Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy/Archive/5

message: In a fit of boldness I've gone and reorganised this page, hope no one minds =) Since its the main point of call for project discussion I thought it might benefit from some tighter sectioning. Nothing has been removed from the previous version, and for the most part its in the same order, just the odd paragraph has been shuffled to its new home. Feel free to modify and adjust! Gamemaker 12:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Housekeeping

message: Just a heads up, guys: Y0u has nominated Final Fantasy Legend for GCOTW. Although it's one of our peripheral articles, it'd be nice if we could help support this one. Drop on by and show your support! – Seancdaug 02:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, if he'd submitted Final Fantasy Legend III i'd be of more help. Oh well. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I considered nominating FFL3 (personally I feel that it is a far better game,) but didn't for two reasons: its article is more like AIP material, and FFL1 is probably more notable. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 16:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Fantasy Legend GCOTW 

message: Despite the temporary mess that resulted from the Final Fantasy VI character AfDs, I'd like to call a FF Project participant role call. Let us know what you've been up to:
# Hibana - class has kept me away the past few weeks; I've just been doing minor touch-ups and vandalism reverts
# JiFish - Still here
# ZeWrestler  Talk - like Hibana, school has been keeping me busy the last few weeks. I check wikipedia, here and there, but officially, i'm on a wiki-vacation until things settle down.
# Seancdaug – Still around, still toiling away despite myself.
# Darkstar949 - Still around, keeping quiet for the most part.
# LBMixPro - I've been focusing on other WikiProjects, as well as recovering from an ArbCom case. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 23:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: October role call

message: A heads-up, guys: List of Final Fantasy titles has been nominated as a featured list candidate. Anyone interested should probably drop on by and vote yay or nay however they see fit. Thanks! – Seancdaug 21:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured list candidacy 

message: It's not up for deletion, but rather some people wanna rename it. See this long link for details. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FF stub on the deletion page. 

message: Is this sub-project still active? I was thinking of having a tinker but its hard to see what the state of play is - are changes being made somewhere in a sandbox-style article before being transferred to the live pages? Gamemaker 17:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cuahl and DarkEvil went all out of the Final Fantasy bestiary articles. They're probably the most thorough part of the project so far. ~ Hibana 18:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I hadn't seen any of the bestiary articles before, that's some stellar work. It looks, then, that the Races side of the project has stalled a little. Therefore the only decent thing to do is to get tinkering, using the bestiary articles as a style guide =) Cheers for the info. Gamemaker 21:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Races/Bestiary project 

message: I'd really like to know who's been going to nearly every FF character page and adding the asinine "Resemblances" section. I edited it out of the Tidus article ([] since I saw it to be fancruft speculation, but now I see it's in damn near every FF character page.
Does anyone else agree that these sections should go? Some of them are so reaching for a connection, it's ludicrous. You can make a connection between any two people or characters. Going by this model, this would make sense on the Michael Moore page: "Interestingly enough, Michael Moore physically resembles Will Smith minus 150 pounds, with a different style and colour of hair, different skin tone, green eyes instead of blue, and a huge gut instead of full muscle definition."
Come on. I could maybe, MAYBE see the idea behind putting in resemblances between FF characters (still asinine) but these articles are full of comparisons to friggin' Digimon characters. Obviously the designers at Square aren't looking at Digimon for inspiration, so it's obvious this is just some overeager fan with their own agenda.
With some agreement, we should edit them all out. --Marcg106 06:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's non-notable fancruft. – Seancdaug 08:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed, as per Seancdaug. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Resemblances" should be removed 

message: Well, our first attempt at getting one of our articles to featured status has failed, though I think we probably stand a decent chance should we decide to try again in a month or so. However, I thought it would be a good idea to take stock of the comments made during the FAC period and see how they affect the project at large.
*The most contentious issue seemed to revolve around the CVG infobox. To sum up, the infobox, by consensus of the CVG project, is supposed to contain box art. For the most part, for the Final Fantasy articles, they do not. While I'm personally not quite happy with the supposed "consensus" reached by the CVG project on this front (everytime it has come up for discussion, the results have been ambiguous, which is part of the reason why I wasn't even aware that this was an established consensus to start with), the fact of the matter is that, as a daughter to the CVG project, we should abide by its protocols. Which means, it's probably a good idea to reconsider our usage of logos on the game pages. It probably does make sense to raise the issue over at CVG's talk page, but I personally think that we should go with the box art for now, and change back only after we can convince everyone of the righteousness of our cause (or whatever...). My suggestion would be to go with the original Japanese box art for each game....
*More generally, the Localization and censorship heading got a lot of flak, with people making the case that it was too long, too detailed for a general interest encyclopedia, and incorporated way too many images. This resulted in some substantial trimming, until the section reached its current form, which seemed to satisfy most voters. There was a similar complaint regarding the story section, which was also shortened considerably. At the heart, it's the old fancruft issue: there is a level of detail which is going to be interesting to hardcore fans, who will, by and large, already be intimately familar with it to start with. This is an obvious problem with other game articles, which should be probably be reevaluated, but also for the various satelite articles: is it worth having character articles for NPCs? Is it even worth having character articles for most PCs? I'm currently leaning towards "no," truth be told, and I want to see about folding in those articles either to the relevant game article (in other words, merge Cecil Harvey into Final Fantasy IV), or to the related character list article (List of Final Fantasy IV characters, in the case of the above example). With regards to the character (or location) lists, do we really need to list every named NPC in the game? How detailed do we want to be, keeping in mind that there are avenues for really nitty-gritty information (GameFAQs, Wikibooks, the FF wikis, etc.) and that Wikipedia is not one of them.
*A couple of people complained about the character list, which was subsequently rewritten in prose format. Considering that the FF6 character list was probably in a healthier state going into the FAC than the majority of similar lists for the other games, I think this has fairly profound implications for the project in general. We probably should think about the best way to present this information....
*Lastly, the were a number of rumblings over the quality of the prose. This is arguably the most difficult of the issues to address, but also one of the most important. We really should make a concerted effort to keep sentences down to managable size, avoid awkward phrases, and ensure that our spelling and grammar is correct. 
That's what I took out of it, at least. Anyone else who participated want to share their thoughts? – Seancdaug 11:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, I wasn't about for most of the time this was a FAC. I've made my views clear about the logo/boxart issue on Talk:Final_Fantasy_VI. It seems to me to be harsh that we have to damage our article to conform with WP:CVG rules. I would like to poll them on the issue. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid I missed this issue too, but concerning your last point (prose quality), a comment: Given the subject matter of our articles, and the fact that they may draw editors from broader and perhaps less-academic backgrounds, maintaining good prose is particularly difficult. I've seen a number of perfectly good sentences/phrases/etc be replaced by something, at best, worded at a lower reading level or, at worst, grammatically mangled because the editor presumably didn't understand the original... (wow, that all sounds far more condescending than I imagined ;)) I'm not sure how to prevent this short of doing constant reverts, which are time-consuming and can appear confrontational =/ Gamemaker 13:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues from the Final Fantasy VI FAC 

message: I recently noticed this article when browsing through FFVII's category. Annonymous users and Wwwwolf are the only one's who have touched it. I'm wondering if anyone else knows anything about it and whether or not we should include in the Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children article, since it's supposedly related.
~ Hibana 03:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would vote that it be merged with Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, I think you have misread the issue. We are not discussing merging Final Fantasy VII with Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children; we are discussing merging On The Way To A Smile with Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On The Way To A Smile 

message: As some of you may have noticed, I've really been on something of a rampage recently ;-). Particularly in light of the comments made during our failed attempt to elevate Final Fantasy VI to featured status, it's become clear to me that the Final Fantasy pages in general are in a bit of a mess. In particular, we've got the fancruft problem: lots and lots of detailed information that is probably of very limited interest to anyone other than fans. This is going to hurt us in the long term, I suspect, so I want to return to the question of what sort of thing we should be focusing on. Again, I want to draw attention to the Final Fantasy wiki] on Wikicities, and put forward a serious proposal to start transferring some of the things we've got here in the 'pedia to it. Articles on individual NPCs, for instance, who might be important to their individual game, but are unlikely to be of interest to non-fans. Also, some of the more lengthy writeups of fan phenomena, like the Rinoa->Ultimecia debate, or the Aerith resurrection rumors, and what have you, could probably be trimmed down to one or two sentences for Wikipedia purposes, and have the longer prose moved. Does anyone have any thoughts? Do you guys think this is worthwhile? – Seancdaug 03:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I already moved Spira to the Final Fantasy Wiki, although not because I think it's too crufted or anything... :P. Anyway, any kind of speculation such as what you mentioned should crtainly be gotten rid of. As for NPCs, only the most and popular and important NPCs, such as Sephiroth and Kefka should be allowed to have their own special articles. However, I don't think we should go overboard and make our articles drab and dull simply for the sake of having them featured. This is Wikipedia, not Britannica.PiccoloNamek 05:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course not. But some would argue that the articles already are "drab and dull." That's kind of my point: too much of what we currently have is of interest only to fans, and is likely to be tedious and uninteresting to the vast majority of the public. At least by moving some of this to a subject specific source like the FF wiki, we ensure that the information is out there for fans, but isn't going to intrude upon non-fans who are looking for a more general (and more scholarly) overview. – Seancdaug 11:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You also might want to check out this wiki: . It is much more complete. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving articles to the Final Fantasy wiki 

message: Hey guys. I've put  notices on a number of articles devoted to Final Fantasy VII NPCs (specifically, Don Corneo, Heidegger, Hojo, Lucrecia, and Marlene). I've mentioned this before, but when we're getting more and more questions about whether even major player characters deserve their own articles. As such, it seems that few of these NPC articles are really defensible, and that we should really begin taking steps to consolidate and organize our information. As of right now, I've suggested merging all of the information into the main List of Final Fantasy VII characters article, but I suspect that we'll need to do some substantial trimming before we do that. The other thought I had was to maybe merge the Shin-Ra characters (Heidegger, Hojo, Lucrecia, maybe even Rufus) into the Shin-Ra Electric Power Company article. What does everyone else think? – Seancdaug 20:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don Corneo had an article?  That's just ridiculous.  But yeah, the merging of minor characters such as those seems fine. Amren (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FF7 minor character articles 

message: So, me and another wikipedian on the dawn of souls talk page (Talk:Final_Fantasy_I_%26_II:_Dawn_of_Souls#Detrimental_Changes) were wondering if someone could clear up a statement of relative quality between the originals and the gba re-release in the dawn of souls article. It would be very much appreciated (and I'd dare say clearly stating what sets a re-release apart from an original should be an important part of a re-release game article). Just wondering if someone here could take a look at it? Oh, and btw, nice project you've got going on here. :) --Codemonkey 22:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a few more dungeons in FFI and they expanded the storyline in FFII. There was very little graphical change, which would be expected with a console compatibility hop. As far as quality, I would think it's a matter of preference. Ereinion  00:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for answering our question. I also looked at a developer interview listed by Gamespot, and apparently some tweaks to the fighting system were made. I was thinking of inserting this, but since I haven't played either original or re-release, could someone check if it is ok? There are a few added dungeons in the Final Fantasy I section of the game and the the storyline was expanded for Final Fantasy II. In addition to this, some slight tweaks were made to the fighting system and item placement for Final Fantasy II. Oh, and in general, the dawn of souls article could use a little attention from you good folks at the FF project here.--Codemonkey 13:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Quite a number of changes, the most dramatic being the added dungeons and the FF2 battle system tweaks, as well as a significant overhaul of magic system of FF1 (froma tiered system to a MP-based system a la latter installments of the series). But there was also an overall reduction in difficulty level (stores charge less money, more recovery items available for use, more powerful classes, etc.) in both games. These changes didn't go over entirely well with a number of fans, although I wouldn't really argue that the response was notable enough for inclusion. But a larger section on the differences would be worthwhile (sans POV pushing), and can probably be adapted, in part, from the existing "differences between versions" section of the Final Fantasy (video game) article. – Seancdaug 23:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  dawn of souls question 

message: In light of the recent... unpleasantness... I've been toying around with ways to combine articles on individual characters into a single article. I've put my preliminary work up in the sandbox. I've basically just adapted the information present in the individual articles, though I've left out the music information, which I kind of feel might be better suited to a new article specifically regarding the music of the game. Does anyone have a problem with my finishing up the new article (probably as Characters of Final Fantasy VI), and moving the existing, individual articles to the FF wiki? The way I'm envisioning things, major playable characters and villains (probably Kefka and Gestahl) would go in this article, while everything else would go in a seperate, Minor characters of Final Fantasy VI article. Thoughts? – Seancdaug 05:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, you seem to have put them in surname alphabetical order, but I'm wondering if perhaps they should be listed in order of appearance. Personally, I think it would give the article better... flow? Especially for people that have already played the game.PiccoloNamek 09:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think you're probably right. There's a minor problem determining order for some of the characters (since the three-way split sequence can be played in a number of different orders), but I doubt that that will be a show-stopper. I'll play around with it a bit. – Seancdaug 16:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I suggest you take my recommendation of transwiking to Wikibooks. It would serve to make everyone happy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course (although I still personally feel they'd be better suited to the Final Fantasy wiki). But the information should be here in Wikipedia in some abbreviated form, which is what I'm trying to address now. – Seancdaug 16:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Neat list! A lot better then seperate articles, I'd say. Heck - you could even shoot for a Wikipedia:Featured lists with that thing!!! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: This list is nice, but I still prefer individual pages. (Not least because otherwise the pages would still exist, but they would merely be a redirect to the list anyway.) I list of NPCs seems like a good thing, though. 
--JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I disagree. Sephiroth at least has a significantly greater claim to pop culture significance than Kefka. He's had cameo appearances in more games, and is better known by virtue of appearing in a much more popular, and widely played, game. A case could be made that Sephiroth has, in some small part, transcended the game in which he originally appeared. I'm not sure I particularly accept that argument myself, mind you, nor am I even convinced that Sephiroth deserves an individual article, but I find it a great deal more compelling than any similar argument about Kefka. Any noteworthy discussion of Kefka is a discussion of Final Fantasy VI, and there's no more reason to devote a seperate article to him than there is to devote an article to Chupon. – Seancdaug 16:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Pop culture huh? Phooey. Well I suppose I'm beat here. The original page could always be moved to the FFwiki, I guess. :)PiccoloNamek 16:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Fantasy VI character page redux 

message: Elsewhere on Wikipedia, I happened upon an ongoing discussion about fair use images and the ways in which we can use them. This is, of course, a major concern for our project, as it's kind of difficult to find public domain and/or free licensed images which accurately depict our subject matter. But the thing that most caught my attention (and which I sort of knew about before, but didn't ever really connect the dots, so to speak) is that Wikipedia policy allows for fair use images to be used only in the article namespace. Which means that we should not be using any such images on the project page, and, more importantly, on our many templates. This is actually explicitly stated on the Wikipedia:Fair use page ("The material should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages"). So it's a two-fold problem: first, we need to go and remove any copyrighted image from any and all of our templates, and, secondly, we should see about finding some way to provide non-infringing images in their place. I'm not sure how easy that last bit is going to be, though. – Seancdaug 15:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use and templates 

message: As you may have noticed there has been some mass linkspamming lately. People not only adding an external link to a fansite not on one article, but many Final Fantasy articles in rapid succession. This is quite annoying to clean-up. Up until now, I have been placing the ,  and  templates on these user's talk pages. Generally, they don't work. My theory is this is because the notices are confusing and generic. So I have created some custom templates on my userspace that I plan to use next time around. These templates are designed specifically for Final Fantasy fansite linkspamming. You can see them at User:JiFish/FFLS.
I am posting about it here both so other users can use these templates if desired and to get feedback, comments and suggestions. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like them, hopefully linkspammers will grasp those better than the more generic ones, Derktar 06:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I didn't remove them. Here's my edit: . However the external links policy does state there should be a link to one major fansite. If there is disagreement as to which one site that should be, it should be replaced with a link to a fansite listing. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I removed the links, and I stand by my decision. Wikipedia is not a web directory, and our policy, as stated by JiFish, is to accept a link to one major fansite. The note left on your talk page states this explicitly, and I would ask you to refrain from adding those links back before further discussion. – Seancdaug 20:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Fantasy Linkspammers 

message: I recently stumbled up an article containing information on Altima, the final boss of Final Fantasy Tactics. Since all the edits thus far were done my anonymous users, I decided to throw caution to the wind and redirect the page to List of Final Fantasy Tactics characters. One of the users (139.78.10.1) did not like this, and gave me a Test1 warning on my talk page and told me that he/she created the article because the character (Ajora) had not yet been added to the List. I'm wondering what our current stand on one-game characters is ever since the Final Fantasy VI character reorganization. ~ Hibana 17:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and added Ajora Glabbados to the List of Final Fantasy Tactics characters article. I wonder, though. Should there be a separate entry for Ultima and Ajora? They are not the same person. Ultima is the leader of the Lucavi demons, and Ajora was chosen to be her host. I just wonder if Ultima herself is notable enough within the game to warrant her own entry.PiccoloNamek 18:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: IMO, this should be a redirect. Perhaps it should be nominted for AfD? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Altima (Final Fantasy Tactics)

message: I have left an explanation of why I think the fan-tranlations dates should be removed from List of Final Fantasy titles over at talk:List of Final Fantasy titles. I would be grateful if any members would drop by to add their two cents. Thanks. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Final Fantasy titles & release dates 

message: While I used to have no problem with every video game character having their own article, my opinion is gradually changing.  I was shocked to see that nearly all 45 Chrono Cross characters had their own articles.  Sure, I created ones for four of the main characters, but I thought this situation was pretty out of hand.  And then I realized how hypocritical I was, having created nearly all of the not-so-notable Final Fantasy IV character articles.  So, eventually, I'm hoping to merge them all into List of Final Fantasy IV characters, but wanted to include as much information as possible without being crufty (meaning I didn't want to move the entire article, infobox and all into the list).  I ended up with this, and I was wondering if anyone liked/disliked it.  I'm not exactly asking about the quality of the prose really, but more of the format.  I'm still not sure how I would do this for the NPCs like this, or if I should include Cecil's/Rydia's other portraits.  Thanks.  — WARPEDmirror 22:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem I can see is "Class(es)". Since only one character has two classes, would it be better to use "Class". (For Cecil this would be Class: Dark Knight/Paladin.)  Other than that minor point, great stuff! --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for some insight... 

message: I noticed that the special blue table used for the Final Fantasy VI packaging artwork is still up. For the sake of uniformity, should we simply change that back to the basic boxes as in the other game articles, or should we convert all of the others to look like FFVI? ~ Hibana 21:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That should be a gallery, I think. (We have the feature, so why not use it?) Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've converted it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Packaging artwork 

message: I've looked around some of the article and noticed that some (if not all) of the music samples have been deleted. What happened? ~ Hibana 23:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music samples removed