Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy/archive/25

message: # — PresN 23:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Roll call: July

message: The issue on the pictures explained above is now at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-05 WikiProject Final Fantasy. Any comments there should be very much appreciated. :D Thanks Greg Jones II 16:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This better not open a can of worms. We don't need this negative attention. — Deckiller 17:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just pointing out an issue by the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, Tyler. The parties involved in this dispute are Ren(miri) and aM(an)I(n)B(lack) and Ren initiated the process. Most of the old timers left because of that issue Greg Jones II 17:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I wasn't shooting you (the messenger) or Ren/AMIB. It's a necessary thing to deal with, but it also may cause some problems :) — Deckiller 17:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This mediation case was absolutely necessary after aMIB and Kariteh started tagging images I loaded in a blatant effort to silence dissent by going after someone's contributions. Renmiri 21:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TO ALL:  I care not for whether the images I loaded stay or not, I have my own Wiki and also contribute to FF Wiki. My main concern is the method employed by aMIB and Kariteh, which I view as a blatant attempt to cower me into submission by singling "my work" for spurious claims reeking of Wiki lawyering. The kind of tactics used by aMIB and Kariteh against me yesterday are aimed at intimidating editors. I beg you to consider that WPFF earned it's prestige with quality work and civility, never by bullying editors. We have a good body of work and do not need to be reduced to online posse tactics like the ones used against me on a simple editing dispute yesterday. Renmiri 21:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I added a picture of the extremes Kariteh and aMIB went to pursue my contributions, in spite of the fact that the images destination was being discussed here on the project page, leaving absolutely no need to go after individual images. This is the kind of action I am against Renmiri 21:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Extremes? Bullying? Is it really what comes to your mind? I am really, really dumbfounded. These actions' only goal were and are to improve the articles and make them follow guidelines; they have nothing to do with putting anyone in submission. I can see how they could be seen as a bit harsh (though I just see them as bold, since some flawed things tend to sit there untouched for ages if no one actually do something about them), but the intended result is to catalyze actions and make the article better, not to kick you out of this place and have the issue about those pictures remains unresolved. If I had made 500 edits on articles or pics only to found out that there were 500 mistakes about them, I would not mind seeing all those 500 stuff tagged, and I'd gladly try to fix the problem even if it's a pain. Please don't take it personally (it could have been anybody) and just forget these stuff about editors and "child"; we're dealing with an article, there is an issue about it, and it has to be fixed. The persons behind the arguments hardly matter, only the arguments matter. Kariteh 22:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What do we do about this situation now, Deckiller? I was wondering if I would report this to you (an administrator) or not? Greg Jones II 21:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I will now report this incident at WP:ANI. Greg Jones II 22:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Precisely. The mediation is not about the pictures at all, is about the tone and approach Renmiri 02:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, first Karitheh is mentioned in my text but not the subject of my complain. Rough methods or not, he/she is just another editor. A Man in Black is an admin, which makes his actions a lot more serious. Second, I entered a request for mediation, not a formal complaint for a reason. A warning if you will. Because I wish to make aMIB, Kariteh and others rethink their methods. This is an encyclopedia, a very important work and administrators should not be running roughshod over editors because of editing disputes. All I want to see is this kind of piling on, roughing up on editors ceasing RIGHT NOW if not sooner. Renmiri 02:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that methods are everything. A cool, patient method will get much more attention and understanding from the other side. Sometimes, boldness can be taken too far (while still being in good faith). — Deckiller 02:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's a little extreme to remove the images for the eight main characters, especially since all but Tidus and Yuna will be/already have been merged. — Deckiller 02:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, you can try all you want, but you will not get me to back off. Contrary to many here, I have nothing to lose and I will not stand idle while you try to make Wikipedia your playground to bully others. You can delete each and every one of "my images" (in reality Wikipedia images), I have plenty more where those came from and have my own site to post them on. I have done nothing wrong and never tried to fool anyone. I have never accepted bullying and I'm not about to start now. Renmiri 06:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seraphimblade has been cleaning up other stuff too, it seems he came to this Characters page at the wrong moment and with the wrong arguments. We can just inform him and see how it goes from there. And really Ren, could you stop grouping people and calling them "--- and his gang", etc.? I don't personally know aMIB more than I know you, and I'm pretty sure I've never even interacted with Seraphimblade yet. People might have the same opinions on some things, which could happen to be opinions opposed to yours, but it doesn't mean there's a conspiracy against you. You are not the only person who uploaded pictures for the Characters of FFX/X-2 article. Kariteh 09:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Kariteh, I can see you are trying to put this episode behind you and so do I. Again, I entered a very harmless request for mediation, which has no real  impact on someone's Wikipedia "career" it is basically a time outwere we look for a calmer 3rd party to help cool things down. All I wanted with it was to make sure you, aMIB and whoever else felt tempted to act like you guys did on July 4th to reflect on what you did and the impact it has on an editing dispute. And the impact using such rough tactics have on teamwork and every editor's stress level while working on Wikipedia. It spoils it. It takes away the joy of trying to make articles better and makes it a place where everyone is afraid of speaking up. Which, as far as I know, it is the antithesis of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. So if I get your word that you will not rough up others like you did with me, I'll let you be.
**My problem is with aMIB. He saw nothing wrong with you tagging 38 images, and he is not a n00b. He is an editor, he should know better. He knows very well that orphan bots will delete an image in 7 days. He has seen thousands of editing disputes. He could have chosen to not get involved. He could have chosen to support you here in the project page and turn a blind eye to the fact that you went after my images. Instead, he joined the attack and tagged 10 more. As orphan images which is a lie, their presence on the Character article was being disputed, i.e. they weren't orphaned yet. Tagging them  as orphan will make the images be deleted and aMIB knows it. He even tagged images that are NOT on the characters page. He chose my work specifically, regardless of if it was on the disputed page or not. There is simply no way I can assume good faith in his case. He did it on purpose, to get his way. 
In fairness to aMIB, he didn't deny it. On the mediation page he flat out admits going after images loaded by me, because he disagreed with the 2006 decision. Which makes my choice of the bland, harmless mediation moot. I see what he did to me as wrong and the antithesis of how editing disputes should be handled. He is unrepentant. I have no choice but to press further. Because, when it comes down to it, the reason I cared so much about "my pictures" and the Characters article is because I care about Wikipedia. The wikipedia that I experienced in 2006. The wikipedia that has a concept of letting anyone edit a page, not just "the anointed few". The Wikipedia that has a rule about not bitting the n00b and another about not using Wiki:lawyering to shut up editors. This is the place I want my images and my edits on. 
If Wikipedia ceased to be this place and now the kind of thing aMIB and you did to me is considered proper behavior in editing disputes, then I want no part of it. You can go ahead and tag every single image and article I ever touched for AfD and you will be doing me a favor. If Wikipedia has turned into a place where people get their worked singled out because of a simple disagreement, then it is not the place I want my work on. And I will be grateful that aMIB is saving me the hours needed to take out my own work from this new place he is building. It isn't the place I want my work at all.
As for now, I refuse to believe things changed that much in less than a year, and I will keep on fighting aMIB until he admits what he did is very wrong and that there are limits to what can be done to editors on an editing dispute. Singling out someone's work is out of bounds. Piling on an editor ? Ditto! There is a very visible line between passion and boldness and bullying and aMIB crossed it. Until he admits his error I won't stop. No matter how many images I loaded he deletes. Until either he admits his error or someone at a higher level than aMIB tells me Wikipedia is now accepting and approving what he did as wiki policy then I won't stop. Because as I said before, when it comes down to it, the reason I care so much about my 38 images is because I care about the place I loaded them. And I will lose 38, 68, or 3,800 of my edits fighting for that place. The Wikipedia I encountered in 2006, where people weren't afraid to disagree with editors, not even when they were admins. Renmiri 04:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Cabal 

message: Renmiri has merged these two articles. Great work. Sadly, there are problems. The first problem is that the inline images have returned. Renmiri, you ask: "Augh!!!! WHO deleted all the images carefully put inline ? Based on WHAT ?? Idiot!!" Well, it was me, and it was based on WP:FU. There's no way we'll be able to justify the use of that many images for that many minor characters. Right now the article breaks copyright law, depending on whether or not that many images is justified (I would say no). The second problem is the length. This article is HUGE, at 133 kilobytes. I'm sure it can be cut down. --Teggles 04:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At our last go with the WP:FU the inline images (linked but not displayed) did not violate Fair Use. When did this change ? They are there merely for identification and are not displayed. The display=none at the end of the article is there to prevent the images from being considered orphaned, while the inline link allows readers to browse the image only if needed for clarification. Renmiri 04:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is linking the images any different to displaying them? --Teggles 04:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Eh, I guess it doesn't matter, they can easily be removed when we get yelled at. --Teggles 04:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Precisely. We have been through all this WP:FU rigmarole already. My idiot comment was in exasperation that all that was blatantly ignored. My apologies, you meant well. Next time, ask first, will ya ?   Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Final_Fantasy/To_do#Miscellany has the painful discussion and decision process behind all those inline images, display=none, etc...  Renmiri 04:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it without asking because the same thing happened to Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. I wasn't part of WikiProject Final Fantasy at the time of that discussion, so I really had no way of knowing. --Teggles 04:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But they're not hidden! I can clearly see four weird empty boxes at the bottom right side of the article. Kariteh 09:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because of some sort of CSS issue. I'll try to fix it. --Teggles 09:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright, it's fixed. It happened because a few of the hidden images were given the "thumb" attribute. --Teggles 09:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, it looks like most of the Japanese characters were broken. Fixing it now... :( --Teggles 05:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gaahh.. Sorry, must have been the text editor I was using to cut and paste between pages. Thanks for your help BTW Renmiri 05:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, we need to add voice actors for X-2, since some of them are not mentioned in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjones23 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I forgot to sign my comment above. If that is the case, I apologize. Greg Jones II 14:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Characters of Final Fantasy X]] and [[Characters of Final Fantasy X-2]] 

message: Electro-Mag Rod has been nominated for deletion. Please vote/discuss on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 1#Electro-Mag Rod → Turks (Final Fantasy VII)#Reno. Kariteh 21:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects are nice but clean up is necessary too 

message: I tweaked the MoS a bit. Nothing major; just reflecting current trends in article structure and whatnot. — Deckiller 07:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MoS 

message: Anybody in the mood for a FA push? Tactics or XI? — Deckiller 05:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had to choose, it would be Final Fantasy Tactics, I haven't played Final Fantasy XI. --Teggles 05:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. But FFXI is so close; it just needs trimming in the gameplay section and maybe some refs. Maybe when Ra comes back? — Deckiller 06:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could have two FA pushes at the same time, though Tactics would be more in my scope, but still, my wikibreak is starting next week. I'm afraid my contributions will be sporadic. — Blue。 12:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FA push

message: anything wrong with starting the Shiva (Final Fantasy), Ifrit (Final Fantasy), etc. etc. Minor Final Fantasy Summons and such?
i mean, the Blood Elf article can exist, so can the Miser (Soul Calibur) article, c'mon! seems a bit unfair. AnYtWo! 19:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The FFWiki is a better alternative to that IMHO. — Blue。 19:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You might want to check out WP:PTEST. It's somewhat relevent to that question. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The existence of Miser and Blood Elf has absolutely no relevance to these FF summon topics. However, since Bahamut (Final Fantasy) exists, maybe the other summons should. (Or alternatively, if we reach the conclusion that Shiva and Ifrit shouldn't have articles, maybe Bahamut shouldn't too.) It's something to discuss. Kariteh 20:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In 2006 we had Final Fantasy magic as the article to mention summons that appeared in several games of the series Renmiri 21:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bahamut article seems kind of lame with little hope for improvement. I don't plan on setting Ifrit and Bahamut on the same level but I feel that Bahamut should be merged somewhere. Axem Titanium 21:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bahamut should be merged again. It was recreated with the promise that there'd be reliable sources, but as of yet there are only primary sources. --Teggles 00:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That page should be merged. It doesn't help that with all the merging done in the past, this article is still established and lacks a real world perspective, apart from a mention in ancient Arabian mythology (not Islamic, mind you). I'll put up suggestion on it. I've put merging tags to said articles. If there's no discussion, will merge them. — Blue。 06:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The anti-merge (and anti-delete sometimes) editors have a habit of coming to discuss only after the merge (or deletion) has been done, unfortunately. Kariteh 08:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surprisingly, nobody has reverted the change to Plot Summaries at WP:NOT. — Deckiller 08:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've merged it. There's a consensus in the discussion. — Blue。 09:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dedicated Pages 

message: I've managed to trim the summary down by another 50 words or so; it now is 850-900 words (was 945 previously). Have I overtrimmed? I doubt it, especially with the Characters of Final Fantasy VIII article. — Deckiller 09:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could get into a big essay about Wikipedia and content coverage, so I'll stick with "it's fine". --Teggles 00:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Final Fantasy VIII]]

message: An article that you have been involved in editing, RPGe, has been listed by me for deletion.  If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RPGe.  Thank you. Kariteh 10:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD nomination of [[RPGe]]

message: Discovered this article and tagged it. What should we do with this one? — Blue。 18:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess I'll do the obvious. — Blue。 18:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Titan (Final Fantasy character)]]

message: An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Final Fantasy cast members, has been listed by me for deletion.  If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Final Fantasy cast members.  Thank you. Kariteh 21:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How odd. A mass-CFD resulted in "listify, then delete once a good list exists", so some admin ran a bot to make really crappy lists to justify deleting the categories. Anomie 23:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD nomination of [[List of Final Fantasy cast members]]

message: I have been thinking that we should consider something audacious, such as a featured TOPIC push. We are very close in several cases; Final Fantasy IV, Final Fantasy X/X2, Final Fantasy IX, and Final Fantasy XII are all in a good place...one featured article for each, one or 2 good articles...I think it would be invigorating to push something like that. Just so you know, I would vote for FF4 :) Judgesurreal777 05:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We still have to get FFT and XI to FAC though. — Deckiller 09:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'd rather they get done first. One thing I've discovered though, is the difficulty finding development information for Final Fantasy Tactics. I've even been through sites on the web archive, there's nothing. I can't even find the date it was announced. So I'd say to do Final Fantasy XI first, even though I haven't played it, heh. --Teggles 10:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I found this -  http://web.archive.org/web/19970606053103/www.next-generation.com/news/073196cc.html - but it really only tells us that Final Fantasy Tactics was around on July 31, 1996. --Teggles 10:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could the issue be avoided by stating when Matsuno joined Square instead? It was in 1995. Kariteh 11:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I suppose, but that isn't going to fill a Development section :) --Teggles 12:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it has to be that long, look at Final Fantasy IV: not counting the rerelease subsections, the development section is incredibly succinct. For FFT, we could try to improve what's already in the section, and maybe mention the influence of previous Matsuno titles on the game. Kariteh 12:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but Final Fantasy IV has a good amount of development information for the audio, and a lot of legacy information. That can't be said for Tactics. I suppose there's enough to scrape for featured status, but I personally wouldn't be happy about the content. I'll figure something out. --Teggles 13:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sooo, then how about after we get both of those to FA status? It would compliment both FA pushes and our GA article drive. Judgesurreal777 02:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If expanding the FFT Development section is too difficult, I propose to merge Final Fantasy Tactics: The Lion War with the FFT article. The FFT:TLW article is essentially just a Development section. Kariteh 12:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose. We should wait until the Final Fantasy Tactics: The War of the Lions come out stateside. That way we can expand the FFT:WOTL article later. As for Tactics, hey, if Vagrant Story, a more obscure title has an expansive development section, I don't see why Tactics can't? — Blue。 13:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vagrant Story wasn't supposed to be an obscure title when they were developing it. It had a big bilingual website with tons of interviews and developers' information and possibility for the readers to send their questions. On the contrary, FFT had and has literally nothing, unless it's Japanese-exclusive or something. Anyway, I really don't think this Development section is such a big deal. Final Fantasy VI has a Development section which is totally devoid of any core development information, and which is filled with Audio and Graphics info instead. Audio sections aren't supposed to be subsections of Development in the WP:FF Manual of Style, but I guess we can do something like that for FFT, plus info about the Ivalice legacy, etc. Kariteh 08:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll find that there's still actual development information in there. Without delving into original research, we can really only describe developer roles for Final Fantasy Tactics. I believe User:Mitaphane has a magazine with a preview of the game, that might prove helpful.--Teggles 19:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Topic Push

message: You might be interested in a discussion on :Talk:Redemption (song), since the article was previously merged and has been de-merged. Kariteh 14:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we de-merge Eyes on Me? It's a similar case. Kariteh 09:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one disagrees, I went ahead and de-merged Eyes on Me and Kiss Me Good-Bye. Kariteh 12:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just noticed I should similarly de-merge Melodies of Life and the FFX/X-2 singles too, but I suppose I should stop right here and voice this here first, since I'd be accused of being part of some intimidating gang if I don't. So, should they be de-merged? If not, what would the difference with Redemption (song) be? Kariteh 12:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Eyes On Me was created with Final Fantasy VIII in mind. From the start it was intended for use in Final Fantasy VIII. They simply tacked on an instrumental of a previously released song. I even wrote some development information for Eyes On Me, and to have duplicate copies of that in Music of Final Fantasy VIII and Eyes On Me is redundant. Removing/summarising it in Music of Final Fantasy VIII damages the quality of the article. --Teggles 09:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see Kiss Me Good-Bye merged easily but I don't feel like it must be merged now. Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, after all. We can improve Music of FFXII first. Same goes for Redemption. Axem Titanium 16:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redemption 

message: An editor has recently de-merged the Locations in Spira article. To avoid a potential edit war, please discuss here about what should be done (merge? de-merge?) and wait for consensus before further editing the article. Thanks. Kariteh 21:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remerge - Article seems to have no hope of being anything encyclopedic, which is why it was merged. Unless that has changed recently, it should be re-merged. Judgesurreal777 21:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't say it has no hope of being encyclopedic, but there needs to be a proper merge. Your previous merge was a simple copy and paste, which was deleted from the Spira article two days later. That's why I restored the Locations in Spira article and placed a mergeto tag on it. Someone needs to merge them so we don't lose all the information from the Locations in Spira article. --Xanzzibar 22:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, bits of the article were later compressed and reintroduced into Spira (Final Fantasy), which is why there is still a meaty section on Geography in that article. — Deckiller 01:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "merge" was not the proper word for what was done. It was integrated into the above mentioned section where it could provide a better overview without becoming too detailed (like it was). I think it's safe to just straight up redirect it now. Axem Titanium 22:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fate of the [[Locations in Spira]] article 

message: Take a look at the bottom discussion. I'm somewhat surprised how quickly this came; usually, these cycles are ten months, not three months. But alas, it's only one user complaining. — Deckiller 05:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he has raised some valid points. The problem is reaching a good compromise. Edea and Seifer's placement is a tad misleading, but it's difficult to place them anywhere else. I also agree that there should be at least some gameplay pictures - they are characters in a game, after all. Certainly if this is the "example" article for fictional lists, it needs to be perfect. --Teggles 02:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a list; it's an article. It's the example of how cast of character articles should be done. I believe all the gameplay pictures were removed due to legal and stylistic reasons back in March, but we might be able to find some. — Deckiller 06:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you know what I meant. --Teggles 07:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Characters of Final Fantasy VIII]]

message: An article that pertains to the project, Battle of Doma Castle (Final Fantasy VI), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Doma Castle (Final Fantasy VI). Thank you. -- Kariteh 08:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Result: Redirect to Final Fantasy VI. — Blue。 21:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD nomination of [[Battle of Doma Castle (Final Fantasy VI)]] 

message: I'm launching a Good Article drive for Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. By all means, join me! — Blue。 18:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My GA drive a success! — Blue。 15:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FFTA GA Drive! 

message: Protaganists of Final Fantasy has been nominated for deletion. Please vote, thanks. Kariteh 13:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Result: Snowball delete per dicussion. — Blue。 21:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another one-shot for deletion 

message: I made a comment of the discussion page about the topicality of these characters appearing in other games. Please have a look and give your opinion. Thanks. -- Elaich  talk 02:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Characters of Final Fantasy IX]] 

message: An editor has recently turned the Final Fantasy Collection article into a sort of hybrid between a disambiguation page and a micro-list linking to FFIV, V, and VI. However, I think the article would be less redundant, easier to maintain, and would give the readers a broader view on all these compilations, if it were a redirect to List of Final Fantasy titles#Compilations and collections instead. What should be done? (This discussion may or may not apply to Final Fantasy Anthology too.) Kariteh 21:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Final Fantasy Collection is just an identical grouping of three previously-released titles, so we're not losing much. Then again, this could have its reception and possible development. I think at least the infobox for this game should be added back - or its image and release information. --Teggles 09:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the redirect for now since there is no discussion consensus on the issue. Kariteh 19:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Final Fantasy Collection]] 

message: The FFWikiproject should utilize that area more. And put it where someone could see and be itching to click it so he/she knows what areas within the project they can tackle. I updated it, but didn't archive; it seemed pointless. — Blue。 17:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The To do list 

message: For all those who helped write those "Music of" articles, this might interest you.
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#One album per article.
Happypal 20:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One album per article 

message: An entry on FFXIII's talk page, Talk:Final Fantasy XIII#Official Links Only Allowed, says that only official links pertaining to Final Fantasy XIII will only be allowed and any fansite will be deleted. Some fansites will be removed as spam. This might not be against Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy/Manual_of_style#External link guidelines. Even fansites can be cited as sources. I am not sure. Greg Jones II 21:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that "External links" and "citing sources aka References" are two different things altogether. Citing fansites should be avoided unless it is verifiable - meaning the fansite provided a source for its own statements. That in turn moots the citation of fansites since a more venerable source is available. Agreed? — Blue。 01:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I think. Greg Jones II 02:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I need some help on the FFXIII article in getting this to GA status. Also, I need some help on adding external links. I know that official links are allowed, so why shouldn't FF Wiki be added? Greg Jones II 17:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Never mind. The EL section allows for Official Site links and a wiki already covering much of the game's mechanics, so any type of fansites added in this section are not acceptable. I think that following the game's release, the FF wiki will be added. I am not sure. Greg Jones II 17:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it failed GA on the grounds of being an unstable article about a future game. Should've seen that coming. Okay, let's move on to other alternatives, such as Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. — Blue。 18:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've saw that one coming. Let's go fix up FFT Advance for GA and also go for FA on FFII, FFV, FFT and FFXI. Greg Jones II 18:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Fantasy XIII 

message: The story section in FFVII needs to be updated with plot citations. When the story section was trimmed, the plot references were stripped. Greg Jones II 19:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Kariteh. Greg Jones II 20:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Final Fantasy VII]]