh 16:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh.... Man in Black says the Japanese cover is really necessary. That discussion is already dealt with. Sjones23 21:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, I think the Japanese cover for FFs are totally the best. Any more things that you can throw in? It would be greatly appreciated. Sjones23 20:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the consensus about the other covers? Should the FFVII box shot be replaced for instance? Kariteh 08:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You're talking about that boxshot in all the infoboxes, right? An idea: why don't we just use the games logos to be placed in the infobox, instead of discussing what game cover to put where. That'll settle things. Bluerです。 なにか? 18:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
It could be a perfect idea, Bluerfn. Sjones23 20:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please officialize the consensus or something because there are already some conflits on the FFX-2 page over using the NA or the PAL boxart. Kariteh 12:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a consensus exists. If it were up to me, I'd use the more colorful cover, so long as it includes Amano's logo on it (thus, for X-2, I'd choose NTSC-U/C but for XII, I'd choose NTSC-J). Axem Titanium 16:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, and lets remember that this is just a personal opinion. I think the whole NTSC-U/C box art is A not as eye catching because there seems to be little focus and B the NTSC-J/PAL style looks better apart from that there is also the fact that the Japanese art is the original. but i thing the logos idea is good but everything else, I believe, uses the box art —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squall1991 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 16 April 2007

Also, another thing to note, that in the logos, Amano's signature ("Y. Amano"), is in the logo that he designs for every single game. Sjones23 00:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Friends, I propose we use the logo of the game instead of using box art to put into the infobox. It has the English lettering and the Japanese kana, a unity! The logo is also by right the identity of the game, whether in Japan, or in America or anywhere in the world; NTSC-J, NTSC-U, PAL be damned. What about it, support or oppose? — Bluerです。 なにか? 06:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's probably the best solution. We still have to decide which versions to use though; the Japanese and English logos are not the same. The English logos precisely don't have the kana written at the bottom right corner. And if we want to go technical, the English logos sometimes have a (r) instead of a TM (see examples here). The most notable discrepancy is with Final Fantasy XII; interestingly enough, the Judge on the Japanese box shot appears relatively small and a little blurred at the bottom, while he is bigger and is not blurred on the PAL box shot. I don't have pictures to link, but if you can compare, look at the Judge's right foot, it's above the logo on the PAL box shot, and blurred and below the word "FINAL" on the Japanese box shot. There is a similar discrepancy with the Final Fantasy Tactics Advance English logo too. Kariteh 08:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: Compare the Japanese and the PAL box shots. Interestingly, the PAL one seems to be closer to the original logo designed by Amano, except there's no kana and the PS2 banner cuts a bit of the drawing at the top. Kariteh 08:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest using the one with the kana, reason: a unity! BTW, your examples seems to border on the resolution. The blur may be caused by it being of smaller resolution, since the other logo was sharper. — Bluerです。 なにか? 08:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The Judge still seems quite differently located though. His feet are hidden by the logo instead of being above. Kariteh 17:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how the logo is any better. If anything, it makes the infobox look really empty since they're so small compared to the dimensions of the box art (except FFXII's logo). Axem Titanium 20:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Completing the Final Fantasy series featured topic

Hey everybody. Right now, the main Final Fantasy games are include in the Final Fantasy featured topic. All of the main "secondary games" are at least GA status as well, except for Crystal Chronicles, Final Fantasy Tactics, and Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. If we can get those to at least GA, then we'll pretty much have a 100 percent complete featured topic; we can then go in and renominate the secondary titles for inclusion. What do you all think of taking a break from the FA pushes to get these three articles to GA? — Deckiller 00:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've finished everything on my "To do before returning to wiki-break" list so I'll be spending a little less time on Wikipedia now (also, AP exams are coming up). On the other hand, I still want to help, although FFTA is the only one of the three that I've played. I'll be around to do what I can then. Axem Titanium 00:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Myself did not play FFCC so I haven't exactly the experience to help, though I'll gladly do the Tactics and Tactics Advance. I'll put it up on my roster, though maybe my contribution will be sporadic, since I'm on industrial training right now. Sporadic, but a giant cloud of spores, I hope :D Bluerです。 なにか? 02:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I've played Tactics and I have the manual, although I don't really remember the story. Fortunately, Tactics should be a relatively easy task, since there isn't much to write about in terms of story. Maybe a paragraph for setting, para for characters, and one para per story act? — Deckiller 03:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are these not considered for inclusion in the topic?

Kariteh 14:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

They will be once they are uniformly improved to meet GA/FA criteria. When that happens, the criteria for inclusion will be expanded (see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Nomination procedure). See this failing FT supplement nom because it doesn't have well-defined inclusion criteria. Axem Titanium 14:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Character page clarify

This is about FF character articles. FFVIII had only two separate character article - Squall and Rinoa. Other titles such as FFXII had separate articles for all six playable characters, same goes for FFVII. What could be the consensus here? Should there be a separate character article for the main playable characters, or should we just compile them in a "Characters of Final Fantasy xx" article? I noticed Terra Branford's page was nominated for deletion years ago, though there was no consensus. Thoughts? Bluerです。 なにか? 02:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Best case scenario, the "Characters of foo" article would be the redirect point for as many individual character articles as possible. Separate articles are only for the absolutely most important characters who absolutely would not fit into the main article (ie, has a lot of design information and the like to warrant an individual article). FFVIII is an example of the process working. Squall and Rinoa are the only ones with enough separate info to get their own articles while the others were merged. At this point, all other character articles must strive to emulate what has been done to FFVIII's. Axem Titanium 03:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's a good idea. If you can get at least a full paragraph of design information, a full paragraph of "other appearences", and a full paragraph of "cultural impact/reception and criticism", then it can probably warrent its own article, complemented with a 5 paragraph in-universe summary. That's just an example. — Deckiller 03:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a pretty good example. In the case of FFXII, with Balthier appearing in two more spinoffs, and the rest returning in Revenant Wings, we could conserve their pages, though I'm not so sure about Vayne's (I created that to remove the excessive info on the character page). Bluerです。 なにか? 12:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Another example is my work in Characters of Final Fantasy IX where NOONE has a seperate article, because there is currently no information beyond in universe summary. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 15:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
What should we do with the FFXII character articles? I was thinking of redirecting the separate character pages to the main character page, since the information in those nine separate pages do seem to house a lot of in-universe statements, not much out-of-universe perspective. Bluerです。 なにか? 15:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Beyond in-universe info and other appearances, none of them have any real substance. Merge 'em all says I! --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 15:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree! These profiles relate to only the main characters, I suggest that they stay as they are, until more Revenant Wing info is presented. Fractyl
I'll merge them all then. Thanks for the insight. Bluerです。 なにか? 13:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
and why shouldn't IX's characters have articles? Kuja has enough information for the game, and I don't beliece that it is necessary to have a full paragraph for design, other appearances, and reception and criticism. Cloud himself doesn't have a reception and criticism paragraph, and the design paragraph mention Cloud's actual design briefly. And if that's the case, then why was Vivi's article deleted? In my opinion, seperate characters should have seperate articles, if I am someone who wants to know all the info available about a character like Kuja for an example, I expect to find an article named Kuja to read, not an article about all the characters in IX. Mohamed 14:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
You won't lose any information by seeing it in a characters page. You simply have it grouped together in a more manageable form. It's not possible to have an article on every character (otherwise we'd have one for each Biggs and Wedge in every game, etc.) so putting them all into one page is good for both organization and synthesis of information. See WP:WAF for related policies. Axem Titanium 14:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I had redirected them initially, but then I reverted that (silly me) so the merging can be discussed first, seeking consensus. I am up for FFXII separate character article to be redirected to the main character article. My reasons are for its lack of out-of-universe info such as that could be seen in Squall Leonhart and Rinoa, plus even with Revenant Wings, the info would be more susceptible to be put in the Final Fantasy Wiki. I know I am not being bold enough for this sorry. Bluerです。 なにか? 16:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia articles must be from an out of universe perspective, which is easier to attain as a complete, merged article. Articles must stand on their own with out of universe information; otherwise, the information belongs as part of a whole. The thing is, Cloud has potential for that information, and has appeared in numerous other works. — Deckiller 22:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Query: Esper section in FFXII main character page. Move article to someplace else, or stay, or remove altogether? I'm asking since all other character pages do not house their summon beast information. I am up to remove them, put them in a summon page or something. Bluerです。 なにか? 01:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't mean that every single character should have a separate article. What I am talking about is making a separate article for each main character. List of characters should contain the basic info, and then an article for each character that contains all the information needed. Take for an example the character page of FFIX, the article is very big and contains many info about many things, to the point that you would feel it is compressed. Characters in Final Fantasy generally have a long history that cannot be described in 3 or 4 paragraphs, sometimes, separate articles are needed . Mohamed 06:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Out of universe perspective is impossible sometimes yet merging is not possible. See for instance Gilgamesh, Cid, Chaos, Biggs & Wedge. Kariteh 11:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
They are exceptions, they appear in more than four games. And most character articles state in-universe info that sometimes border the Manual of Style on writing about fiction, better made for a fansite. Besides, we aim for character pages to look a bit more like Squall's or Rinoa's: there are development interviews and critics reviews beside the usual story riffraff. That doesn't seem to happen with most other character pages. I agree with NicholaiDaedalus, merged it all. Bluerです。 なにか? 13:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Chaos is debatable... Kariteh 13:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a fan site, yet it is an instant reference for anyone who surfs the net and wants to know about anything in time. Plus, when it comes to the reception/criticism topic, Cloud, Sephiroth, Yuffie, and even Squall don't have a reception/criticism paragraph. And at least to get an anonymous contributor to write one for any of these characters, a character page should be available to write that. This way, anyone outside the final fantasy project will not find a place to add info about any character. The main goal for this project is to standardize the articles by making a manual of style, which is apparently not evident; not all the articles stick to a main style. Final Fantasy articles have started to take an unusual turn and appear as they have all been edited by a specific number of people only. And if other appearances are a must, then why Vivi doesn’t has a separate article? He does appear in Kingdom Hearts... Mohamed 15:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a process. At this point, only the FFVIII characters page has been featured and had its beautification process completed. With any change (such as this standardization of character pages), there will be a period of transition in which some parts do not yet reflect the desired outcome. To address your concerns about why this is necessary, some characters are not notable enough outside of their specific game so to prevent the articles from being deleted, they are merged to the characters page. This does not limit an anon editor's ability to add information in any way either. To take Vivi as an example, he has appeared in two games but his KH appearance is rather minimal. Unless a lot of development and reception information can be found about him, it would be wise to merge his article into the characters page where his plot purpose and what little dev info that exists can be summarized. Regardless of how much you love any specific character, there is only so much that can be written about him/her using reliable sources to back it up (and also avoid original research). Axem Titanium 15:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
What about Characters of Final Fantasy? Should we go one step further and outright merge it with the Final Fantasy (video game) article since it's short and there is no out-of-universe information? Kariteh 15:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Then what about Rinoa, she doesn't appear in any game except VIII, yet she has her own article. As I can see, this is because of the "reception/criticism" paragraph, that apparently makes any character has a separate article. And about Vivi, who has an appearance in KH, and is supposed to be the most popular character in IX, and has been redesigned in KH by Tetsuya Nomura, I believe he has more notable info about him than Rinoa's. And with enough searching, I believe reliable sources could be found, such as guides, references that are put here by people from the project itself. And another thing, I believe in neutrality, so don't worry, I don't act based on which character I love. And if the case is about the character being notable, then what makes Squall or Rinoa more notable than all the other characters in all the other installments. And if that is the case, then why every character in FFIV has a separate character article (which is something that I don't mind, by the way)?Give at least the protagonist and the antagonist for each installment a separate article. You need sources to do so, fine, put them on the to do list, what is the problem with that?Mohamed 17:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The answer is simple: we've only begun working on the character sections, especially with a few more games to get to GA. Squall doesn't have a reception and criticism paragraph yet because I only started it a few weeks ago with Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, which made me realize it was possible. If a character is the main character (or one of the main characters) with plenty of out of universe coverage, then it's probably not necessary that they have appeared in other works. But they still need that out of universe perspective to make the article complete and acceptable. — Deckiller 18:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
But if only one or two characters have out-of-universe information, even if it's a lot of information, couldn't it go in the Characters of FF# article? It would improve the main article even more. Kariteh 22:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Definitely, unless the page is already extremely long or the character is one of the two leads (sort of like Squall and Rinoa). — Deckiller 23:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there anything in Characters of Final Fantasy that's actually worth merging? It looks like someone just decided they wanted a "Characters of Final Fantasy" article and filled it with whatever they could think of. What is the point of listing a character whose only line is "I am Arylon, the Dancer!"? Anomie 23:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
No point at all; that article should be redirected. — Deckiller 23:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to where in the Final Fantasy (video game) article? Kariteh 12:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Same as List of Final Fantasy locations, probably, with a similar wikia link. If no one objects and no one beats me to it, I'll probably make the redirect later on today.
Ok, done. BTW, should we get rid of Final fantasy characters (note bad capitalization) and Final Fantasy characters? We'll still have 3 other redirects. And what should be done with List of characters in the Final Fantasy series? Anomie 00:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention Chaos (Final Fantasy). Kariteh 10:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I just noticed something: the category is Final Fantasy I rather than Final Fantasy (video game). Is there a reason for this? Anomie 12:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
These are the goals of the project. And the both of them do not conclude the idea of deleting articles to improve the quality of the material about Final Fantasy in Wikipedia. The first one is to make a major style for the articles, and the second one is to achieve a good article or featured article status. People from the outside do not need the articles to be featured in order to read them, if they are featured or good, well fine, but they have to be there (and that is about the templates as well), which means that I don't find any reason for not including FFXIII, The Spirits Within, and Unlimited to the template. It seems like all the articles for Final Fantasy have been minimized pretty badly that right now, I cannot find information about what I want here, I should search in order to find the info that was already present, but yet got deleted because it didn't contain "enough out of universe information, and of course, the magical, reception/criticism paragraph, which apparently if I find it for a character like Impresario, an article could be eaily made for him. The goals of this project is to reach a comprehensive guide, from an encyclopedic point of view, about Final Fantasy and its related articles, which has nothing to do with that merge craze for the whole series. Another thing, if it is that easy to come up with out of universe information about Squall, then why isn't it there, and why can't you leave a chance for people from outside Wikipedia to add "out of universe" information about other characters? Mohamed 11:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been too busy to update the Squall page, but that is in the near future (besides, most of Squall's reception/criticism is already around in other places on Wikipedia, so it won't take long to consolidate). And you said it yourself: from an encyclopedic point of view. Having a two paragraph in-universe article about Impresario isn't something you'd find in a general use encyclopedia. Also, people are most certainly allowed to add information to "characters of..." pages; if the section becomes substantial enough and the topic is notable enough for its own (preferably potential GA-level or higher) article, then a split is fine. — Deckiller 13:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you're missing the fact that merging and redirecting to a general article does not limit anyone's ability to contribute information. In fact, if it's all in the same place, then people would be able to tell if they're not being redundant to info already there. Try clicking on this link: Quistis Trepe. It will redirect you to her section in the FFVIII characters page using magical wiki-technology. There you will find everything we have on Quistis at the current time and you can edit it to add more stuff if you like. In this case, I don't think too much else exists to add. On the other hand, there are no set-in-stone criteria for giving a certain character a separate article. Some factors which might make it more likely are: 1) being a main character; 2) having a large reception/development section; 3) having appearances in other games; 4) having a major and/or recurring role in the plot that somehow can't be covered in the game article. Bottom line: if only three or four solid paragraphs can be written about a character, including reception/dev, then a separate article is not necessary. Axem Titanium 19:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This being said and as a side note, I would like to remind people that one should always check for double redirects after a merging has been done. A hell lot of articles have broken redirects that don't lead to where they should. I've fixed several that I found a few hours ago. Kariteh 20:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy I-II

Melodia suggested the merging of FFI&II:DS with FF Origins. Similarly, FF Origins could also be merged with FFI-II (the NES cartridge). I think it's a good idea, it will help improve the information like with the Characters articles. Apart from 3 lines of critical reactions in FFI&II:DS, these articles are just some lists of changes. They would be better as a merged article, it would illustrate the evolution of these ports better than those separate and trivial lists. Kariteh 08:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I completed the merging. Still needs a little cleaning for better flow and cutting of trivial info, but I think it came out nice. Much better than the 3 separate articles. Kariteh 18:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
That does read better. When you're cleaning it up, there may be some useful information to take from the appropriate sections of Final Fantasy (video game) too. I took care of the 17 redirects for you (2 formerly to Origins and 15 formerly to DoS). Anomie 21:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah thank for taking care of the redirects. I'm used to fix them for the Characters articles but forgot to do it this time. Kariteh 12:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Proposal to improve the Final Fantasy I and II topic:
Merge character and location articles in the main game articles,
Combine the 3 music articles into Music of Final Fantasy I and II,
Improve the topic to Featured status! Judgesurreal777 03:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:FF jobs

Template:FF jobs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Kariteh 10:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bold Proposal affecting multiple articles

There is a problem at Talk:Races of Final Fantasy#Ordering by world?. We've noticed that Races of Final Fantasy has mostly species that belong to specific games or specific continuities (i.e. Ivalice), and only three races that appear in multiple continuities: Dwarf, Moogle and Human/Hume. I have devised a bold proposal that affects multiple articles, so I'm posting it here for some discussion and consensus.

  1. Move all of the Races that belong to specific continuities into their respective articles in a Races section. Examples: move Viera, Bangaa, etc. into a races section in the Ivalice article; move the unnamed Cosmo Canyon Race into a races section in the Final Fantasy VII article; etc. All that remains is Moogle, Human, and Dwarf.
  2. Human really adds nothing to the article since they are extremely generic, it would rather be more relevant to have the differences listed in the respective game/continuity articles, so we might as well eliminate the human section. Human does have a "Other Human-like races" section, but most of those can go into respective articles as well. The only human-like races that go into multiple game/continuities are Ancients and Summoners, and those are only in two games each and are not the same as each other, so they as well can go into their respective games/continuities.
  3. After human is eliminated the only sections remaining are Dwarves and Moogles. Dwarves can easily be mentioned in their respective games, since they are different in every incarnation, from the tolkeinish dwarves in FFI to the goblin-like dwarves in FFIX. All that remains is moogles.
  4. This is where my proposal becomes bold and controversial. All that is left in the article after all of these changes is Moogles. So I propose we create a Common themes of Final Fantasy article and include all of the details in Final Fantasy#Common themes and motifs, while rewriting the existing section in Final Fantasy to be a summarized paragraph with a link to the main article. In this Common themes of Final Fantasy article we create a new section called "Mascots of Final Fantasy" and include both Chocobos and Moogles. The Creatures of Final Fantasy#Chocobo section can be summarized into a paragraph or two and contain a link to Common themes of Final Fantasy#Mascots. Or the existing Chocobo section gets deleted and the article is renamed to Monsters of Final Fantasy, either way is fine with me. Meanwhile all the information in Races of Final Fantasy#Moogle gets moved to Common themes of Final Fantasy#Mascots and all moogle links are redirected there.
  5. The now-empty Races of Final Fantasy article can now be deleted entirely.

Discuss. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 02:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC

I agree up to a point — if an article can or does have a world article (out of universe information necessary for a world article to be made of course), then the information goes there instead of the article. Those that cannot, do not, and eventually will not have setting/location/world articles, the info should just be added to the setting section in paragraph form (if not already there). Also, there should be no deleting involved; the article must be redirected to preserve edit history per the GFDL. Other than that, I agree; a common themes article would really help consolidate information. The problem will be avoiding OR and whatnot. Speaking of this, the Gameplay of Final Fantasy consolidation has been put off more because of IRL issues. — Deckiller 02:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure that an entirely separate article is necessary to discuss something like "common themes". If that's not what a series article is for, I don't know what is. Anyway, if you can consolidate some information and, heavens forbid, actually improve the series article while doing it, by all means, go ahead. You can redirect the Races article to the series article then. I suppose in this case, we won't be able to have a standardized "World of" article for each game (which screams against my OCD-ness), but that isn't too great a loss. Whatever, the proposal sounds pretty good. Axem Titanium 02:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
This would work for my desires, too. I also agree with Axem that it might be better to have the common themes section on the Series Article. Remember to mention Moombas, Tonberries, Pupus, and Onion Knights while you're at it. Cait Sith's, maybe.
Or just have have Moogle as it's own article.KrytenKoro 04:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with everything said too. I think Common themes would be better as a section of the series article, but I guess it will depends on its length. In any case, this will probably make the out of universe perspective easier to attain (with a "Toys and plushes" subsection or something). This will also assert the existence of the Chocobo series better than if it were in the Creatures of FF article. And who knows, maybe Cid, Gilgamesh, Biggs and Wedge will ultimately be merged in that Common themes section or article? Kariteh 10:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Cid, Gilgamesh, Biggs and Wedge would already be included in that article as one of the already existing Themes is "Character Names". Moogle, unfortunately, doesn't have enough out-of-universe info to support a seperate article, it has to go in something else. That's exactly why it was merged in the first place. Whether individual races goes into a "World of ___" article or under the "Setting" section of the Main Game article really doesn't matter, both accomplish the same goal. A seperate "Common Themes" article may not be needed. We can start building it as a seperate article, and if we can't make it comprehensive enough, we can merge it into the "Final Fantasy" article later down the road. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 15:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have created User:NicholaiDaedalus/Common Themes of Final Fantasy as a proposal for Common themes of Final Fantasy. In it I have relocated all of the information from Final Fantasy#Common themes and motifs and have added a section for Mascots including Chocobo and Moogle. My draft page also includes a proposed merge of Crystals (Final Fantasy) (a merge that really needs to happen anyway). This article is clearly large enough and comprehensive enough to warrant a seperate article, if anything it could use trimming! What do you guys think? --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 19:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think it would be best if we could fold it back into the series article. Namely, if we can trim it enough to fold it back into the series article. I see a lot of issues with original research since it must be observed by an outside source in order to be considered a "common theme". At any rate, please attempt to keep it in the series article before you split it. Otherwise, what would be left in the series article? Axem Titanium 21:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps at some point, but for now, I think we should take it a step at a time. — Deckiller 05:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Common themes of Final Fantasy article created. Of course, many tweaks are expected. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 21:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I somewhat disagree with how the races are being handled. Merge the info into the setting sections (not as a seperate section) and polish/source it, please; the iffy writing and lack of references taints the articles when the merges are just done directly. — Deckiller 16:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Adventure Log

An article that you have been involved in editing, Adventure Log, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adventure Log. Thank you. Kariteh 19:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No cloud, no squall shall hinder us

What should be done with these two articles? I'm a little dumbfounded.

  • Final Fantasy VIII-2
  • Final Fantasy VII (PS3) Kariteh 11:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I deleted them per CSD A1, A7 (not enough context to even satisfy a stub; not necessarily a realiable source, etc etc). — Deckiller 12:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Fantasy Reborn

An article that you have been involved in editing, Fantasy Reborn, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fantasy Reborn. Thank you. Kariteh 11:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] List of jobs in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance

Resolved.

Why was this merged after only three days with the merge tag up? Especially without anyone waiting for the major contributor to the article (that would be me) to possibly offer some argument about it? I see that User:NicholaiDaedalus removed the merge tag two days after it was added, and the day afterwards it was already redirected. I've been out of town and not checking Wiki and am really not happy that I wasn't given any opportunity to discuss this before it was merged - and that there doesn't appear to have been any discussion anywhere about it, certainly not on the job's page and not here either (which is exactly what Daedalus pointed out when he removed the merge tag). This is not a good precedent to set for the project. I know we're on a major deletionist/mergist bent but people should at least be afforded the opportunity to argue against it. -RaCha'ar 03:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As the user who originally uploaded all the images for that article, I find I'm impelled to agree. There is now no evidence anywhere- not even a note- indicating the sheer variety of jobs in the game. That's a far cry from even the extremely compact (though admittedly in-progress) List of Jobs page. WikiProjects are about communication- where's the communication here? ShiraShira 03:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, didn't realize it was up for that small amount of time. I reverted the redirect for now. Judgesurreal777 03:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, I would like to say that I have folded several other articles that appeared to be totally lacking in sources into their main articles to help with the process of improving/merging articles to get all of them to GA status. If there is an issue with any of the others, let me know, otherwise I merged a few that did not seem controversial or needing a debate. Judgesurreal777 04:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I actually think this is a really good idea. It allows us to cover our asses while we slowly work on each topic, because the info is there, but hidden by the redirect. That way, we can restore it when we are ready to source and rewrite. — Deckiller 05:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not disagree with this if things actually will be restored once they have a chance to be rewritten. My issue is that this article was tagged as unsourced after Daedalus removed the initial merge tag, then merged before any attempt could be made at sourcing it (although for the record, I'm not blaming Judgesurreal for this, since he's doing similar work elsewhere). I'm inclined to agree with ShiraShira about the lack of communication. -RaCha'ar 12:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A few editors expressed concerns that the so-called List is reading more like a game guide than most. I don't think that's healthy for the List to be in Wikipedia. I have no idea how to deal with this one, but I pray someone find it or see the List disappear. Bluerです。 なにか? 05:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

May I ask where this discussion took place? It wasn't on the talk page for that article, nor was it at the FFTA article, nor here that I can see, which makes it difficult for anyone else to take part in those discussions. For the record, the page existed in the first place as a consolidation of separate articles that had been created for every separate job in the game. -RaCha'ar 12:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's a short discussion at the List of jobs in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance talk page Bluerです。 なにか? 12:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, my fault - that wasn't there when I looked at this last night, and I hadn't looked at it again this morning when I posted my previous comment. The discussion took place after the merge, which is the crux of my problem with this entire thing. Again, I know the trend of the project is towards merging and deleting but I disagree with a policy of shooting first and asking questions later. I'll direct myself to this discussion posthaste. -RaCha'ar 18:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Are we all set to redirect the article? A link to the Final Fantasy Wikia's detailed FFTA character pages is provides on the main page, and most agree that it's unnecessary. And since we're planning a GA push on the TA article, we won't have to worry about people adding it into the main article. — Deckiller 23:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Current activities

Resolved.

Sorry, can't take the suspense, is anyone working on anything at the moment? Wondering if another FA or GA push is happening soon. Judgesurreal777 23:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I should be working on User:Deckiller/World of Final Fantasy VIII, which I guess will be made a article when it's up to GA-quality. --Teggles 04:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The Wikiproject's seem slow lately, I noticed. I'd be working on GA-ing FFTactics page. — Bluerです。 なにか? 06:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
End-of-semester workload. — Deckiller 07:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I've gotten distracted with some tasks and cleanup, but I'm still trying to work on sourcing Characters of Final Fantasy IX. Once we get the article properly sourced, I see no reason we couldn't get it to GA status. The biggest task that's distracted me has been Common themes of Final Fantasy which currently has no cohesive writing style, and is in much need of refining. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 15:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Sourcing Minigames of Final Fantasy and maybe pushing to GA, except that like Deckiller said, it's the end of the semester and I'm not sure when I'm going to have time to do anything on it. --PresN 18:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
AP EXAMS, NO PUEDO TRABAJAR. Seriously. That and English class is killer. Axem Titanium 21:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I still don't understand why this project seems very pro-Nomura. I'm the only one who seems (or seemed, because I really have lost touch with this place) willing to find encyclopedic non-Nomura stuff and add it. --Sir Crazyswordsman 03:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not pro-Nomura :D. — Bluerです。 なにか? 03:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
... Is it a joke? If you think Nomura-related articles get more attention, it's because there are, apparently, few people in the project who are interested by the non-Nomura FFs; it's not because there are "pro-Nomuras" who reject the others. It's just a question of number of people. It's the same thing with the Square Enix project: it's not pro-Final Fantasy, but it simply has more people in it interested in the FF series than people interested by Front Mission, Chrono, Parasite Eve (a Nomura series!), etc. Kariteh 09:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here

[edit] External Link

Resolved.

Hello, I have an external link here pasted on FFT's page : FFT: Online an MMOG based on the Final Fantasy Tactics world of Ivalice]. Is this linkspam? Coincidentally, what links should and should not be allowed in the External Link section? — Bluerです。 なにか? 16:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How popular is it? Is it a "major player" similar to Caves of Narshe? If not it probably shouldn't be added. And also, because it's Wikipedia's (stupid) policy that we have to kiss the RIAA and MPAA's asses, and they don't want us linking to copyrighted things, we can't do that either (a policy which I oppose and 100% disagree with). --Sir Crazyswordsman 08:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone already removed it (and the GFaqs link to boot) under the claim of linkspam... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Final Fantasy (series) article

I propose a change to the Final Fantasy (series) article. Right before I made some edits to the first paragraph, the article was entirely focused on the video game series. However, Final Fantasy is a brand. The focus can remain on video games, but the article should be about the BRAND, video games simply being a large part of that. What does anyone think about this? --Teggles 10:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, I think we should tackle the series article last; that way, we have plenty of training and already discovered references, and know how it can be organized based on the articles already established. — Deckiller 11:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it a franchise rather? Also, we should be totally coherent and move the article to Final Fantasy (brand) or Final Fantasy (franchise). Kariteh 14:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The difference is merely semantic. "Series" describes it just as well and also fits with the other articles of similar type. Axem Titanium 19:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I second Axem's comment. Brand/Franchise/Series all describe FF just fine, and Series matches the format of other video game articles. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 19:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The second part of the argument is quite irrelevant. Someone once taught me that "Just a note, what goes on in one article has absolutely no bearing in another article. There is no rule saying that every article should be treated exactly the same." - Kariteh 20:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes and no. Each article should be considered seperate from others, but that doesn't mean that you ignore common practices and precedents. The Legend of Zelda (series) is a perfect example since it's been released as cartoons and comics as well as games. The video game articles should conform to the same naming practices. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 20:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this is a sign that we need to update video game franchise naming conventions as a whole. I tend to agree that "franchise" is more clear than "series". — Deckiller 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Zelda is a whole different case. Everything released with the name "Zelda" has been strongly related to the video games, but with Final Fantasy we have completely unique things like Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within and Final Fantasy: Unlimited. I don't think remaining with "series" is a good idea. The word implies that each iteration of Final Fantasy is in succession - but as we know, there are things like spinoffs, side-series and completely unrelated movies. "Series" would pertain only to I - XIII.--Teggles 02:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)