# Talk:Tifa Lockhart

Character Page has been merged per Wikiproject Final Fantasy Policy and Wikipedia's policy on fictional characters. WP:FICTGavin Scott (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The page has been unmerged, but it is again facing the prospect of a merge. If you do not believe it should be or believe it should, please post in Talk:Characters of Final Fantasy VII.

You can put a massive paragraph rambling on about idiotic name pronunciations argued by manic fans, but the not-even-a-full-page describing her backstory in the plot-heavy video game is considered too lengthy? Yup, it's official. Wikipedia is ruined. 
I remember when it used to have useful and original information and not just be this terrible mishmash of random factoids from Gamespot and crap.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.25.49 (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 

This page looks good why the "cleanup" needed?

In the Reception section, it goes on about all the magazines listing her as one of the sexiest characters around.  Shouldn't there be a picture of her looking good, to demonstrate this?  All there is now is a sketch which the uploader says he got from a fan site.  Was this picture used in any game?  If in most of her appearances, she was in 3D, then shouldn't there be a 3D picture?  The magazines listed surely have a picture of her they choose to use.  What game or movie was used most often?  Dream Focus 01:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The current picture is the official artwork used in FF VII the original game including the official website and guidebooks.  —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  01:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Should a brief snippet be added to explain her role in the OVA? I can understand not including some roles she served in the other novellas, considering that most haven't been translated or were incredibly short, but Episode Denzel is a visual medium, thus more people are likely to view it (I'd imagine many aren't even aware of the novellas). Not to mention, it was included in the English ACC release. It wouldn't have to say much, of course; I can't even remember how long she was in it for. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Since this apparently an issue, and since claiming you have a source is apparently good enough to count as 'sourced information' I bring this here.
The hair is dark brown. Not black. The AC SE disk does not contain an interview talking about this. The features on the discs were the same as on the basic SE, the extras were elsewhere, like the novellas.
In any case, in the original game, in AC and ACC, in DoC, in CC, BC, Case of Denzel OAV and extra continuity cameos, not to mention her concept art, she has brown hair. It is dark brown. I'm amazed that this is even worth fighting about.
In any case, unless those asserting that it is 'officially black' can provide evidence for this claim against all visible evidence to the contrary, their claims should not be taken seriously and not treated as 'sourced'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.44.107 (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 

The Japanese interview has Nozue state her character design provided two issues for them: her hair being solid black, and the length of it. The interview in particular can be found in the 16-page prologue book, and was seemingly not translated in the US release. A translation is also available here. Saying "oh but it looks like this because I see it like this" and demanding "visual evidence" really equates to nothing but WP:OR. Have a nice day.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Along with that, several CGI renderings do depict her with black hair; her first image in her Reunion Files section, for example, definitely shows this (which can be found by merely googling). Her hair only seems to appear dark brown in cases where lighting was abundant, which was probably an animation choice and/or made to resemble real life--from what I've read, black hair often shines brown under light...And I did have a guinea pig who was black and shined a dark brown in the sun, if that counts for anything. Honestly, it seems more like something SE just wanted to change; in the original and BC, Tifa appears with brown hair, while her appearance within CC has black hair. Usually hair color isn't disputed or needs a source, but Tifa's hair color has apparently been changed and has shown to be disputable. In any case, her official current color appears to be black, unless you can provide a source that says otherwise or one that states the original color was brown. Or can provide a translation of the prologue books that says otherwise; I am aware you (or people lurking her, anywayxD) are from the Lifestream, who do have access to a great translator. If no one feels the need to trouble him with something they consider frivolous or stupid, then no need to; just know that until further notice, the hair color will be listed as black because the most recent official source (as well as CC and AC when she isn't in direct lighting) show it, too. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
If this translation was translated properly, and will see if it is, Prologue was not sold with AC. The citation is still incorrect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.44.107 (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 

I'll fix the citation--I assume it was originally there because of an assumption that the book came with the DVD (though in any case it should have cited the book). Glad your going to Hito; if it does turn out to be incorrect, XComp should be contacted and we can change it to list (dark) brown. If it says black, I don't know what would be done about it previously being brown, if anything. Whether or not original research, I will say that I personally believe it was another design change because it is obviously brown in her image for FFVII and especially BC. In BC, it's not even dark brown or the "light shining through black" color, but about one or two shades darker than Aerith's. For a regular outer appearance reference, I believe using a game ref. or something of the sort if fine. If allowed, the RF's BC section could be cited to include that her hair is "black--brown in previous installments--" or something to that affect. However, because the dispute, I'm not sure if that would be allowed... WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Ref has been fixed; Kung Fu, was all the information cited with that ref from the prologue book? Or was some of it from extra features on the DVD? I wasn't sure whether to change it all to the prologue ref or not...Though at this point it seems like the DVD ref is obsolete on this page. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I must say that the colour perception of Westerners and Asians are very different.  One of the fun things that showed this problem, appeared back when Japanese cars was exported to the US, and the colouring of the cars was percepted differently than the pictures they were showing to the buyers.  Asians seems to accept a much wider range of dark colour as black for hair colour, especially when used in artistic purposes.  It might be caused by the fact that most Asian regard their own hair colour as black like all other Asians do, yet the actual scientific colour is dark brown.  Say, my hair looks basically black, but when under bright lighting like sun light, it reflects a brownish colour, and the colour will get lighter for many reasons like decolourization by swimming pool chlorine water(much lighter brown for frequent swimmer); different diet or water treatment(5 years of American life lightened the hair colour quite a bit but change back rapidly after returning to Asia); repeated hair styling applied, even some types of shampoo will change the hair colour as well.  However, unless the colour was changed significantly to something like golden brown, most darker brown colour will still be regarded as black due to most people perceive their own hair as black. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  01:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
That's pretty interesting :D I didn't know diet had that much control over hair color; I guess you learn something new every day. Plus, that further supports the notion of Tifa having black hair that just reflects brown under certain lighting. Over at the Lifestream, the translator told us that not only does the prologue book call her hair black, but so an Ultimania. Whether or not it was originally brown, it's safe to say that Tifa's official hair color is black. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, it is not a lot of control, it changed from something like pitch black in dim light to have brown shades in the same lighting.(in bright light, it is of course a lighter brown)  I guess it is a long struggle for artists to find a way to depict the black colour realistically.  Either the shades has to look grey(and old), or the shades are almost impossible to render purely by black and white.  There seems to be people with authentic purely black hair(or they dye it black, same effect) but either 2D or 3D, or even in photos/videos, it is very hard to make them look good. In photos/videos, photographers seems to try to apply more lighting or find places with sufficient reflection of different colours, and/or simply dye the model's hair colour a bit.  Like in a Shampoo ad, the model's hair actually reflects to be a very unnatural dark red(the brand's bottle colour) but look perfectly black when not reflecting bright light.  These are already considered much easier than any drawings, since each hair is naturally separated from one another. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  03:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Her hair is dark brown in every depiction and or original artwork, it will be stated as it is, although with a note saying that it was changed later into a shorter, black version. Honestly you people don't really care about it, you just want to bitch about something because you're bored. Her hair is dark brown. Any "black" hair that shines brown with the sun is actually "brown". -- Kyrel (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
You may want read Wikipedia:Civility before editing and talking. The source already clarified such fact and no other one contradicts it.Tintor2 (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
You may note that I don't care. -- Kyrel (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
If don't care why do you edit it?Tintor2 (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't care for banters, holier than thou and "smarter than you" attitudes. I am not here to play this game, and to this I refer the users above, not you. -- Kyrel (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Now you are having bad faith towards editors who helped this article improve its quality to GA. In your edit, you say that the source is flawed due to its original language being Japanese, we don't discriminate sources as long as they are reliable and with your edit there's no source making the article fail verifiability. Further edits without reaching a consensus or being informal may result in a block.Tintor2 (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you didn't read what I said, that attitude doesn't work, and also if you don't link with a proper translation, I can also claim that the Japanese guide says it's brown. Kyrel (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Again, we don't discriminate sources by their languages, and the interview was already translated as shown above.Tintor2 (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The actual translation only mentions the lentgh of it, as being difficult to animate actually. So it's my word against his. Kyrel (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Quoting Kungfu's ""visual evidence" really equates to nothing but WP:OR". The source actually states that it's black.Tintor2 (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Not really since I've known that interview for a while. So, why do you push it to your side instead of reaching an agreement? Clearly my word is as valid as yours. Kyrel (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Do I have to quote it? "But the hardest part was because her hair was black".Tintor2 (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The translation he's referring to was linked above, but for ease of access, it's here. Seems pretty clear to me that regardless of any other disagreements, her intended hair color is black. If any appearances make it seem like brown, it may be due to graphical limitations, artistic direction, or any other number of factors, but we don't know and we can't verify that unless you find some developer info on it. No need to make such a big deal about this. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
And Kyrel keeps editing the page without having never reached a consensus.Tintor2 (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
As they say, I can tell you all are blissed. If you get what I mean, hey at least I got the Final Fantasy Wiki to get it right, and it's the one that matters. -- 85.246.69.154 (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
If you don't care, just don't edit and try to learn civility before talking.Tintor2 (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to keep your 'suggestion' in mind 85.246.77.197 (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This is my attempt have a discussion with the people who keep changing the direct quote from Nomura regarding the inferred sex scene under the Highwind to "Nomura in an interview stated he was surprised by the impact it had upon viewers," and "Kitase replaced" to " Kitase rejected" in regards to Nomura's originally proposed scenario.
For a start, what you have written does not give the correct impression of what Nomura actually said. Nomura said in regards to the "impact", and I quote directly from the 10th Anniversary Ultimania, "The original idea was more extreme. The plan was to have Cloud walk out of the Chocobo stable on board the Highwind, followed by Tifa leaving while checking around, but Kitase turned it down. But even with the line in question, maybe at that time none of us thought it would be something so important (laughs)." Nomura says nothing about being surprised with "the impact it had upon viewers"; he says that they, the creators themselves, didn't realise that the scene, or at least what was implied in that scene, would be so important (presumably to the rest of the compilation's story).
Currently the page also says "A scene intended to imply her and Cloud having sex was proposed by Nomura, but was rejected by Kitase," which is wrong since Kitase didn't flat out reject the scenario, he toned it down and replaced it with the "risqué" line. See what Kitase says about the scene in the same interview in the 10th Anniversary Ultimania: "But I remember having to get another version that was too intense toned down." 
If you dislike my addition of direct quotes in the article itself that's fine, but what's currently there incorrectly portrays what has actually been said about this scene officially and needs to be changed. Essoroulettes (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The interview is in Japanese. If you want to add a quote it has to have the original version of the quote.Tintor2 (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
So I'd have to edit in the original Japanese text? Either way, the text currently there is incorrect and I'd still like to know what it's been based on. Essoroulettes (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem is the use of quotes since the interview was not officially translated to English.Tintor2 (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Some quotes in this article come from exclusive Japanese material that hasn't been translated, though. I wasn't aware there was a problem with using quotes from other languages. Though, for List of One Piece characters, the German is used and then translated into English. Would that be proper procedure? In any case, information can be added if it doesn't directly use quotes, otherwise all foreign information would be useless. Wouldn't it be fine to add the info and just not use quotes? WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to attempt to do just that. If anyone would like to re-word it, do so, of course, but we're going a step backwards if someone simply pastes back in what's already there. It's incorrect and appears to be based on nothing other than the very same interview (which is why it's peculiar that it's wrong anyway).  Post-edit: I've realised it was Nojima who said they didn't realise "it would be something so important". Also, while it's not too clear from the interview, Katou appears to have been the one who originally proposed the more "extreme" scenario, not Nomura. This has all been amended. Essoroulettes (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll add that these lines have been translated by individuals whom wiki has seen fit to use as sources for things like hair color. Also the scene was meant to imply Cloud and Tifa had sex. But was toned down. The implication was not removed. Thus the Highwind scene which is considered important by the creators and included in places like the 10 anniversary Ultimania, Cloud and Tifa are implied to have sex. Toned down is not rejected. My 2 cents. TheJaff (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

To reply to you're "2 cents", TheJaff, I guess the question is did they have sex?  Judging that Cloud and Tifa are living together in Advent Children, it's possible to infer they are a couple - even more so after Cloud kills Sephiroth again - but then again that particular cutscene was akin to the date with Aeris (canon in-universe), which could also be held with Tifa, Yuffie, or Barrett.  Nothing in the sequals supports that they are in that kind of a relationship (though AC hints that Tifa wants to go there), so it's really nothing more than shipping based on risque content that was to be included in the game but wasn't for the very reason it was risque.  That is why Final Fantasy VII is "T", not "M".  As for whether the implication they had sex was removed or not, they fell asleep side by side -> fade to black -> they woke up side by side.  If anything happened in between, that's what fanfiction's for. By all means include that Nomura planned to hint that Cloud and Tifa get it on, but that it was rejected and replaced with Tifa saying she'll support Cloud no matter what before they take a nap.  My 2 cents. 75.157.110.77 (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
A couple of things. First off the Aerith date is not the canon date scene in the game. None has been made official. Secondly your personal opinion about what kind of relationship you think Cloud and Tifa are in during AC and what that says about that night under the Highwind is meaningless. The interview plainly stated that the scene was toned down. The implication was not removed. Both of these points are further enforced by this translation from the FF 20th Anniversary Ultimania File 2: Scenario book page 394 (FOR THE ONE I LOVE)."VII – Secret date At the Gold Saucer, Cloud receives an invitation from one of his companions. Who comes around with the invitation is dependent on Cloud’s behavior." and  "VII – The night before the final battle Thanks to Tifa, Cloud regains himself, and before the final battle with Sephiroth, without using words, he confirms with her that their feelings match". We also have official Ultimania quotes about Cloud and Tifa confirming their desire for each other. And about a dozen more Ultimania quotes on the subject.TheJaff (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong.  It's obvious that Tifa loves Cloud, and at least by the end of AC he fully reciprocates that.  Even so, judging by her arguement with Cloud when she finds out he has Geostigma they were not a couple, at least not at that point.  And if all that the Ultimania says about that cutscene is that "before the final battle with Sephiroth, without using words, he confirms with her that their feelings match", then it leaves exactly what those "feelings" are up to the opinion of the reader.  If those 12+ quotes refute that and confirm that they are a couple beyond all reasonable doubt, then they should be sourced and added to the article as evidence.  I had heard that the scene under the Highwind varies depending on how you treat Tifa throughout the game, but unless I am mistaken in that, and I very well may be, then the canon state of her relationship with Cloud should not be based on that one scene, but rather on her interactions with him throughout the whole FF7 continuum. 75.157.110.77 (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Once again how you personally feel about Cloud and Tifa's interactions in AC don't really matter. One could easily say it is because they are in a relationship that Tifa confronts Cloud in a bedroom. And that assertion would be backed up by official sources. Also The "feelings" described in that quote are on a page about romantic love in the FF series. So could people please stop making this more complicated than it has to be? None of the official quotes about the Highwind scene are intentionally ambiguous. "It doesn't say what feelings" has to be one of the silliest arguments I have ever seen.TheJaff (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I never said they weren't a romantic couple, but the scene itself and the quotes from the scene that are used in the article don't directly state that Tifa and Cloud had sex. However, if Square Enix says that Tifa and Cloud had sex, then, well... they had sex.  I personally found the scene to be a little more ambiguous than that, (it's my opinion that the scene was left ambiguous - but with the implication still intact - so that the people playing the game would come to their own conclusions about what happened and bicker about it, kinda like what we are doing). I just find it a little confusing as to why a guy who'd just seen his girlfriend die right in front of him would sleep with another girl so soon after that (and it took Cloud two years to get over Aerith's death).  But that's just my opinion - not yours -, and my opinion, your opinion, and the entire world's collective opinions have nothing to do with what Square Enix says is canon and what isn't.  Let's cease this arguement with the conclusion that while our personal opinions differ on this subject, they -as you said - "don't really matter", and that we should just go with what the official guide book says happened.  75.157.110.77 (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
We have various statements regarding Cloud and Tifa's night under the Highwind. Everything from they 'confirm their desire for each other' to 'confirm their feelings without words'. And yes the creator interview where it says they toned down the scene. All signs point to yes on the subject of sex. Also your opinion that Cloud would not sleep with Tifa because he 'just saw his girlfriend killed' is one that is not backed up by official sources. There has been absolutely nothing that says Cloud and Aerith were in a relationship. Cloud by his own official 10th Anniversary Ultimania profile is unaware that either girl has feelings for him while Aerith is alive. It isn't until the Cloud and Tifa fall into the lifestream that he becomes aware of Tifa's and his own feelings. Which they confirm under the Highwind before the final battle.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJaff (talk • contribs) 22:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
... which is why I said "that we should just go with what the official guide book says happened". 142.26.194.190 (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
[1] A guy on a Final Fantasy forum says they showed them getting romantic, and then showed them cuddling the next day, Tifa falling down embarrassed when she found out others could see them.  YouTube probably has the scene in question on it somewhere.  Surely some English source media reviewed the scene, and quoted the developers.  Dream Focus 09:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
More likely than not Tifa was embarassed that they may have heard her heart-to-heart with Cloud, and AC maintains that they are not a sexually active couple, though as I said Tifa drops obvious hints that she wants to marry Cloud.  As for whether the scene was romantic to that extent, it's that guy's interpretation.  Just because two childhood-friends-of-opposite-genders happen to fall asleep next to each other doesn't mean they have sex, and they could have huddled together for warmth.  I played the game aiming for the Tifa date (granted, she tried to confess and say "I love you," but failed) and got this scene as a result, and I found nothing sexual about it.  If they were gonna do it they would've made out first, as another person on the forum pointed out, and in that respect Yuffie, despite being 5 years younger than Cloud (almost making it inverted child molestation), was farther along than either Aerith or Tifa.  The way I saw it, Tifa was just telling Cloud she trusted him absolutely and reassuring him that he was not alone. (She literally knows how his mind works after all).  Whether you see anything other than that is your interpretation, and it's my belief that the scene was crafted for exactly that purpose. 75.157.110.77 (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I looked around on Youtube and watched various videos, but couldn't find what exactly was mentioned.  And did the Japanese version perhaps have something the American version did not?  Dream Focus 18:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
No. It just had different dialogues.Tintor2 (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
This may be slightly off topic, but in reply to there being nothing in the game that confirms Cloud and Aerith were in a relationship, the game's manual states that Aerith is interested in developing the love triangle between herself, Cloud, and Tifa.  That confirms that while they may not have been in a relationship, both Aerith and Tifa had feelings for him. 142.26.194.190 (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Aerith was not interested in a love triangle. Everyone already knows Aerith and Tifa both had feelings for Cloud. THAT is what makes it a love triangle. Said Triangle ends when Aerith dies. Or maybe it ends when Cloud & Tifa have sex under the Highwind. Either way having a love triangle on the first disk is meaningless to this discussion. Even taking your statement at face value you are basically confirming that nothing in game indicates that C/A had a relationship. So what is your point?TheJaff (talk) 08:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

proper internal links (and wording, such in case of "pinup" (really pin-up girl) or lack of The in The New York Times)
internal links not repeating anymore (many cases)
reception easier to read and the entries DATED (which is important)
Clear? bye. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as internal links go, repeating them when they're only previously linked in the lead has been perfectly acceptable for some time. The dates specific to the reception adds very little, and changing the text to use numbers instead of spelling them out does not make it more compliant with MOS, especially when featured articles tend to encourage spelling it out more often than not.
Regarding pinup and The New York times, yes, that is an error work fixing. However if you weren't determined to be a rude fellow about the whole matter it would've been easier to carry over between all this. Take it down a peg. And remember you can easily be blocked as an anon just as much as anyone else.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm "rude"? You and the other guy are reverting me and falsely claim it's "not progress". How GENTLE! Dates with ranking are important, being on the list of (say) Top 10 in 2000 is something very different than being still in 2010, thousands of games later. Numbers make it easier to read and navigate the text with understanding. Revertying to redirects after I've corrected the internal links AND calling it "fixing the wikilinks" is just plain STUPID. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to remind you of WP:NPA.  Your capitalization of the attack words are even ruder.  On the other hand, I must say that I agree with using numbers than spelling them out, it is much easier for fast readers to scan through the article and pick up simple facts, also it helps on the article size, Top ten in 2000 is harder to read during a fast glance than Top 10 in 2000.(and 10 saves a byte, we can save plenty for more for longer spelling words for the whole article.) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  01:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoever is still insisting on wrongly changing the hair colour should stop. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.181.40.65 (talk) 08:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC) 

The pic is pretty much perfect as its both official and free (public domain), the film's character design was realistic too.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Tifa Lockhart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101004164151/http://www.andriasang.com:80/e/blog/2010/10/01/dissidia_site_live/ to http://www.andriasang.com/e/blog/2010/10/01/dissidia_site_live/
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110714232425/http://www.andriasang.com:80/e/blog/2011/07/13/ffvii_lbp2_pack/ to http://www.andriasang.com/e/blog/2011/07/13/ffvii_lbp2_pack/
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090923030538/http://kotaku.com:80/gaming/square-enix/clip-square-cracks-down-on-korean-video-251244.php to http://kotaku.com/gaming/square-enix/clip-square-cracks-down-on-korean-video-251244.php
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100219081617/http://www.ugo.com:80/games/gaming-girls-tifa-lockhart to http://www.ugo.com/games/gaming-girls-tifa-lockhart
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100612084544/http://www.joystiq.com:80/screenshots/top-20#713857 to http://www.joystiq.com/screenshots/top-20#713843
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100107144620/http://www.mania.com:80/13-video-game-women-kick-ass_article_119744.html to http://www.mania.com/13-video-game-women-kick-ass_article_119744.html
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100202042740/http://www.ugo.com:80/games/video-game-hotties-tifa-ff7 to http://www.ugo.com/games/video-game-hotties-tifa-ff7
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110714124105/http://computing.in.msn.com/gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=3212260&page=6 to http://computing.in.msn.com/gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=3212260&page=6
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120611000503/http://www.manolith.com/2009/12/09/hottest-videogame-babes/ to http://www.manolith.com/2009/12/09/hottest-videogame-babes/
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120429052058/http://www.ugo.com:80/games/tifa-lockhart to http://www.ugo.com/games/tifa-lockhart
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130228110539/http://tech.malaysia.msn.com/photoviewer.aspx?cp-documentid=250764311 to http://tech.malaysia.msn.com/photoviewer.aspx?cp-documentid=250764311
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Tifa Lockhart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/news/kingdom-hearts-voices-announced
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kh2.co.uk/?page=NI%2FKH2U
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011164522/http://ff7citadel.com/press/int_egm.shtml to http://www.ff7citadel.com/press/int_egm.shtml
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/news/snake-beats-mario-coolest-video
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.joystiq.com/screenshots/top-20
Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20120904160434/http%3A//www.afterellen.com/column/good-game-25-hottest-characters?page=1%2C2
Added archive https://archive.is/20130726095425/http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/video-games/video-games-news/top-ten-most-attractive-female-1789728 to http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/video-games/video-games-news/top-ten-most-attractive-female-1789728
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tifa Lockhart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150103155207/http://yukan-news.ameba.jp/20140919-21159/ to http://yukan-news.ameba.jp/20140919-21159/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150701142835/http://game.thanhnien.com.vn/bai-viet/2015/03/08/25-nhan-va%CC%A3t-nu%CC%83-khie%CC%81n-ca%CC%81c-game-thu%CC%89-nam-ma%CC%81t-ta%CC%A3p-trung-nha%CC%81t.5703.html to http://game.thanhnien.com.vn/bai-viet/2015/03/08/25-nhan-va%CC%A3t-nu%CC%83-khie%CC%81n-ca%CC%81c-game-thu%CC%89-nam-ma%CC%81t-ta%CC%A3p-trung-nha%CC%81t.5703.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a picture not of her from the film, but instead of a random model at a fan show they hired to dress up like her.  Is there an actual image of this fictional character from the film we can use there instead?  Dream Focus 03:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not "a random model", it's https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/星名美津紀 and Wikipedia can't use unfree images when a free one is available.--SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
It currently reads under that picture The Advent Children version of Tifa portrayed by gravure idol Mizuki Hoshina (星名美津紀)[9] promoting Sony Xperia mobile phones at the Tokyo Game Show 2014.  So she just dressed up like a popular character to advertise cell phones.  How does that make her notable enough to be in this article?  We should be able to find a screenshot from the film to use instead that qualifies as fair usage.  Dream Focus 05:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
She provides an official free image. Wikipedia:Non-free content: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
What encyclopedic purpose is there in having someone dressed up like a fictional character?  That section of the article begins with "In 2005, she appeared in the CGI film Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children," and then instead of showing the character from the CGI film, it shows a real person dressed up like her who has nothing to do with the character at all.  Dream Focus 13:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Not an expert but if the cosplayer is actually a famous person, I think it's more logical to include the image. Then again, I don't see too much information about her Crisis Core design in the creation information so an actual Advent Children image could replace him with an appropiate comment similar to Cloud's article since the Square mentioned it was hard designing him and his bike from the movie.Tintor2 (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
"Encyclopedic value" is using free image to show the new design. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Im generally against the cosplayer’s image being used, unless the cosplayer is particularly integral to the character itself, which I don’t particularly think is the case here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Official model. But you're free to provide a better also free image. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I don't feel the cosplayer image is needed...but that said I don't think we absolutely need an image of the Advent Children design either when it's also discussed here. Too many fair use images can be a problem for an article, and not every character article has images of every design change the character has gone through compared to just text.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
What's with that meme? It's an official model, not "cosplayer". SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we hear you. But it’s still some one-off appearance from model at a cell phone event or something. Hardly a noteworthy point in this character’s 2 decade plus timeframe of existence. Sergecross73 msg me 12:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Given that we feel disinclined to include a 3rd non-free image in the article, I think there's more value to having some visual representation of a visual design, as compared to no image at all. I'm with Snake on this one; the readers' experience comes first. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Well the second fair use image is used to illustrate that a skirt was kept as part of her designs consistently, perhaps there's an image that utilizes all 3 side by side we can use in its place for the best of both worlds?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind that if we can find it. I only object to removing a free image for the sake of removing it, if it still conveys information to the reader. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It really has little bearing on the character and is only barely related at absolute best. Unless gaming websites start covering the reaction and the fact she's been trending for a few days on Twitter because of it, it's not even worth considering for this article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

While I think it may be possible to find enough secondary sources to justify inclusion, this is the sort of trivia that would belong in an a subsection about the character's lasting impact and popularity (example), not in the character's "Other appearances" section. This article has no such section, so it'd probably require some restructuring to make it fit in. I was considering requesting temporary protection on the article, as most of the edits re-adding this are from accounts with few edits (or newly registered vandalism-only accounts), but it was most recently re-added by an account with enough edits to make it extended confirmed so I'm not so sure if that'll help.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
All I can say is that we've got plenty of gaming sites commenting on it right now. This Bing search turned up a lot of results from Polygon, AnimeNewsNetwork, and IGN, among others, for example. So it definitely should be mentioned. Maybe not in other appearances, but certainly in popularity (only mentioned it in other appearances because I wasn't sure where it occurred). Weedle McHairybug (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I'd be okay with adding an "impact and popularity" section that at least mentions the incident.Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I could maybe see a brief sourced sentence about it, but anything more would be WP:UNDUE. Sergecross73 msg me 04:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Just put this in a Controversy section. :) NoobMiester96 (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't really think that's the answer. The character herself caused no controversy. It's some unofficial fan-made thing that was played at some government event. Sergecross73 msg me 05:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Put it in the sex appeal section under Reception  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.196.12.156 (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC) 


### Tifa Lockhart
Article (edit | visual edit | history) ·  Article talk (edit | history) ·  Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 Result: The nominator and reviewers seem to be satisfied, so closing this GAR as kept. PresN 13:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Simply put, the reception section of the article is overflowing with the often hated listicles (word defined here on Merriam-Webster). While they do come from reliable sources, they are generally poorly written and say little of the character. The reception section in general also gives undue weight towards her physical appearance and body. Outside of the reception section, a lot of the sources are WP:PRIMARY. Due to these factors, I believe it fails criteria 2b at its current state. Also, as a minor point, File:Tifa Lockhart art.png and File:Tifa Lockhart.png could have better fair-use rationale. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to also mention that it has been over 10 years since its nomination with no prior review. (Oinkers42) (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I would argue given the character and the nature of most of the reception is towards the character's appearance and sex appeal, it's hard to argue Undue weight being pushed towards the character's appearance when that's the first thing most react towards. Also WP:PRIMARY is used in regards to no original research, when the sources are being cited directly for what they're stating in regards to the character's concept and role in the games: why would you need a secondary source to tell you what happens in the game or the developer's rationale for why they developed a character a certain way? And if you're going to do this GAR, at the very least cite specific things in the article to tackle in terms of certain references you may feel are weak or places you feel original research may be occurring, broad strokes like this make it difficult to work with you to bring it up to snuff.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
It is really difficult to point out specific sources as, like I said, the entire reception section makes heavy use of listicles, those being 65-68, 44, 47-50, 52, 54 and 55, 57-59, 70-72, and 75-77. Removing those would probably leave a massive whole in the reception section. Also, there are other things to talk about with the character: [2] [3] and [4] do not really focus on her sex appeal and would be good sources for reception. Finally, sorry if this GAR is lacking, as it is my first. (Oinkers42) (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Cleaned out a lot of those, and rewrote some of the others so they were actually saying something. I do feel list entries are fine to cite as long as they are actually saying something citeable for a person's reaction to the character. When the dust settled though it didn't carve out that much out of the reception section. As for the other articles you mentioned it's a bit harder to work those into the article on the fly, and that's generally better for something brought up on the talk page or with a cleanup tag, not really a GAR. I'll try and get them in there in a bit.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I think the trimming could still go a bit further. Being on Complex's "16th-best-looking "sideline chick in games" neither noteworthy nor GA material. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I would disagree that it's not noteworthy, I would agree that a list of publications recognizing a character for their sex appeal amid other lists of publications recognizing a character for other reasons is not compelling prose, nor summary style. I think most of those types of mentions could be summarized in a line or two, rather than being listed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Right, I could see it being used as a source for a more broad statement on positive reception for attractiveness, but with a character as mainstream and popular as Tifa, with decades of attention and high level coverage, neither Complex nor "16th place" is particularly of note. As is, it's more of a "let's save this obscure character at WP:AFD" type addition, not a modern GA. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Well if either of you would care to lend a hand I'm stupidly busy on my end. I think even Oinkers plate is full despite starting this GAR.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Rearranged some parts of the reception and added commentary from Advent Children and Remake. I hope it helps.Tintor2 (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I tried doing tidying (misuse of commas and fullstops, weird word choices, bad grammer), but got edit conflicted. I'm worried about going on any kind of detail work with small edits going on all the time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake: Sorry. I won't edit it.Tintor2 (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Not permanently stopping, I hope. Sorry if I sounded hostile. Probably too late in my area to try doing edits anyway (past 10 PM). Please continue if you'd like to. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I rearranged it a bit more like Aya Brea to separate the sex appeal from other themes related with the character. Now the first paragraph of critical response explores her character in general, the second her relationship with Cloud and the last one her role in the movie and Remake.Tintor2 (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it's much better, although I think there's more to be done in terms of condensation. I'm not a big fan of spending times on exact rankings and separating publication lists; it'd be one thing if it were The New York Times, but IGN definitely ain't that. (Maybe the EGM one is, especially since there's a little more substance?) So instead of both GameDaily and MSN featured her on lists of "gaming's hottest babes", while noting her looks and appearence while acknowledging the depth of her character and development offset this element.[71][72] In 2010, VideoGamer.com included her among the top ten video game crushes,[73] while Sarah Warn of AfterEllen ranked her as the "ninth-hottest" female video game character.[74] Complex ranked her as the 16th-best-looking "sideline chick in games,"[75] while UGO placed her 13th among the "fighting games' finest hottest women" for her appearance in Ehrgeiz.[76] I'd aim for something closer to Publications including GameDaily, MSN, VideoGamer.com, AfterEllen, Complex, and UGO have ranked her among gaming's most attractive characters. Since there are so many publications, at some point you just lump them into a ref bundle and don't need to explicitly call them out.
I also think the "popularity" section doesn't really separate neatly from the "sex appeal" section since similar stuff is being discussed, and while I appreciate trying to break it out it just feels redundant and sloppy at present. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I've done a copyedit of the whole article at Tintor's request. I think his recent reorganization of the Reception section is really nice and de-emphasizes the listicles that motivated this GAR to begin with. Are there additional issues people have identified or is it time to make a final decision on the GAR? Axem Titanium (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium: Thanks for the quick help.Tintor2 (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@(Oinkers42), Kung Fu Man, Sergecross73, David Fuchs, ProtoDrake,  and Tintor2: Tintor did a thorough reorganization of the Reception section after David's last comment, which I think is quite nice. I think the article is in good shape now. Can we move towards a final decision? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I think it seems okay now. It seems to have been salvaged. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I think it's much better. I don't have any reservations that would hold things up, though I do question the inclusion of the bit that says ''UGO stated their preference for Tifa over Aerith when looking at the heroines of Final Fantasy VII" . On its own, that observation seems kind of mundane, while concurrently, I feel like could be a massive cruft magnet, as I imagine there are countless publications over the decades who have said they favor one or the other for the years. Not sure which direction we should go in fixing it, but I feel like it could change somehow. But again, dont let that suggestion hold things up. Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't have any strong feelings about that sentence and could excise it entirely without losing sleep. I don't think UGO is a particularly high quality source to begin with. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Ditto. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Removed. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
It looks much better. Thanks Alex and Tintor for your work. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep. No additional criticisms appear to be forthcoming. I think it stays. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep - sorry for being inactive, but I am not sure how to close this. This looks much better than when I suggested it. If someone else could handle the closing, that would be great. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)