Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy/archive/22

message: Please sign your name below to show that you are around and still with the project.
# — Deckiller 06:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sticky: Roll call - April

message: Hey everybody. Right now, the main Final Fantasy games are include in the Final Fantasy featured topic. All of the main "secondary games" are at least GA status as well, except for Crystal Chronicles, Final Fantasy Tactics, and Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. If we can get those to at least GA, then we'll pretty much have a 100 percent complete featured topic; we can then go in and renominate the secondary titles for inclusion. What do you all think of taking a break from the FA pushes to get these three articles to GA? — Deckiller 00:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've finished everything on my "To do before returning to wiki-break" list so I'll be spending a little less time on Wikipedia now (also, AP exams are coming up). On the other hand, I still want to help, although FFTA is the only one of the three that I've played. I'll be around to do what I can then. Axem Titanium 00:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Myself did not play FFCC so I haven't exactly the experience to help, though I'll gladly do the Tactics and Tactics Advance. I'll put it up on my roster, though maybe my contribution will be sporadic, since I'm on industrial training right now. Sporadic, but a giant cloud of spores, I hope :D Bluerです。 なにか? 02:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've played Tactics and I have the manual, although I don't really remember the story. Fortunately, Tactics should be a relatively easy task, since there isn't much to write about in terms of story. Maybe a paragraph for setting, para for characters, and one para per story act? — Deckiller 03:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: They will be once they are uniformly improved to meet GA/FA criteria. When that happens, the criteria for inclusion will be expanded (see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Nomination procedure). See this failing FT supplement nom because it doesn't have well-defined inclusion criteria. Axem Titanium 14:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Completing the Final Fantasy series featured topic

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Kariteh 10:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:FF jobs}} 

message: An article that you have been involved in editing, Adventure Log, 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/Adventure Log.  Thank you. Kariteh 19:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD nomination of [[Adventure Log]]

message: What should be done with these two articles? I'm a little dumbfounded.
* Final Fantasy VIII-2
* Final Fantasy VII (PS3) Kariteh 11:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No cloud, no squall shall hinder us

message: An article that you have been involved in editing, Fantasy Reborn, 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/Fantasy Reborn.  Thank you. Kariteh 11:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD nomination of [[Fantasy Reborn]]

message: Why was this merged after only three days with the merge tag up?  Especially without anyone waiting for the major contributor to the article (that would be me) to possibly offer some argument about it?  I see that User:NicholaiDaedalus removed the merge tag two days after it was added, and the day afterwards it was already redirected.  I've been out of town and not checking Wiki and am really not happy that I wasn't given any opportunity to discuss this before it was merged - and that there doesn't appear to have been any discussion anywhere about it, certainly not on the job's page and not here either (which is exactly what Daedalus pointed out when he removed the merge tag).  This is not a good precedent to set for the project.  I know we're on a major deletionist/mergist bent but people should at least be afforded the opportunity to argue against it. -RaCha'ar 03:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, sorry, didn't realize it was up for that small amount of time. I reverted the redirect for now. Judgesurreal777 03:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I would like to say that I have folded several other articles that appeared to be totally lacking in sources into their main articles to help with the process of improving/merging articles to get all of them to GA status. If there is an issue with any of the others, let me know, otherwise I merged a few that did not seem controversial or needing a debate. Judgesurreal777 04:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think this is a really good idea. It allows us to cover our asses while we slowly work on each topic, because the info is there, but hidden by the redirect. That way, we can restore it when we are ready to source and rewrite. — Deckiller 05:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not disagree with this if things actually will be restored once they have a chance to be rewritten.  My issue is that this article was tagged as unsourced after Daedalus removed the initial merge tag, then merged before any attempt could be made at sourcing it (although for the record, I'm not blaming Judgesurreal for this, since he's doing similar work elsewhere). I'm inclined to agree with ShiraShira about the lack of communication.  -RaCha'ar 12:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: May I ask where this discussion took place?  It wasn't on the talk page for that article, nor was it at the FFTA article, nor here that I can see, which makes it difficult for anyone else to take part in those discussions.  For the record, the page existed in the first place as a consolidation of separate articles that had been created for every separate job in the game. -RaCha'ar 12:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a short discussion at the List of jobs in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance talk page Bluerです。 なにか? 12:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, my fault - that wasn't there when I looked at this last night, and I hadn't looked at it again this morning when I posted my previous comment. The discussion took place after the merge, which is the crux of my problem with this entire thing.  Again, I know the trend of the project is towards merging and deleting but I disagree with a policy of shooting first and asking questions later.  I'll direct myself to this discussion posthaste. -RaCha'ar 18:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of jobs in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance]]

message: Sorry, can't take the suspense, is anyone working on anything at the moment? Wondering if another FA or GA push is happening soon. Judgesurreal777 23:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I should be working on User:Deckiller/World of Final Fantasy VIII, which I guess will be made a article when it's up to GA-quality. --Teggles 04:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikiproject's seem slow lately, I noticed. I'd be working on GA-ing FFTactics page. — Bluerです。 なにか? 06:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: End-of-semester workload. — Deckiller 07:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gotten distracted with some tasks and cleanup, but I'm still trying to work on sourcing Characters of Final Fantasy IX.  Once we get the article properly sourced, I see no reason we couldn't get it to GA status.  The biggest task that's distracted me has been Common themes of Final Fantasy which currently has no cohesive writing style, and is in much need of refining.  --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 15:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sourcing Minigames of Final Fantasy and maybe pushing to GA, except that like Deckiller said, it's the end of the semester and I'm not sure when I'm going to have time to do anything on it.  --PresN 18:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AP EXAMS, NO PUEDO TRABAJAR. Seriously. That and English class is killer. Axem Titanium 21:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't understand why this project seems very pro-Nomura.  I'm the only one who seems (or seemed, because I really have lost touch with this place) willing to find encyclopedic non-Nomura stuff and add it. --Sir Crazyswordsman 03:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not pro-Nomura :D. — Bluerです。 なにか? 03:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: ... Is it a joke? If you think Nomura-related articles get more attention, it's because there are, apparently, few people in the project who are interested by the non-Nomura FFs; it's not because there are "pro-Nomuras" who reject the others. It's just a question of number of people. It's the same thing with the Square Enix project: it's not pro-Final Fantasy, but it simply has more people in it interested in the FF series than people interested by Front Mission, Chrono, Parasite Eve (a Nomura series!), etc. Kariteh 09:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current activities

message: Hello, I have an external link here pasted on FFT's page : FFT: Online an MMOG based on the Final Fantasy Tactics world of Ivalice]. Is this linkspam? Coincidentally, what links should and should not be allowed in the External Link section? — Bluerです。 なにか? 16:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How popular is it?  Is it a "major player" similar to Caves of Narshe?  If not it probably shouldn't be added. And also, because it's Wikipedia's (stupid) policy that we have to kiss the RIAA and MPAA's asses, and they don't want us linking to copyrighted things, we can't do that either (a policy which I oppose and 100% disagree with).  --Sir Crazyswordsman 08:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone already removed it (and the GFaqs link to boot) under the claim of linkspam... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Link

message: I propose a change to the Final Fantasy (series) article. Right before I made some edits to the first paragraph, the article was entirely focused on the video game series. However, Final Fantasy is a brand. The focus can remain on video games, but the article should be about the BRAND, video games simply being a large part of that. What does anyone think about this? --Teggles 10:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. However, I think we should tackle the series article last; that way, we have plenty of training and already discovered references, and know how it can be organized based on the articles already established. — Deckiller 11:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it a franchise rather? Also, we should be totally coherent and move the article to Final Fantasy (brand) or Final Fantasy (franchise). Kariteh 14:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is merely semantic. "Series" describes it just as well and also fits with the other articles of similar type. Axem Titanium 19:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second Axem's comment.  Brand/Franchise/Series all describe FF just fine, and Series matches the format of other video game articles.  --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 19:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second part of the argument is quite irrelevant. Someone once taught me that "Just a note, what goes on in one article has absolutely no bearing in another article. There is no rule saying that every article should be treated exactly the same." - Kariteh 20:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no.  Each article should be considered seperate from others, but that doesn't mean that you ignore common practices and precedents.  The Legend of Zelda (series) is a perfect example since it's been released as cartoons and comics as well as games.  The video game articles should conform to the same naming practices.  --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 20:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this is a sign that we need to update video game franchise naming conventions as a whole. I tend to agree that "franchise" is more clear than "series". — Deckiller 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zelda is a whole different case. Everything released with the name "Zelda" has been strongly related to the video games, but with Final Fantasy we have completely unique things like Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within and Final Fantasy: Unlimited. I don't think remaining with "series" is a good idea. The word implies that each iteration of Final Fantasy is in succession - but as we know, there are things like spinoffs, side-series and completely unrelated movies. "Series" would pertain only to I - XIII.--Teggles 02:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Final Fantasy (series)]] article