Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy/Archive/10

message: === Clean-up Suggestions ===
Hey. I've made a few suggestions on condensing all the random FF pages out there. Feel free to check them out and offer input on the Final Fantasy VII Talk Page and the Final Fantasy X Talk Page. Ryu Kaze 12:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. I think I see what you mean but I haven't had time to cast a critical eye over it all yet. I understand where you're coming from - we do have a lot of useless and abandoned pages. A couple of things I disagree on though. I believe the Cloud Strife article should be a biography as this is a person (of sorts) we have written an article for, and it's an article for an encyclopaedia after all. Link (Legend of Zelda) and Wario are even featured articles! The other problem I have is I'm an inclusionist. That means I believe articles have potential for expanding and valued information to be in place one day, and one man's trash and all that. However I do think it's a good idea overall, and definately worth a discussion, and maybe even make it into a sub-project? Please consider the latter. ☺ — CuaHL 12:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd call it rushed and not very well discussed to be fair... — CuaHL 01:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which aspects? There was extensive discussion on the FFX pages, and a fairly good amount concerning the FFVII pages (which, sadly, didn't all occur on one or two talk pages like it did with X). In the end, only suggestions that received positive feedback were carried out. Midgar and Blitzball, for instance, are still around. Is there a certain protocol that's usually followed that I wasn't aware of? Ryu Kaze 13:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, sorry if I seemed a little abrupt.. my time on Wikipedia is limited somedays and that sometimes shows through with my comments. Fair play, though, I hadn't seen the discussion gone into this and should stick my nose out and leave it up to the professionals :D I just feel a bit cheated because you went from a question (17th Feb) to a decision (20th Feb) so quickly, while me and other editors would have no chance to participate in something like that so quickly. — CuaHL 21:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Housekeeping

message: Hey. I've made a few suggestions on condensing all the random FF pages out there. Feel free to check them out and offer input on the Final Fantasy VII Talk Page and the Final Fantasy X Talk Page. Ryu Kaze 12:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. I think I see what you mean but I haven't had time to cast a critical eye over it all yet. I understand where you're coming from - we do have a lot of useless and abandoned pages. A couple of things I disagree on though. I believe the Cloud Strife article should be a biography as this is a person (of sorts) we have written an article for, and it's an article for an encyclopaedia after all. Link (Legend of Zelda) and Wario are even featured articles! The other problem I have is I'm an inclusionist. That means I believe articles have potential for expanding and valued information to be in place one day, and one man's trash and all that. However I do think it's a good idea overall, and definately worth a discussion, and maybe even make it into a sub-project? Please consider the latter. ☺ — CuaHL 12:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd call it rushed and not very well discussed to be fair... — CuaHL 01:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which aspects? There was extensive discussion on the FFX pages, and a fairly good amount concerning the FFVII pages (which, sadly, didn't all occur on one or two talk pages like it did with X). In the end, only suggestions that received positive feedback were carried out. Midgar and Blitzball, for instance, are still around. Is there a certain protocol that's usually followed that I wasn't aware of? Ryu Kaze 13:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, sorry if I seemed a little abrupt.. my time on Wikipedia is limited somedays and that sometimes shows through with my comments. Fair play, though, I hadn't seen the discussion gone into this and should stick my nose out and leave it up to the professionals :D I just feel a bit cheated because you went from a question (17th Feb) to a decision (20th Feb) so quickly, while me and other editors would have no chance to participate in something like that so quickly. — CuaHL 21:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up Suggestions 

message: I've listed two more categories for deletion (:Category:Final Fantasy XI characters and :Category:Final Fantasy items). Please follow this link and express your thoughts. ~ Hibana 20:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories for deletion

message: I have requested it, and I would be very interested in any Final Fantasy members helping me respond to the critiques with fixes as they come, this could help propel Final Fantasy IV to Featured article status. Thanks much! Judgesurreal777 04:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't help noticing that the FFIV article doesn't actually conform to the template for game articles featured in our Manual of Style... I'm tempted to update the article to the style guide's example and see how its received by the Peer Review mob - might make a good test case for the style guide. Thoughts? >Gamemaker 11:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you please use WPFF Style as well as Wikipedia's style guide ;) — CuaHL 10:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Kickass, some recognition for FFIV is always a good thing.  It still looks a little messy though (and cleanup would be easy), as well as doing something about the red link there. Crazyswordsman 00:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Final Fantasy IV Peer Review

message: The montages/collages/whatever of box art in the infoboxes for FFI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and X-2 is a potentially good idea, but in my opinion is unsightly.  I vote we change it to just one of the English language box arts, as this is the English wikipedia.  But if we're looking to make these infoboxes uniform with the "name mix-up" FFs, I guess we could use the Japanese.  Maybe I'm the only one who's not a fan of the montages, and if so, let's just leave them how it is. — warpedmirror (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that they look unsightly. But I don't think we can't use the japanese boxes only, because of WikiProject C&VG guidelines. Using american box art isn't an ideal solution either, because of confusion with the numbering. If anything, I would support them being replaced with cover-art from the latest enlgish re-releases, at least that way they will have the correct numbering. Personally, I wish we could switch back to logos. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If people really don't like the collage approach, I'd suggest going with the Japanese box art for the first six games, and the North American box art for games thereafter. It really seems to be the only clear and unambiguous solution, since details for the rereleases can vary wildly. Final Fantasy II, for instance, was never released outside of Japan in a box with that title (there's Final Fantasy Origins and Final Fantasy I & II: Dawn of Souls, but I wouldn't recomment putting either in the infobox, and the "latest English re-release" of Final Fantasy IV is technically called Final Fantasy IV Advance).  The other cover images should be placed inline at appropriate points in the article (though we probably want to avoid the gallery approach, since galleries of fair use images have traditionally been difficult to justify under WP:FUC). – Seancdaug 05:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a month later and nothing's changed, but I really do like Seancdaug's idea.  Does anyone have any objections before I change the first six FFs (except my discluding FFI?) to the original Japanese box art (I think most of these probably are like this) for naming confusion, and the rest to the original North American box art (which seems to be the general trend)? – warpedmirror (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be honest here. I HATE the current montages. They're hideous. Seancdaug's idea is certainly something to consider. I like the idea of including the original U.S. box art images for Final Fantasy 1, 4, and 6 (this is an English Wikipedia, after all). However, it's been noted that it's pretty confusing when "Final Fantasy IV" links to a page and the first thing the user sees is a fat "FINAL FANTASY II" logo. CERTAINLY there's absolutely no reason that Final Fantasy 7, 8, 9, 10, and X-2 should have these montages. PLEASE, somebody remove them and set in the original U.S. box art covers (I'm a bit busy right now, otherwise I would go ahead and do so). Of course, this may necessitate adding a small gallery about different localizations at the bottom, much like Final Fantasy II's page. Obviously, 2 and 5 should retain their original Japanese covers (no reason to put Origins or Anthology packages, respectively, as those already have their individual pages); this brings me to the Final Fantasy Origins montage as well, which is also really hideous (place the PS version image in the infobox, and put the others at the bottom in some gallery - I think the special release box (the one that included action figures) deserves its own sub-article) on that page. So this leaves us with the problems of FF1, FF4, and FF6 - I think they look perfect right now. The boxes are not ambiguous (their logo corresponds to their title) and are very relevant. In a nutshell, I'm suggesting that we remove the current montages and place the American versions in their place. This includes Final Fantasy 7, 8, 9, 10, X-2, and Origins. Oh, that brings me to one more point, something I just brought up in the Final Fantasy (series) article: PLEASE remove the ancient Final Fantasy I from this portal's main page, the Final Fantasy titles list page, and especially the Final Fantasy (series) page. I really can't see reason for holding it there.--Tristam 03:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox boxart montages 

message: Hey. Over on Talk:Mythology of Final Fantasy X#Cultural references section the FFX Mythology talk page, we've indirectly led ourselves into discussing the formats of both the Final Fantasy magic and Final Fantasy summon magic articles. Between Renmiri, Seancdaug, and myself, we all agree that the articles are bloated far beyond necessity and general interest relevance.
Even among FF fans, a detailed description of the nature of the Osmose and Drain spells is kind of unnecessary, to say nothing of how it'll be viewed by someone who's never played an FF but has an interest. That being the case, I've proposed that we save both pages in their current forms on the FF Wiki (with corrections where needed), drastically shorten both pages here on Wikipedia itself, merge them, offer a brief overview of each type of magic, and then leave mention and description of three of the most well known spells associated with each type:
-Black Magic-
*Fire
*Thunder
*Meteor (I know this one's often associated with Time/Space magic, but it's more well-known as being affiliated with Black Magic in Final Fantasy VII; that, and I often wonder if it was a  Time Mage spell in Tactics only because of how long you have to wait for it to come down)
-White Magic-
*Cure
*Regen (incorrectly put with Time/Space Magic on the current FF Magic page)
*Holy
-Time/Space Magic-
*Haste
*Slow
*Demi
-Blue Magic-
Here, we would just mention three of the most well-known incarnations of Blue Magic:
*Strago Magus' Lores in Final Fantasy VI
*Enemy Skill materia in Final Fantasy VII
*Quistis Trepe's limit breaks in Final Fantasy VIII
-Summon Magic-
*Shiva
*Ifrit
*Bahamut
Then, at the bottom, we can add cultural references and/or notes of relevance, as well as links to the FF Wiki articles for those with a further interest in FF magic. Any thoughts on this? Ryu Kaze 09:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm =/ I'm unsure. I wouldn't call the magic list bloated; with the exception of a handful of entries each spell has a pretty concise and interesting summary. In addition, while well-intentioned, dropping all but a token 3 examples practically begs editors to add all the others back in again, it'd be a constant struggle to stay on top of the reverts - plus, the most 'well-known' examples is quite a subjective criteria =) Actually, I recall suggesting a split to the magic list a few months ago, Talk:Final Fantasy magic#Time for a split, here. While not well-received at the time it might be worth considering again? >Gamemaker 11:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This article isn't exhaustive. We don't, can't, and probably shouldn't list every spell that has ever appeared in any Final Fantasy game. Such a listing is much too detailed for a general interest encyclopedia, and would almost certainly get voted for deletion. That kind of detail is better suited to fan sites, such as GameFAQs or the Final Fantasy wiki. This article is intended to serve only as a representative sampling of some of the most common magic spells that have appeared in the series, and although the guidelines are a bit fluid, "Dia", having appeared in only one game, is not very common.
The subject of that discussion ("Dia", a spell that made only one appearance, and way back in the first Final Fantasy) has nonetheless found its way into the article.
By the way, also consider just how many spells are listed:
*Black Magic (16; Ultima's not really Black Magic or White Magic, but whatever)
*White Magic (12)
*Time/Space Magic (9; again, Meteor's not Time/Space Magic and Regen's not either, but whatever)
*Blue Magic (9 entries)
*Summon Magic (11 games mentioned along with some details on the summons' roles in each one, and a total of 13 summons listed; this one in particular is ridiculus, if only because a simple line like "Summons have made many appearances throughout the Final Fantasy series, and while their role is always that of entities that may be called upon to aid the player in battle, they've had various titles throughout the series, including 'Aeons,' 'Espers,' 'Guardian Forces' and 'Eidolons'" would have compensated for all those game entries. Then, right there we could insert a note in parentheses mentioning how in the japanese versions the summons were almost always called "summon beasts," and then follow that up with a line like "Further, relevance of the summons' role in the storylines has fluctuated throughout the series, as well, ranging from appearances as spells only -- with little to no role in the actual story -- to being major players among the supporting cast." From there, we could simply jump into mentioning the more prominent summons)
As it stands, we've got 50 spells listed and 9 games mentioned for Blue Magic. Like I said before, even among fans that's probably more than most will have an interest or care to read about, but for a general interest audience that's plain overkill. Ryu Kaze 15:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Final Fantasy Magic Pages

message: *Call me crazy, but as Final Fantasy IV heads toward an FAC, I thought it would be nice to get the original game on a path to at least greatly improving, if not toward FAC. Help out as needed! And remember to vote for Final Fantasy IV as a featured article when it gets posted! Judgesurreal777 22:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly think you are underestimating how hard the FAC is going to be. Have you seen Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Fantasy VI? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: FA status will be VERY, VERY, VERY difficult to obtain. HOWEVER, we can get GA status as early as an hour from now if we work on it. Deckiller 23:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd just like to echo what everyone else has said about the difficulty of obtaining FA status. I think it would be better if we looked upon these peer reviews not as an effort to raise an article to featured status, but more as an attempt to improve the article all around. With any luck, the latter will eventually lead to the former, anyway, and I think it's important to keep our expectations grounded. – Seancdaug 00:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Final Fantasy (video game)]] Peer Review in Progress

message: I have placed a newly created template on Ramza's portion (as a prototype, I will wait to add any more for now) of the FF Tactics character list.  I have also opened a discussion thread for that page for comments on that template.  Should it stay or go, and if it should stay, does it need modifications? Roy Al Blue 21:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I'm opposed to introducing any more cruft in the form of individual character articles: speaking as someone who adores Final Fantasy Tactics, I really don't see that Ramza is notable enough to deserve his own article. Looking at the article itself, most of it appears to be extremely detailed plot summary. Beyond duplicating information already available in the Tactics article, it doesn't strike me as general interest material. It's well-written, don't get me wrong, but it seems much better suited to either Wikibooks or the Final Fantasy Wiki. I strongly suggest that it be transwiki'd to one or the other (or both) along with the template. Just my two gil.... – Seancdaug 02:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Sean, though it may not hurt to have character templates for a character list. Deckiller 02:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, maybe. The only thing is I'm not sure what kind of information needs to be presented in template form: gender and name should be obvious pretty quickly, and zodiac sign and class can be presented easily enough in the first sentence or two of text. I'm not opposed to it in principle, I just worry that, with the images there already, it's going to create something of a formatting issue (there's also the increased server load caused by excessive template use, but that's more of an additional factor than a make-or-break issue, I admit). – Seancdaug 03:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like them either, but I want to make sure we all compromise. The Star Wars lists have templates for every character, which is overboard IMO (that's a future issue for WPSW I'm going to address). It doesn't really shake me greatly, but if a balance is to be reached, I'm fine with that. Deckiller 03:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tactics Character Template 

message: Hey, I've been trying to go through and tighten up everything on the Final Fantasy VIII page so we can make it worthy of Good Article status, and I've tried to make the fabled Reception and Criticism section NPOV -- and think I've succeeded -- but there's some sales figures claimed in there that we don't have references for. Does anyone know where these figures came from? Ryu Kaze 20:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look for citations for those figures when I added the ref in the introductory para - didn't have much luck at the time though =/ >Gamemaker 22:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm... if there's no reference for it, we should probably delete it. By the way, is the Criticism thing NPOV to your eyes now? Ryu Kaze 23:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, no source = delete. Also, the section reads NPOV to me now. Great work. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey, sweet. Someone added a reference for the Japanese sales. We may be able to hang onto that, at least. Since that's verifiable, it may yet be so for the other info. I'm going to look for it one more time before giving up. Ryu Kaze 04:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha. Using their source, I was able to find a source of other interesting info on the game's sales. We may yet be able to have a decent-sized section for it with references after all. Ryu Kaze 04:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And another. Ryu Kaze 04:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found a few refs for sales info, but I can't confirm the eight million sales, the best I can find is six. The ref for six is already in the ref section, so if someone can find updated info to combine with that, feel free. Pagrashtak 05:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got it here. Not quite 8 milllion units according to that, and Final Fantasy VII has nearly 2 million more. Guess that answers the question of which is the winner there, huh? Thanks again for your help. Ryu Kaze 06:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Final Fantasy VIII references needed

message: I just noticed some were uncertain about the move to have Final Fantasy IV and Final Fantasy (video game) peer reviewed, but I truly think that only by putting them up there and letting them get kicked around a little will we be able to get them to featured status. As you may notice, there are already many things to help change, but I strongly urge you all to vote on the articles featured ststus, and equally important, if you can help, PLEASE DO. The work that needs to be done is minimal thus far.... Thanks much everyone! :) Judgesurreal777 19:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Final Fantasy IV FAC In progress

message: Is it just me, or has the FFXII Character List starting out to look like a directory of fan sites?  I think we should remove all the fansite links on External links before it grows any larger.  —Mirlen 22:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link Farm on FFXII Character List

message: Hey, long time no see. I'm not really full time right now, but I thought I could do something. I wanna ask about Final Fantasy albums who did not get an english release (most of them), leaving us with fan translated track names by various people, making it difficult to choose which translation to keep. There's also the fact that I might choose a translation that someone else doesn't agree with. Sometimes, they vary as much as Magitek Research Facility to Devil's Lab for track 14, disc two, FFVI OSV. The most official website I can see is http://na.square-enix.com/music/, but there are some errors like Narshe/Narche being called Neshe or the inforgiven which probably means the unforgiven. But they are minor errors easy to spot and correct. So I suggest we trash the fan translations and keep those at this website. --DarkEvil 04:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Fantasy albums 

message: I've been wondering about this for a while now... The white mage page says that the first male ones didn't appear until FFIII. I feel this is untrue, because the white mage in FF seems to be male. While it is true that the white wizard class has long hair, the character still doesn't look exactly female. Also, in FFIII, in which all the characters are obviously male, the white mage has an added white pixel under his eye, which makes the sprite look even more girly! 130.232.131.47 15:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a disputed tag to the section in question. I think you are right, though. The 'Light Warriors' from the first game were all male. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This confusion is probably because white mage is refered to as female in "8-Bit Theatre". --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Mages 

message: I'm thinking of reorganizing :Category:Final Fantasy media so that it's easier to navigate. I was planning on putting all the game and album covers into a subcategory (i.e. Category:Final Fantasy covers), screenshots into their own subcategory (Category:Final Fantasy screenshots), character artwork into its own (Category:Final Fantasy artwork), and music samples into their own (Category:Final Fantasy music samples). I would also have to subcategorize them into the larger (and very messy) categories like :Category:Video game covers. I can't seem to find any policies or guidelines concering this type of categorization. Does anyone have any objections? ~ Hibana 18:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None here. Seems logical to me. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. Ryu Kaze 20:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media reorganization