Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy/archive/29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

January 2008 Roll Call

Please sign your name below if you are still with the project

  1. Greg Jones II 19:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC) I'm back, yay!
  4. Anomie⚔ 05:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Nanten (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. PresN (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Elaich talk 20:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. — Deckiller 10:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Gavin Scott (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So I walk back in to say "hi" and...

All the pics from Characters of Final Fantasy VI are gone! They ALL had fair use rationales! And there are pics of all the characters from the Sony games, but not the Nintendo ones! Why the bias? --Sir Crazyswordsman 04:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal was done by Betacommand in September, apparently as part of a "delete every single fair-use image from anything that looks like a list" overreaction, and no one seems to have contested it at the time so the removal stood. Anomie⚔ 05:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I for one would support a readdition of images if you believe this was done inappropriately, we are allowed to have fair use images. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe not images for every character, but an image for each of the main characters, yes. Terra, Locke, Celes, and Kefka all deserve fair use images at the very least (and Square really doesn't care anyway; if they did they'd be sending C&D letters to fansites all across the internet). I'd even be happy with a montage of the character arts created by one of us. But a list of characters without identification images? That's borderline Orwellian. --Sir Crazyswordsman 17:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Heh, no bias against VI, CSM, take a gander at Characters of Final Fantasy X and X-2. The bias is against A Man in Black enemies. Such a pity wikipedia is turning into a bully's playground! Renmiri (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The Characters of FFXII also had its images deleted. Ah, but I suppose I won't miss it much now that it's all safely in the FFWiki. FFWiki, where there are no Men in Blacks! Hehe. *watches out for WP:NPA nazis* — Blue。 16:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Whoa, Ren! I didn't know you had the chutzpah to make a federal case about our little family squabbles. That only leads to trouble. The best way to deal with the Men in Black is to ignore them. --Sir Crazyswordsman 17:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I moved on to FF Wiki and kept quiet too at first. But way too many of us stayed silent and now the deletionists are all over Wikipedia :( I now wish I had fought more, before they got the entire game and fiction area littered with their tags :( To quote someone I respect a lot, All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing Renmiri (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
(Also posted at WT:VG) You need to fucking fight this. There is a whole league of difference between List of The Simpsons episodes, and Characters of Final Fantasy VI. The latter should have images, it is a collection of smaller articles collated together as a whole for easier navigation and readability. I've just seen the arguments at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Fair_use_war_being_lost and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. I'm not buying the position of User:Hammersoft at all, who has shifted from wanting to block all non free images in anything that considers pretending to be a list to his new position of embracing fair use images absolutely everywhere. It's absolutely facetious, and ridiculously patronising that he's even pretending that his stance is sincere. He is a WP:SPA, and more than likely a sockpuppet. - hahnchen 01:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The BS has gotten to me as well—hence my indefinite wikibreak. Apparently, compromisers are overrun by both sides on Wikipedia. — Deckiller 09:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I know what you guys mean, the Yu-Gi-Oh! pages have suffered this same type of thing. At one time, every character page had an image, now none of them do. The problem is that because FF and Yugioh images are both likely to be non-free, you need damn-good free use rationale to stop Mr. Bot from deleting it, and even then it happens. One Yugioh page in particular has the images of three cards on it, all with the same free-use rationales. One of those images was deleted for no free-use rationale, the other two were not, even after I appealed to the bot's creator. What is that?
The problem is, unless a frequent editor is well versed in policy regarding images, then when Mr. Bot slaps a tag on an image, there's nothing you can do. Back when all the Yugioh images got deleted, I simply didn't understand why, and considering that no free-use images for the show exist, I still don't. To paraphrase it says on one of my user boxes: "I respect copyright, but sometimes its a pain in the ass". The Clawed One (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes I think this is another reason we have the Wikia. No major copyright hassle there, just the honor system that all fansites enjoy. Some of the editors over at FFW adopted Wikias for KH and for general Squaresoft stuff (I wrote an article for the latter, and when I finish writing my FFX walkthrough I'll go over there and work on Chrono). --Sir Crazyswordsman 00:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings

Tell me, good sirs, how would one go about joining your project? I'm a member of the FF Wiki but never noticed there was a Wikiproject about FF here. So how 'bout it? The Clawed One (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

All you have to do is add yourself on the project page and that's all there is to it. Also, remember to sign the roll call every month to remain a current member. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII Advent Children

Hi. I've been improving this article as much as I can, and I was wondering if anyone could give me any comments in regards of getting it to GA? The Prince (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a wee peep, you could ask for it to be peer reviewed also. Gavin Scott (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get it peer reviewed as soon as I'm finished writing the production section. PS: Great work you did on Characters of Final Fantasy VII. The Prince (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The Highwind

Resolved.

Should be merged. Thought? Kariteh (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say delete, it's unsourced and heavily OR. Plus, it's just one airship in the series. The Clawed One (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmph. I say that we transwiki most of it to the FF wiki and merge it in per Kariteh's suggestions. Greg Jones II 21:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy redirect since it's a useful redirect but has no content to speak of. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Be bold. -- Elaich talk 02:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Article has been redirected. Kariteh (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Races of Final Fantasy

This article exists again. Should be redirected to Common elements of Final Fantasy? — Blue。 21:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, was merged for a reason after all :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking that maybe it should be listing the wikilinks to the subsections related to the races in each game article? Because if you look at it, Races are basically repeating what the other articles are talking about their races. — Blue。 22:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I've made the redirect but I seriously think we should consider placing wikilinks. — Blue。 23:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yuna (Final Fantasy)

Yuna (Final Fantasy) is at Good article reassessment in here. --Mika1h (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

How are things going with the project?

How are you guys doing at enduring the...questionable festivities...that Wikipedia has turned into? — Deckiller 06:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? The Clawed One (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I get what he means. Well, Deckiller, you can see for yourself how the WPFF is progressing thanks to the fiasco. — Blue。 13:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm partially to blame for the fiasco; I was the one who knowledgeably opened Pandora's Box by rewriting WP:FICT. The rewrite hasn't really changed, but it's spawned many elitists. But there are many other contributing factors as well, namely fair use and a couple elitist users (not necessarily related to the image crackdown). — Deckiller 21:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so he's the one to blame for all the images and pages being deleted/AFD lately? I was wondering why. I've seen fair-use images be deleted before, but now it's like, everything is going. The Clawed One (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

How can a single user rewrite a page about Wikipedia policy, and then everybody just starts march stepping to the tune? Wikipedia policy should be a consensus, based on stated policies and goals. There are several bots running wild now, deleting images left and right. Their creators have made themselves into uber-editors by using these bots, and they hide behind technicalities. IF Wikipedia was constantly being sued over use of images, I could understand it, but such is not the case - in most cases, the entities who hold the rights to the images seem happy for the free exposure. Images can be, and are overdone, but judicious use of them adds flavor and content to the encyclopedia. Now, almost no image is immune to deletion. Something needs to be done about this ASAP. Our biggest problem is not use of images, but vandalism and bad editing by unregistered users. That's the issue that needs attention. -- Elaich talk 02:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The ironic thing is that most people have marched to the tune, but have opted to make it even more strict o.O It's like Mitt Romney proposing that every child in the USA worships God, and then the atheists taking it a step further and making them all go to convents and monasteries for five years service before age 30... — Deckiller 02:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Not that he would do that :) But anyway, it's silly to blame Deckiller, who did his best from beginning to end to stop their from being this uncivil war over notability, I think it was bound to happen eventually. I am just sorry the project seems to have been greatly wounded by it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not blaming Deckiller, but all the editors who have jumped on this bandwagon. Why did they have to create a problem when none existed? It's not just the project, it's every project and every article on this domain. Soon, we will have an encyclopedia with no images - and the original appeal of an online encyclopedia was the ability to use images to add content and substance. Where is Jimbo Wales? Aren't there administrators who work for Wikipedia, who have the ability to step in and say "this is not what we intended, so please refrain."? Who are these elitest users/editors, and why can't the common sense of the community at large shout them down? Why are they allowed to just run away with this nonsense? I find the structure of Wikipedia to be highly fractured, with articles about policy leading to all kinds of dead ends and branches. It seems to be structured to confuse all but the obsessive-compulsive types who will pursue the splitting of a mustard seed to the bitter end. Common sense is ignored, and splitting of hairs is glorified. I can't find a single article that justifies the mass removal of these images, just reams and reams of discussion, arguments and posturing by nit-pickers. Too bad Wikia didn't take off. It seemed to be a much nicer environment at first. -- Elaich talk 05:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Either way, the main reason I lost interest was that it just takes too much effort to maintain everything, since anyone can edit. It's impossible to maintain 12+ featured articles, especially with the constantly fluctuating policies. — Deckiller 05:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
So, we just give up, right? Why in the hell would you edit WP:FICT? It almost seems like intentional vandalism. So, you lost interest. Just sign out. Looks to me like you just want to make a name for yourself, somehow. What in hell WAS your motive? -- Elaich talk 10:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Whoa there, no reason to get all huffy. Dec did get FFs 4,6,7,8,9,10,10-2,12, and chars of 8 up to FA, and character classes, 1,2,5,tactics, world of 8, music of 8, Rinoa and Squall to GA. It's not like he's some attention seeeker. He tried to rewrite WP:Fict because it was really vague, so people were taking it multiple different ways. It's not his fault that a bunch of editors took the new version as an excuse to go on a rampage. --PresN (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Correction! Tactics was my effort! Deck helped but but he wasn't around during its FAC. — Blue。 15:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I think he got it to GA though, which is what I have him as. I know you got it to FA. --PresN (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Uhuh! Well, carry on with the talk, everyone! — Blue。 17:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
And 5-6 of those were joint efforts as well :) And Elaich, there is no reason to get all angry, and please don't use the condescending "we". I had already made a name for myself by 2006, so that wasn't my motive with WP:FICT. The motive was to strike a written compromise to avoid pointless AFDs and make it clear to newcomers how things are really being done. It wasn't really changing how things are done; it was keeping newcomers from getting confused on what the practice is. The ironic thing is that I was too nice. I'm not really upset with the current version of WP:FICT as much as I'm disappointed at all the time they're wasting on radical arguments. And besides, I lost interest with Wikipedia 2-3 months after the rewrite... — Deckiller 17:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we should revive the project by finally launching a Final Fantasy V and Final Fantasy XI Featured Article candidacy. They have been mostly ready for a while, and it is time to give them a try. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

V and XI

Since Judgesurreal mentioned nomming them for FA, I think we should discuss them now. With V, I think we need a few more citations for the story, and the bit about "Final Fantasy Extreme: should be sourced. Anyone else have ideas for either of these articles? The Clawed One (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that much about V and VI, since they are my least favorite FF games, but I'll be glad to help in any way I can. I'm pretty good at writing prose and syntax. -- Elaich talk 03:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Well then Final Fantasy XI, could we launch this one soon? Could everyone who still comes here just take a quick look at it and then give FFXI a try at FAC? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Priority should be on Final Fantasy III; it has lost GA status, which puts the featured topic in jeopardy. — Deckiller 19:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Correct. FFIII should be top priority. Greg Jones II 19:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I would put Chocobo World and List of Final Fantasy media at the top as well, the former is part of a featured topic and latter was a featured list. --Mika1h (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Alright, if we are going to work on those articles, great. I just want to do something, you know, kick start our project again. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I have never been clear as to why the list of Final Fantasy media was delisted, and what remains to get it back to status. I wish we could start with establishing what needs to be done to these 3 articles to get them to GA/FL. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Look at the to-do list on the talk page. --Mika1h (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, let me put it this way; I have no interest in working on any of those three articles if no one else is going to, and I have great interest in getting FFXI to Featured status, and am willing to see through the nomination. Can I volunteer to guide it? I was a major contributor a long time ago to that article anyway. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Greg Jones II 17:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Fantastic! And if I find anything for the other three, or if others work on it and need me to do "x", I'll be there. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy III GAR

Final Fantasy III is at Good article reassesment in here. --Mika1h (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems good, but there are a few places with awkward wording:

"the game faced several delays and was eventually cancelled after the premature death of the platform."
"Jobs themselves are basically interchangeable classes"
"Steal" being the Thief's speciality, while "Jump" is the Dragoon's forte

But beyond the occasion wording issues, well-sourced and notable. The Clawed One (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

FFVII characters as "critically acclaimed"

Look, I'm not disputing that FFVII got rave reviews all around. I just don't see the point of tacking on "critically acclaimed" to the character pages. Example from Tifa Lockhart:

Tifa Lockhart (ティファ・ロックハート, Tifa Rokkuhāto?) is a female protagonist from Square's (now Square Enix) critically acclaimed role-playing game, Final Fantasy VII.

It's as if Central Intelligence Agency opened with:

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is a civilian intelligence agency of the nuclear superpower United States government.

We're just tacking on adjectives here. I deliberately chose the CIA because it's arguably a body that contributes to the US's status as a "nuclear superpower", but in itself the adjective is unwieldy and excessive. The FFVII characters certainly played their role in making the game "critically acclaimed", but the point that they are FFVII characters is just as easily conveyed without the descriptor. Kelvinc (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. We should stick with NPOVs. — Blue。 18:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Music of Final Fantasy IV GAN

I have nominated Music of Final Fantasy IV as a Good Article. If anyone has any comments or criticisms about it before a reviewer gets to it, please speak up! --PresN (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And passed! Thanks to all who helped. --PresN (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XI FAC launched

Resolved.

Here we go! Come and comment to give this a quality review. :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are reading these words, please go and comment on this FAC, I wouldn't want if failed for lack of comment. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:WPFF Article

Resolved.

Could someone add NA-class to the template so talk pages for categories and templates don't show up in unassessed categories. --Mika1h (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


Final Fantasy V FAC

Resolved.

As the FFXI nomination is going smoothly, I am launching this one after a long gestation. Now, get over there and say what you think! Hate it, love it, anything! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children GAC

Resolved.

For information, it's been a week that Judgesurreal777 nominated this and it's still pending. FightingStreet (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

....That's because it's 26th in line on the list at GAN. It's not in VGames, it's in Theatre, film and drama. --PresN (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Characters of Final Fantasy IX

Resolved.

I know we have a lot on the table right now, but this article really needs some help. I cleaned it up months ago, and I, along with a few others, are protecting it from vandalism and poor editing. However, I would welcome a review from more qualified editors, and would like to see it reach GA status. -- Elaich talk 01:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It has serious notability problems from what I can see, and merger is probably the best way to go. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Consolidating the Final Fantasy XI topic

Resolved.

Now I don't want to ruffle any feathers, but I really feel, especially now that Final Fantasy XI is featured, we can redirected the following articles to the main FFXI article as they have highly questionable notability now that they are very well covered in the main article;

All of this information is covered in the main article, and having researched this topic a ton lately to get this to FA status, there is not the greatest chance that they will be expandable on their own. Anyway, there it is. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The game's plot is barely mentioned at all in the main article, and there's a discussion on the talk page about putting the plot information in Expansions of Final Fantasy XI (I think it could maybe go in Vana'diel also). This game has a very deep and complex story written by Masato Kato, and it's a shame that it's being ignored. If FFXI were an offline RPG game, its story would be considered as good as FFX's. FightingStreet (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You are totally ignoring what I said, which is that these topics do not appear to have enough reliable sources to sustain themselves as individual articles, as in information on creation and reception. Anyone else have a thought? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
In that case the plot information should have been put in the main article and it shouldn't have passed FA without it. FightingStreet (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Just don't go there, it passed FA because every objection was met and we did tons of corrections. Perhaps some details could be culled from the vanadiel article and added, but otherwise, everything is well covered in the main article already, there is no need to bloat it with too much detail from the sub articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The article passed FA because it's comprehensive, and it's comprehensive because the things that it doesn't deal with (mainly plot and setting information) are relegated to subarticles. If you remove these subarticles, the main article ceases to be comprehensive. If these subarticles didn't exist during the FA nomination, I would certainly not have voted Support, so probably a few other people wouldn't have either. What would you say if an article like Final Fantasy VII had no Setting and no Story sections? FightingStreet (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
FFXI HAS as setting section, and not one person asked for a story or a characters section for FFXI because its of a different nature than FFVII, meaning its an MMORPG. But as I just said, it would be fine to merge in a paragraph on the story from the Vanadiel article.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well? How about if we add a paragraph each on the story and the characters? Would you support redirection then? Is there any other detail that is a must have to have one compete article on FFXI? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how the fact that FFXI is an MMORPG means that its storyline should be treated in a different way than the other Final Fantasy titles. Even the FF1 article has a plot summary, despite its storyline being very simple and short. FFXI has a very long and complex story, but if someone can summarize its whole backstory and storyline in one paragraph (or more likely several paragraphs), it would be fine I guess. FightingStreet (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As for Gameplay of Final Fantasy XI, it needs to be properly merged, not redirected. The current Gameplay section in the main article is heavily lacking in terms of Job information. I know we shouldn't list them all, but we should still say something about them, like in Final Fantasy V#Job System. FightingStreet (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, lets start this conversation over. :) I assert that these four articles will not be able to stand on their own, meaning grow to GA or FA because they lack sufficient notability through multiple reliable sources. If we create a story section, a jobs section, and perhaps a small characters section, would you support redirecting these articles to the main Final Fantasy XI article? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess. I don't think a character section is needed since there are too many and they're all NPCs, but there should definitely be a jobs section and a story section. The important characters will be mentioned in the story section anyway.
I don't know about the remaining article though, Expansions of Final Fantasy XI. The current Reception section in the main article deals with FFXI as a whole (or even just the original pre-Zilart release in some sentences?). Are you sure there has been no reviews about the distinct expansions? FightingStreet (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It is the kind of article that looks like it could get filled in, but, as an example, there seem to have been far fewer reviews of the expansions than the original game, and anything that was in an expansion either went in the expansion section in the main article, or was added to the section that it effected, like the gameplay section. Like I said, there is a little, but not nearly enough for its own article, better to have one article full of content than 5-6 articles with so-so content. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay then I agree with redirecting it. As a side note though, I'd like to point out that if someone ever finds enough critical sources about Vana'diel, the Vana'diel article could be recreated. Looking at World of Final Fantasy VIII, these kinds of location articles don't seem to need that much in terms of critical sources (basically a few reviews about the game's graphics should be enough). But for now a merge/redirect is probably best. FightingStreet (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
True, it can be if we find enough references for it, and in some cases like FFVIII it can be found. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
One last question: should the various regional release dates of each expansion be added in the table? FightingStreet (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure...hmmm. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I would appreciate a nice story section on FFXI since one doesn't seem to exist anywhere on the Internet. As for the regional release dates, I think it would clutter the table too much, unless it was reorganized. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, merged in Expansions and the gameplay, and created a jobs section, feel free to copyedit, I did a little. As to a story section, does anyone know what the story is, or where the information is to compile a story? Fighting seems to know the story, perhaps he could volunteer to write one :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Merged all the article, created job section and started a story section, feel free to edit it, but now the article is complete, and doesn't have content spread across 5-6 different articles. :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a huge plot summary on this site, but it's told from an in-universe perspective and it tries to ignore the player's presence in the events. The current story section in the article is probably okay though. FightingStreet (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy V sourcing issues

Resolved.

If any of you are available or know of sources that can be used, that would be great. I haven't found any that would help very much, and we need reliable sources on things like the fan translation and perhaps some more reception and development info. If anyone knows Japanese that would probably help. Thanks! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

FFCC:RoF Anti Piracy Statement

Resolved.

Final_Fantasy_Crystal_Chronicles:_Ring_of_Fates#Anti-piracy_measures_.28Cracked.29. Very unprofessional. Can someone please determine whether such statement is 1. Notable, 2. Verifiable, 3. Copy-editable? — Blue。 12:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue that it's notable because it'd be the first DS game to have such an anti-piracy measure. With some heads of video game companies believing most people are downloading ROMs for the DS instead of buying them, similar anti-piracy measures may end up being implemented. It would be this game that initiated the effort.
As for verifiable and copy-editable, I believe news of the issue has been covered on sites such as Kotaku and gamefaqs has a locked message in their forums on the issue. I can look around for the details, but for now I just put some {{fact}} tags in the section. I also paraphrased much of what was written to remove weasel words and improve clarity.
— Ost (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)