Talk:Races of Final Fantasy

message: They are in fact a race, as I was playing the game and I checked the 2nd page of someone's information in the bestiary, it was "sage advice" or something like that it talked of them as a race or at least a group of monsters and how they angered the gods and it kept going on and I don't remember the rest, but they are a race. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.65 (talk • contribs) .
:It would be nice if you would abstain from using caps. WE'RE NOT DEAF, YOU KNOW. just for that, i'm refusing your notion of espers as a race, and instead regard someone else's opinion instead. now that i've read the entry on how they tried to wage war or something, the espers seem to qualify as a race, as they were intelligent enough to do so. anyone else has an opinion? 私はBluerfnです 16:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ever heard of netiquette? Sign your posts 私はBluerfnです 19:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ESPERS ARE A RACE!!!

message: I just added some information to the Bangaa, Cactuar, and Esper sections as they lacked the most recent 
information from Final Fantasy XII.  Hope a did a good job. =)
:IMO, I understand that Espers in FFVI is a race whereas in FFXII is just an ordinary summon. I rather think that information goes somewhere else. 私はBluerfnです 04:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's put it back when there's enough information about Espers as a race in FFXII. I'm starting to see them in a different light now (more than just an ordinary summon) 私はBluerfnです 19:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ordinary summon, end of story. 私はBluerfnです 04:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That sounds good to me. They certainly have enough information for a page, and while some of them fit here, not all of them do, and I think they should all be together. Ravenwolf Zero 19:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FFXII Updates=

message: Is Maester Seymour really representative for the Guado race, being only half-Guado? krikkert 22:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guado picture. 

message: i think there are far too many non-"race" like creatures in this article, making it more a bestiary. Yes, technically, pug/tonberry is a race. But so are aboute very single enemy in every single final fantasy--tonberry is simply a monster in several of the games. why aren't the race of espers from ff6, which half the story is based around, listed? why arent the hybrid animal like people, like lone wolf listed? they're in several games. many are correct, and good, like bangaa, but i'm seeing far too many "new-FF" races and not enough old ones. i will do some research and hopefully add some more. Lockeownzj00 07:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  what defines a race? 

message: Don't we make a point of keeping this as a catalog of races and not a bestiary?  If that's the case, why is the Behemoth included in this article?  Last time I checked, the Behemoth has been, and always will be, a monster the players have to fight, and has never had a role other than posing a challenge.  I'd like to hear the reason why it was included in the first place before I make a decision to delete it or not. Kakashi-sensei 21:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behemoth? 

message: Many FF have humans as a race in the games (eg, Humes in FFXI). Should there be a short entry included in this list? Chanlord 04:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humans as a race 

message: I've tagged this merging to this article. It could also possible be moved to the Final Fantasy bestiary but I'm not too familar with the Lucavi and if they are sentient or not. Discuss Chanlord 07:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Lucavi]]

message: I added the instruction manual/official website blurb about Clavats, but I can't remember any of the male suits nor the first female suit. Could someone with a manual handy finish that off and maybe add a picture? Eowynjedi 21:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clavats 

message: Hi. I've added information on FFXII races on September 11. It's from the Scenario Ultimania. Should I put a reference in it or just leave it alone? 私はBluerfnです 06:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also going to add some pictures related to these races, soon. 私はBluerfnです 07:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FFXII 

message: In FFVI, in the American localization at least, the name of a single one of these creatures was "Pugz." Yes, the 'z' makes it sound plural, and yes, they did appear in groups, but 'z' does not actually pluralize in English and the name of a single enemy in FFVI does not refer to the group.  I suggest that 'Pug,' seemingly an attempt to make the word 'Pugz' singular, is incorrect, and that the name of this creature should be listed here as it appears in the game: Pugz.
: It's written only as "Pug" and "Pugs" (two separate monsters) in FF6, never "Pugz". --HeroicJay 19:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Specifically, "Pugs" is one of a handful of monsters in Final Fantasy VI that appears as an invisible stack: one monster laid directly on top of the other monster, so that it initially looks as if there is only one monster present. Under those circumstances, its seems like "Pugs" is intended as a plural form of "Pug." – Sean Daugherty (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tonberries 

message: Why aren't beastmen here? If races like Tonberries and the Urutan-Yensa are here, shouldn't beastmen be here, too? Just a little entry like the one in the bestiary seems good... --Jopasopa 21:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're working on a new beastmen page at User:Deckiller/Beastmen (Final Fantasy XI). I'll probably end up getting a section on either the races/creatures page in the long run. — Deckiller 04:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. Is it okay if I contribute to that page? --Jopasopa 14:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. — Deckiller 00:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beastmen? 

message: The current entry is incorrect in attributing the Urutan to the artificer's log (that is included on their entry in the Clan Primer). This log clearly describes the creature being capable of looking like a cask, and thus I feel it is much more correct to attribute the log to the Mimics, who are very obviously of an artificial nature (which means the Mimic Queen in the Barheim Passage is probably the 'mother' being referred to in the artificer's log). Given this, there is little reason to doubt the Urutan are anymore unnatural to Ivalice than the Bangaa or Seeqs. -Dave 128.205.75.166 04:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nature of the Urutan 

message: Why does it say "Because of this understanding, they have produced some of the greatest mages in the world's history, including Morphling and Loutaru the summoners who fought during the Crystal War of 863 C.E." under the Tarutaru section? I can't recall anything regarding a Morphling or Loutaru, and, judging by their names, they are player characters. Perhaps someone added fan-fiction or someone not familiar with the story saw the fan-fic and assumed it to be canon? --Jopasopa 03:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ridiculous fancruft. Removing at once. 私はBluerfnです 08:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uh... 

message: I threw together a quick stub for Final Fantasy summons, please help expand it.  I will do some expanding on it as I find time. --Daedalus 01:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are actually trying to move away from lists of in-universe information (that info was merged long ago). I guarentee it won't fly with most of the project because of this. — Deckiller 02:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've brought this up on Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy.  We should discuss this there for a concensus. --Daedalus 21:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Fantasy Summons 

message: Ideally, this page will morph from a list of the 40+ races throughout the series to an article chronicling the history of races in the series, describing notable races, and so on. A lot of the "one-fers" (Occuria, etc) can be merged into appropriate game areas, such as Spira (Final Fantasy X), Terminology of Final Fantasy VI, and so on. — Deckiller 02:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and created a possible version of this page (User talk:NicholaiDaedalus), removing all races that only appear in one game (for this purpose, I count FFX and FFX-2 as one game).  In the process I also ended up merging Moogle into this list, though it still needs a lot of trimming, and the original page isn't redirected yet.  I ended up merging the Shumi entry into the Moomba entry as a sub-entry, since the Shumi only appear in one game whereas the Moomba are in multiple.  I removed Dragons, Cactuar or Tonberry since they are detailed in Creatures of Final Fantasy.  The end result is a comprehensive list of everything that appears in at least 2 games and is only 10 entries long.  I left this page as it is so that we can merge the "one-fers", which I don't have time to do right now.  --Daedalus 21:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We might be able to add an others section if we find it difficult or impossible to do the one-fers merges. — Deckiller 22:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Moombas are the evolved form of some Shumis, shouldn't they be considered a sub-species of Shumis? Unless I forgot an important detail or something, I think Shumi should have its entry and Moomba would be a sub-entry of it. Kariteh 21:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consolidation of this page

message: The subsection for FFXII Humes seems useless to me. There's nothing too significant about them that they should get extra attention when compared to other humans and the Humes of FFXI. So what if they're everywhere, a jack-of-all-trades, more diverse than other races, have members of other races in their society while other races usually only welcome the same race, and generally make up the leaders of the fictional world. Nearly every depiction of humans, even outside of FFs, has been the same or similar. --Jopasopa 16:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As rich as their backstory may be, that's just one game and therefore insignificant to the series as a whole.  They are no more significant than humes/humans in any other game.  That information would be more appropriate in a race section under FFXI main article, not here.  --Daedalus 19:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get it. FFXII's humes deserve some special 2-paragraph mention even though racial difference in that game don't have much importance to the plot, they are just there (obvious exceptions being stuff like the viera and garif, but even then those are just for a segment of the game)? Meanwhile the races' personalities' and conflicts play a huge role to the game's storyline, as opposed to FFXII, where it is more national rather than racial. What I'm saying is that either both Humes should be mentioned, neither should be, or FFXI's Humes as opposed to FFXII's humes. --Jopasopa 00:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the entry on Humes of FFXII. Because I didn't play FFXI, I regard myself as having no knowledge about the Hume characteristics in FFXI. Seeing that most FFXI races are already there, except Humes, why shouldn't anyone who knows write one as well? Why suggest forsaking the FFXII humes just because the FFXI Humes are not there? Even if they are insignificant, they are a race nevertheless, and they are given special attention by the storymakers - just see the Hume entry in FFXII's official website. My views. 私はBluerfnです 05:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humes of FFXII 

message: I've changed the line at the end of Nanaki's section that said there was no indication that Hojo planned to crossbreed the two failing species to preserve them.  It's readily apparent during the scene where you save Aeris and gain Red XIII that he did, as he puts them into the same holding tank and says he's doing them both a favor by saving their species, while Red XIII plays along until he can escape by acting as if he's going to pounce on Aeris. --4.254.118.210 07:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red XIII/Aerith Crossbreed 

message: Is there a criteria to distinguish races from the "standard" humans? Is it based on physical features or something else? I was the one to merge several human-like races into the human subsection because I saw the Al Bhed there, but looking back I'm not sure what's better. If Cetra are considered humans, then perhaps the Zilart should too, since the only difference between both races and standard humans is the ability to "hear" what the latters can't... But then we'd pratically be putting everything under the human section. Kariteh 21:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I just did some merging and trimming of what other people have already placed there.  I added ones that logically seemed to follow the existing pattern, but I was about to propose discussion of this very topic right before you beat me to the chase. --Daedalus 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human distinction 

message: I don't see an issue with the standard ToC. I recommend it be used instead. — Deckiller 16:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Table of contents

message: Since my initial merge I have indicated that the other races section needs some more trimming, instead it has exploded with more info and images galore.  The key here is that they are trivial because they only appear in one game.  The goal of this article is to educate the reader on the types of races often seen in Final Fantasy, not bombard them with every little detail about every race that ever appeared as a single village in only one game!  Most of the time there's only one notable member of those races, anyway.  Please stop adding images and information.  They should be trimmed to little more than mentions, not expanded.  WP is not a gameguide.  --Daedalus 20:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't a good idea to create an image gallery instead of letting those pictures float there as a distraction to the text? edit: All right, no image gallery. Done, besides, removing the other trivial images. 私はBluerです 07:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine by me, they really are trivial.  I'm hoping that we can someday get the Other Races section down to just a few paragraphs at most for each game, but I don't see that happening overnight.  --Daedalus 15:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The section on Occuria is much too large. I'd suggest maybe the first 2 sentences, as the rest constitutes plot points of FFXII and definite spoilers. It also doesn't explain anything about the race themselves - only one member's actions. Hakikev 01:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's up with this "crusade against information"? It's not like Wikipedia will ever run out of space to put more text into it. In my opinion there should be as much information as possible about everything here, while avoiding redundancy, of course. The possibilities are limitless, so why hold back? If I was looking for information about the races of FF, I wouldn't want a page that merely mentions the names of the races, I'd want to know everything there is to know about them. SamSandy 10:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not an encyclopedia's job to mention every bit of information for every topic. An encyclopedia is meant to introduce the reader to all aspects of knowledge by synthesizing primary and secondary sources and providing a succinct overview. Otherwise, imagine how big some of our science sections would be, and so on. This also applies to fiction. When someone clicks "random article", they should get a topic, not an article like "Appearence of Moogles in Final Fantasy VI", or an unsourced page listing every detail. Not to mention the copyright violations of essensially retelling a story with the exact same detail. — Deckiller 10:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to know every details and trivias about Final Fantasy, use the Final Fantasy Wikia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Kariteh 17:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Races getting out of hand 

message: I'm looking at some of the entries on this list, and couldn't they be considered "creatures"? I'm thinking about proposing a rename of Creatures of Final Fantasy to Monsters of Final Fantasy, to better distinguish the two. Moogles are creatures, but not monsters; Humans are creatures, but not monsters; and chocobos are creatures that the player can fight, but they aren't usually hostile monsters. It's hard naming general gameplay subarticles and standardizing them. But this is some food for thought. — Deckiller 22:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not sure what to think, but it seems the page has already been renamed without discussion. Kariteh 21:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We're bound to make arbitrary separations in all cases, since Square never bothered separating their beings into clearly defined types to begin with. I believe Daedalus' culture suggestion is the best so far though. We can just have "Creatures" and "Races", with the proposed distinction. In "Races", we would precise that the beings described are the beings who generally form populations that have a visible and advanced culture. In "Creatures", we'd precise that the beings described are the animals, monsters, and intelligent beings who generally don't have any culture. Moombas don't have any cultures, so they'd go in Creatures (unlike Shumi!). Moogles don't really show any culture in III and maybe even VI, but they certainly do in XI, XII, TA, CC, KH, etc. (i.e. the majority of the games), so they'd go in Races. Chocobos do show a culture in IX (Chocobo's Air Garden ruled by Fat Chocobo or something), but they generally don't in the series so they'd go in Creatures (the word "generally" is important in the precisions). We may also be able to couple these reasonings with the socio-political influence distinction, but I'm not sure, first because the culture distinction is enough, and second because Lufenians for instance don't really influence their world much despite having a definite culture and stuff. Kariteh 23:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Cool. Still means nothing compared to the majority of the game. XI, XII, TA, CC, KH, etc. Kariteh 09:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, do you all agree to rename Monsters of FF to Creatures of FF and putting some sort of brief explanation in the intro? It's just a shame to have those 2 big Monsters and Races articles and yet Chocobo in neither of them. Kariteh 18:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay since everyone agrees, I'm renaming the stuff. Kariteh 22:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: ...Can an admin do it? I can't since the page Creatures of FF already exists (as a redirect). Kariteh 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Races versus creatures? 

message: Are we quite sure that they ARE human? At least in the game, they only use "human" to refer to the common, non Al-bhed, non-Guado, non-etc. stock - Yuna is even said to be half human, half Al-Bhed. Of course, they are humanoid, and they can mate with humans, but so can the clearly inhuman Guado. The game seems to seperate them as much as it does the Guado, so why not say that they are their own race/species? 128.211.175.104 22:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say yes, they are human.  To me, it seems that the game makes the distinction more between Al Bhed and Yevonite than it does between Al Bhed and Human, implying that the main difference is religious.  It is an ambiguous issue, though.  --Daedalus 15:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet, it says that Yuna is half-Al Bhed, even while she is a devout Yevonite. And in FFX-2, where she is almost totally following anything that could be called an Al Bhed "religion", she is still not an Al Bhed. Yes, there is obviously a religious component to the race, but due to the more relaxed rules against interspecies breeding in FF games, that is understandable. The Al Bhed are still treated as "as seperate" as Guado are.74.140.118.84 16:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's comparable to Jews.  They are a religion, and yet they are also an ethnicity, so someone can be half-jewish.  Why can't the same apply to Al Bhed?  Al Bhed is an ethnicity, and it is a religious difference (though, in this scenario it is a lack of a specific religion), thus someone can still be half-Al Bhed.  Yuna is half-Al Bhed, but full Yevonite because she is ethnically half-yevonite, but completely a member of the religion.  The same could be said about someone who is half-jewish and full Christian.  Their mother was jewish, their father was Christian, they are ethnically half-jewish, yet completely full Christian in religion.  The game is very ambiguous about this distinction, so I feel this jewish comparison is relevant as a possible interpretation.  --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 16:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Technically yes, but they are also a seperate race.  The game makes it clear that they are as seperate a species as are the Ronsos.  It just so happens that they are interbreedable with humans, that's all.  --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 15:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But how are the Al Bhed not a seperate race? Wasn't the argument above that it was comparable to a mere ethnic difference, and so how would that not apply for Ronso and Guado as well? Basically, what defines a "race" in these games? All of them seem to be interbreedable, to the most part, so species is non-applicable. We even have a race of summoners that merely have a horn on their head to differentiate them - shouldn't a consistency in different eye structure and hair color also count?KrytenKoro 14:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any specific definition we come up with is OR and does not reflect the facts of the game, simply because the game does not give a clear definition.  However, we can base our decisions on degree of difference.  Hair and eye structure are very minor, despite these differences they still look like humans.  Ronsos don't even look like primates, there's now way they could be human.  Guados do look like primates, but their proportions are extremely different than that of a human, and it can be safely assumed that they are not human.  Al Bhed do not have such physical distinctions.  If the designers intended the Al Bhed to be non-human, then why would they make them look so similar?  This isn't Star Trek where racial differences are dependent upon budget and time constraints, this is a video game where they could look as exotic as the designers want without limitation.  And if you'll notice, the summoners are listed under the Humans Category just like the Al Bhed are.  You'll also notice that article does not call them "humans", but rather the ambiguous "other human-like races".  --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 19:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not refer to them as a human subspecies? After all there are some physical differences between an Al-Bhed and a human (the spiral iris), so it's not just the fact that they speak their own language. HalfShadow 21:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is unsolvable because the games themselves don't state exactly whether Al Bhed are a distinct "species" or not. Since the developers didn't clear the vagueness, we can't clear it in their places. I think "Human-like races" is the safest way to go; we're stating that they (and other races) look mostly human, but we're not claiming what's their exact status. Kariteh 22:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al Bhed 

message: In looking at all the "by game" races; this should probably be turned into a 5 paragraph section outlining the races briefly. Details belong in their respective articles or subarticles (like Spira (Final Fantasy X) and Terminology of Final Fantasy VI, and so on). That'll really help the problem. — Deckiller 01:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, they need to be trimmed to mere mentions.  --Daedalus 15:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue with this page 

message: :Image:Fran.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Fran.jpg

message: :Image:Moogle FFXI.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Moogle FFXI.jpg