# Talk:Vanille

@Cukie Gherkin: I realize that this article was formerly at "Oerba Dia Vanille", but that was a mistake IMO.  See the RM at Talk:Garnet_(Final_Fantasy)#Requested_move_4_April_2021 for an example - she's called Vanille 99% of the time both in-game, and in journalism.  For fictional characters, Wikipedia doesn't treat them as if they were real people and use full names, it just uses the most prominent name in fiction - which would be Vanille (Final Fantasy) in this case.  Any objection to such a move?
I also think you're playing it a bit fast & loose with that Mattie Brice blog post.  First, it's a single blog post that got all of one comment - I think extracting three whole sentences worth of criticism from it is undue weight.  Second, I really don't see a strong connection on the gender transition bit - she talks about that in one paragraph, sure, but as part of a general stance thing.  Relevant to an article on Brice, but probably not on Vanille.  I think that if the reference is kept at all, it can be reduced to something like a single sentence of "Brice praises Vanille as an example of heroism whose impact on the party come from traditionally feminine traits" or the like.  SnowFire (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Both are fine, go off [gendered royal title because I don't know your gender]. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I do feel it should stay on the full name per other articles, namely because it does turn it up but google also has a nasty habit of trying to include "vanilla" in searches for just Vanille. It might overall make the article harder to find with just the shortened name.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think "per other articles" works?  I feel like when it's been discussed in similar cases, the community has usually come down on the side of using the names that are actually used, not "full" names if the full names are hidden in background material somewhere, i.e. Princess Leia not Leia Organa.  Vanille is referred to as just Vanille 99% of the time in the FF13 series, and similarly in the secondary sources.  That overwhelms other concerns, IMO.  SnowFire (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vanille/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 23:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

 
Passing review.Tintor2 (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article this weekend. It looks passable but I have yet to fully read it.Tintor2 (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, let's go by the first sections:

Is verifiability really needed in an infobox? I would only reference it if it was controversial information.
I've had editors complain when such content wasn't referenced, a few times during GAN. It's turned into "better safe than sorry"
Lead
Since it's the character's introduction I'd suggest adding the mention, "also addressed simply as Vanille".
Fixed
The mention of her being a supporting character after XIII could be trimmed to a single mention like "She is also a supporting character in the sequels "Final Fantasy XIII-2 (2011), and Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII (2013)."
Should be fixed.
I'd suggest adding a brief mention of her other appearances in the lead such as the novel or the related games.
Should be fixed with the above.
Second paragraph should specify she was specifically created for FFXIII to avoid any other confusion.
Should be fixed.
Concept and creation
The first mention of FFXIII in the body should be linked.
Done.
"Vanille is a "l'Cie": humans cursed with magical powers and a task to complete." Seems kinda random to put it here unless there is more commentary.
Moved it down next to the commentary about her crystaline form.
Dates in references should be consistent. Simply add the tag to the lead and it will be fixed automatically.
Fixed
Voice casting
Specify what is Final Fantasy XIII Ultimania Omega
Fixed?
There is no need to spam references after Georgia van Cuylenburg unless there is another one.
Fixed
Appearances
I'd rename the subsection to "In the Final Fantasy XIII series" to avoid confusing the reader with the original game.
Done
Start the first paragraph by mentioning FFXIII in order to be written in a more outofuniverse form.
Fixed?
"NORA. After Nora" Is it the same group or another person? I'm not an expert in capitals but it should be consistent or specify more what is the Nora that dies to avoid similarities.
Fixed the wording here a bit.
Why are they fighting Bhunivelze?
I think I've fleshed that out a bit better? Honestly Lightning Returns gets *really* confusing there.
@Kung Fu Man: That's all until this section. Will comment on the rest since it's kinda long.Tintor2 (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hit up everything I could, lemme know if anything needs more attention.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
@Kung Fu Man:

Reception
This is well written but several websites like Destructoid miss wikilinks in the prose.
Fixed.
I'd suggest moving the third paragraph of analysis to the middle since it keeps discussing her while the other one primarily focuses on her relationship with Fang.
Done.
Comment: I'm not really sure if voice acting comment should be moved to voice acting due previous experiences with Resident Evil reviews but I'll let it you decide.
I feel it's better with reception here, as it's a bit how the character was designed as well as voiced.
That's all.Tintor2 (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Should be all set on those my dude!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

b. (citations to reliable sources): 

c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

b. (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

(Criteria marked  are unassessed)