Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy/archive/24

message: Please sign your name below.
# — Judgesurreal777 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Roll call: June

message: It really does hurt to be perhaps the only one left out of the original group actually advocating a partial destruction or move of our hard work. It's come to the point for me where I've been putting the encyclopedia's goals over my (and our) contributions, and it is necessary but sick. The immunity from this has worn off due to today's discussions, and I feel pretty shitty (but not the point where I'm going on a revert spree). I just got into a huge war with an IP/multi sock user who was complaining about a transwiki and redirect of the Xenosaga lists. Hell, I started those lists (and the numerous articles that proceeded them) back in mid-2005, and here I am defending their shipping to the Xenosaga Wikia and redirect to the main page. That's like building a house and getting assaulted when you decide to tear it down, because others liked the house while it stood. I guess it's good that I have this attitude (in some ways), but it can also be taken a little extreme. In the case of the Spira articles, where I felt like a traitor when I agreed to a combination of both articles. Ultimately, is has to be done, but the problem is that I (or we, rather) didn't put as much effort into it as I (or we) could, especially because it's the least we could do as a tribute to last year's group. IRL issues and the sheer amount of merge propositions (and many of us are at fault for that) caused the rush.
Which leads me to this point: it all boils down to taking things too fast. Really. That's the problem with the merges. Given time and effort, they would've all gone through without issue, but they were hastily rushed through the line. I might be partially responsible for that, and if I am, I'm sorry. I am seriously considering reverting a few of the merges that may have gone through too quickly. Let's ignore it and put it behind us for the time being and focus on the main articles. We can come back to it later. Sorry if I seem like a traitor, Renmiri; that's not my intention, and perhaps I forgot that this isn't a business. 
Sorry if this is incoherent. It's been a day of multitasking, that's for sure. — Deckiller 05:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To Renmiri

message: I have a lot to say (sorry in advance...) and am not sure where to fit this, so I started a new sub-section.  I want to come in here and go on the record and not on another user's talk page about my concerns.  
First of all I want to say how happy I am to see some discussion going on about putting on the brakes to the merge steamroller.  And how sorry I am that instead of coming in and trying to start discussion here I engaged in backbiting on user talk pages.  I will explain why, forthcoming...
I was really upset with how I was treated when I protested the merge without discussion of List of jobs in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, which I created and put a lot of time into to get rid of all of the individual job class pages that had been scattered around Wikipedia.  I felt that I was completely dismissed and treated poorly.  And I was even less happy when someone else tried to fix up the page to meet standards, when it had apparently already been decided that the article could never meet those standards, because the page was re-merged without anyone approving or disapproving vocally of the changes.  Snowfire and Renmiri were absolutely right above - it is terrible for morale.  I do completely understand that things need to be removed in the name of "cruft" (I'm with you Deck, not a great word!) and that people's feelings shouldn't be hurt over it.  But when said people are longtime contributors to the project and not a random anon IP/redname user coming in and writing essays about one episode of their favorite obscure anime, it really stung to have been accorded so little respect, and to have my work shunted aside.  
Prior to this I had growing concerns about the mergist philosophy emerging from the project, but once I personally was affected, I took a backseat in the project, too hurt to continue (I took an official wikibreak at this point).  During this time, I saw several editors who were not members of the project protesting on other FF articles' pages about content being deleted.  I think User:Eric_Herboso's comments at Talk:Characters of Final Fantasy VI are an excellent example of this.  The response to this user's protest appeared to be a volume of project editors descending upon the page and, essentially, telling him that he was wrong because he disagreed with the project.  From my perspective, I saw a real groupthink mentality and nobody at all inclined to discuss the issue or to consider that someone outside of the project might have a valid point.  
There seems to be some confusion and consternation with people's frustration with the project, so I'm going to explain it from my point of view.  No accusations or personal attacks intended - this is just my POV. That caveat aside... The WPFF does have consensus for how to write these articles, because you have a central gathering point from which to attack them.  That does not mean that the individual voices raised on separate articles should be ignored because of "consensus."  Taken as a whole, those people outnumber the members of the project.  I have been increasingly upset as I've watched members of the project steamroll over those who are not in the project, claiming "consensus" all the while.  Up until these very recent discussions, I have not seen any indication of actual collaboration going on with people outside of the project who work on Final Fantasy-related articles.  I have not seen much effort to explain to those people, either, the goals and rationale of the project, nor even an attempt to direct them to the project to see the ongoing discussions in the first place.  Granted, I have not been watching every Final Fantasy article, so it is entirely possible that I've missed something along the way.  But from what I have seen, I have been upset, disappointed, and frustrated with the behavior of the members of the Wikiproject.  This does not excuse skulking around on userpages and badmouthing the project, for which I apologize.
I know your intentions are good.  That's one of the reasons I didn't start discussion here - I wasn't sure if I could do it in such a way that I didn't seem as if I was attacking people here.  (Since I have received a WP:NPA warning, I suppose I was right to worry about that.)  The other was that, between my own treatment at List of jobs in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance and what I have seen happening to others that raise a voice of dissent, I did not feel that any attempt at discussion would have been treated fairly.  It felt as if it would be so much wasted breath.  That is heartbreaking to feel about a project that I dedicated so much time to and whose goals I do agree with.
I am heartened to see the discussion going on here.  I know the intentions were good and I agreed with most of them - it seems as if the mergist train got going and got out of our control, and we're left with this discussion and lots of former members leaving.  I am glad to see that there's some acknowledgement that the merges were happening too quickly and an indication of putting on the brakes.  I'd like to bury the hatchet and re-join the project (I've done a significant chunk of the work on Final Fantasy XI, after all, and I want to be here when it gets FA!) if you'll have me, if we can all shake hands and declare a truce.  I just wanted to publicly explain why I left and why I was seen being unnecessarily snotty on a user talk page.
Now I will shut up, having taken up entirely too much space.  -RaCha'ar 16:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From another former WPFFer

message: I was extremely tired last night, so my opinions and whatnot were rather incoherent. I'll try to make a digest version, while replying.
* I believe most the merges were correct and done in good faith. However, the method and the timing was off, and in some cases, the lack of information kept was off. And perhaps I'm partially to blame for that (although I think the final fantasy items merge to Common themes of final fantasy and, in the future, Gameplay of final fantasy, is spot-on). However, all of us who participated in the merges got caught up in it. I try to merge things with respect to the original contributor if at all possible (I pasted most of the information from the individual FF6 character articles, but I saw that some people didn't complete their specific merges, which is probably why so many people are upset. When I transwiki, it's a full copy and paste.). That's how merging has to be done; priority must come on keeping the details of the article being merged. Not just a simple redirect, except in some cases.
* With the Final Fantasy 8 featured topic, there is a formula that, like we did with the main article formula, will hopefully become a template for fiction: a main article, a character article for the entire cast except perhaps the main hero and heroine (or other characters that have appeared in multiple works), a music page (which I think was a great idea, merging all the soundtrack stubs into articles about the music as a whole), and a "world of" page that is like what we did with Spira except more succinct.
* But like I said, we did things too fast. We saw how much had to be done, and we rushed. Consequently, we are, as a group, feeling the consequences right now. Getting every article to GA is a tangible goal, but we have to do it patiently. Which is why I think ignoring those articles and focusing on the rest of the main articles will give us some strategic distance, so we can go back and do things appropriately (not as a "steamroller" as mentioned above.)
* Ren, it's not so much that I was afraid of AfD; it's that I have come to respect Wikipedia's policy and attitude toward fiction to the point where I'm willing to sacrifice my own work or move it elsewhere to attain that goal. As for moving stuff to Wikia, it has to be done with all the fictional details, and Seraphimblade and myself were advocating more projects using transwiki, but other issues presented themselves and it was put on hold. The Xenosaga Wikia was created for the Xenosaga "cruft", and I've been advertising the Final Fantasy Wikia.
* On that topic, it is the place for articles like Final Fantasy items and the old Locations in Spira, which have become too detailed for Wikipedia. However, certain Wikias (such as the FF Wikia) dislike transwiki, so the mutually beneficial relationship between Wikia and Wikipedia is being shot to hell. That leads to less transwiki and more people getting pissed, even from those exact Wikia that we are trying to transwiki to. It's a tight situation, because this information needs to go somewhere else and be trimmed/integrated here, but Wikias either already have it (sometimes better) or don't want it. Feelings are bound to get hurt, and there's nothing we can really do about it in the hasty way it was being treated.
* That's why (1) they have to be taken slowly and (2) it's time to put that on hold and focus on articles that will always be around for certain (those main game articles, "characters of..." articles). While I was watching the mergefest, even I thought it was going too fast, and it was all stuff I know had to be done. The methods were just off, and a lot of people got hurt in the process. In a business setting that's common, but this is a volunteer site.
*RaCha'ar, I've tried to act nice toward people throughout all this, because I agree that it's information that doesn't really belong here, but I don't want to insult people in the process. I'm sure you saw my two warnings to members about civility and attacks (that got NO responses, much to my disgust). To the rest of WP:FF, you need to think about the other people as well. Even if the merges were still done at the rate they were done, I bet half the problems would've been nonexistent if it had been a bit more civil. RaCha'ar, if I was one of the ones who insulted you, please leave a message on my talkpage. Same with anyone else. Name names; it's the only way people will know what they're doing wrong with respect to the methods.
* I'm working on a new draft for WP:FICT that will hopefully reflect the position of established editors so that the guidelines come more in line with practice. It will also make it more clear to newbies or older editors returning to the site, who see that, in the current guidelines, it says lists of items and stuff are fine (when they get deleted constantly). 
* This didn't really turn into a "digest" form. — Deckiller 17:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses

message: One thing that hasn't been brought up yet is the way the Races of FF article was split between the numbered FF articles. The information has been integrated rather poorly IMHO. See for instance Final Fantasy V#Setting where a paragraph about Kelb has been added "as is", even though it doesn't flow well with what is said above in the subsection. There's also Final Fantasy IV#Races, where the information has been dumped into a lone Races subsection that shouldn't exist according to the manual of style, all this while elsewhere we're reverting people who attempt to put some other subsections in similar Plot and setting sections. I suspect the reason these stuff haven't been fixed correctly is because these numbered FF articles are Featured Articles (not FFV, but most of the rest) and focus is elsewhere. To be honest, I get the impression that once an article becomes FA, nobody cares about it much anymore (List of Final Fantasy titles is an example of that too). I'm not accusing anyone or anything but, you know, just noting something that could/should be fixed. Kariteh 18:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, cleanup is most certainly required.  But I think that getting articles to GA/FA takes precedence over this.  Once all the articles are at a very clean state, then going back to fix individual issues can be done freely.  I think this is the reason it has been left alone so far: not because editors don't care about articles after they reach GA/FA, but rather that other articles have more serious issues to worry about.  --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 19:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Races of FF

message: Template:FF4npcbox, delete? Axem Titanium 22:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's used in the Characters of FFV page that people wants to de-merge. Kariteh 09:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned template 

message: Needs cleanup. Kariteh 08:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem like those characters need a page of their own. --Teggles 09:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merged back as it was before. Judgesurreal777 18:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Characters of Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles]] 

message: I'm quite aware that Vagrant Story had small connections with Final Fantasy. But I've recently nominated the game's article for FA. Feedbacks from this WikiProject is very much appreciated. — Bluerです。 なにか? 10:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick link to FAC here, for anyone who is interested. I'll take a look at the article when this week is over (my teachers decided to make it hell for no apparent reason). Axem Titanium 14:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vagrant Story

message: This article is really close to Good Article. The only thing left is to create a story paragraph, and finish off the gameplay paragraph - maybe they can be combined? I really don't know what to write for these, so if anyone can give me some ideas or help out, it'd be great. One last thing: I need someone to resize the "Final Fantasy Fan Day" image. When I do it, there appears to be a quality loss. Thanks. Once all of that is done, I'll put it up for GAC. --Teggles 03:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like sneaky User:Judgesurreal777 put it up for GAC minutes after I finished the gameplay section. I was going to add a story section before I put it up for GAC, but oh well. --Teggles 09:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Figured might as well get in line now :) Judgesurreal777 14:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I love that. For now on, we should call GAC "Wikipedia:Waiting in line". — Deckiller 04:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Final Fantasy Chronicles]] 

message: An article that you have been involved in editing, Final Fantasy items, 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/Final Fantasy items.  Thank you. This case will hopefully make our policy official for all the similar cases of merge/de-merge. Kariteh 20:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD nomination of [[Final Fantasy items]]

message: Genesis Rhapsodos needs clean-up. Kariteh 06:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also belongs in Characters of Final Fantasy VII — a merge (yes), but an obvious one. — Deckiller 14:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genesis Rhapsodos

message: This article has some potential. Main points in the lead just needs to be integrated into the article, details on the changes should be provided, and the reception section needs a rewrite. That's pretty much it; it's already fairly close to GA-level. I think it would be a quickie. — Deckiller 01:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! I was hoping for some help with this one, its very close...Judgesurreal777 01:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm about to expand the development section with release/promotion information. --Teggles 23:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright, I've just rewritten the development section, created a promotion section, created a merchandise section, and rewrote the first half of the reception section. Sounds like a lot, but it really isn't. The article still needs a good reception section, and an introduction to the story/gameplay would be beneficial. --Teggles 06:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tidbit about Radical Dreamers having been planned to be included in the CT port should be added. Also ref #16 is broken. Kariteh 08:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the reference, but I have no idea about this Radical Dreamers plan. Do you have a link? --Teggles 08:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the Radical Dreamers article introduction (it should be also put somewhere in the article body, but I guess it's a different question). The staff wanted to put the game as a bonus in the CT port, but Masato Kato declined because he felt that RD sucked and that CC replaced it anyway. Kariteh 08:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link doesn't work. Besides that, it sounds a bit irrelevant. The interview was conducted in 1999, nearly 2 years before they even considered Final Fantasy Chronicles. I assume it means the basic PlayStation port of Chrono Trigger, so it should be put into that article, not Final Fantasy Chronicles. --Teggles 09:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I fixed the mistake. Kariteh 09:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Final Fantasy Chronicles]]

message: There seems to be some debate about this and rather than get into an edit war, I've taken it here. The previous reasoning was that WP:VG told us so but since they can't make up their minds anymore, it's time to decide for ourselves. My two cents says that if they appear, they would simply attract more vandalism and rumor-milling than they already do. Axem Titanium 13:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unchallenged since 27 May. Kariteh 13:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it should be. That seems to be an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Axem Titanium 14:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, it's a counter-argument. You're arguing that putting unreleased games in navboxes will attract vandalism and rumor-milling. Check Final Fantasy Tactics A2 Fūketsu no Grimoire and Final Fantasy XII#Versions and merchandise: do you see any significant increase in vandalism after 27 May? Kariteh 14:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That navbox is significantly less visible than the main FF series navbox. Axem Titanium 14:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you want to forbid all unreleased games in all FF-related navboxes just because one article is being prone to vandalism? Why not just protect that FFXIII page from IP editing instead of censoring the whole project? Kariteh 14:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I object to labeling this censorship. Allowing misinformation to spread is censorship in itself as well. Anyway, I never said anything about enforcing this on every navbox. If consensus states that unreleased games should be avoided on the main series navbox only, that's fine too. I'm just looking for project consensus for or against. Axem Titanium 15:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still fail to understand how any confirmed game shouldn't be on the navboxes. The "it could increase valdalism" argument doesn't even make any sense. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it does, as editors we can be responsible to monitor such vandalism. The FFXIII was not vandalized IMO, it was going under edit wars (thankfully it has subsided). Even if unreleased, with all the substantial information released by the said developers it creates a strong basis for the games to be further expanded upon its release. Point is, there's nothing wrong with listing unreleased games which have substantial developer information in the infobox. My opinion. — Bluerで す。 16:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I subtley touched on this  point a couple times on Talk:Final Fantasy XIII, do not give labels to things that do not actually fit those labels.  Edit wars are not vandalism.  Not including an article on a navbox is not censorship.  Let's not mislabel things with exagerrated terms, there is no room for hyperbole in an educated discussion.  --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 17:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see any reason not to. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anyone else? Sjones23 01:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote to put it back Renmiri 01:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: My vote for its return to the Template. — Bluerで す。 04:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:FF stance on including unreleased games in navboxes 

message: Just thought I'd add that according to this article the most searched themes were fictional  works at 30% (Anime + Movies) while research was at 28%. To be conservative I didn't include the remaining categories, but one could argue games are included in pop culture making Wikipedia searches overwhelmingly favor fiction. A point to ponder when trying to merge anything not fact based. Renmiri 21:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already assumed the major hook for Wikipedia is fictional material. I don't think that should play any part in deciding what articles to keep and merge. The only reason popular culture is popular is... wait, that sentence is the answer. Something like La Mer isn't as popular as Final Fantasy XII simply because it's not the "thing of the moment". I think a great factor in this is that Wikipedia pages are usually in the first results for video game searches. Because of that, it's a given that pop culture is going to be the most popular. Mark my words, pop culture will always be the most popular, but every article in that scope will drop in popularity and get superseded by newer pop culture. --Teggles 04:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great point aMIB. I hope that your concerns about making our articles a good reference will make you see that a game reference here needs to be comprehensive, .i.e. locations and history of the game universe do belong here. Otherwise, our WPFF articles cease to be a reference and get transformed in a dictionary entry which last I checked was part of WP:NOT.  Both the Spira article and the other articles condensed into dictinary entries style lists were excellent reference for gamers and are very well sourced. Ultimania and Brady Guides were used extensively in each article, as were numrous walkthroughs. Renmiri 19:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how recapping every single bit of story and setting helps this be a well-sourced reference work. It seems like it makes it a fanpage, sourced to personal observation of a fictional work. Remember, a story is a subject, not a source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WPFF was never about recapping every single bit of story and setting. The idea is to be a good reference, i.e. comprehensive, not to get caught in both extremes of being too detailed or being a mere dictionary of game terms. We achieved this delicate balance many times here last year and got from ZERO articles FA worthy to FF being a Featured Topic. I would ask that you show more respect for those achievements before accusing us here of trying to do a fanpage Renmiri 17:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talking about respect, running CSM out of here was a shame!!! He was a big part of the project last year, helping substantially in 5 FAs. I and other oldies were silent for too long it seems :( One thing I can tell you about the environment that nurtured our FA winning 2006 team was the mutual respect we had for each other and for the passion we had for the game. Edit wars happened, but Ryu and others were always there to help cool us hotheaded down and remind us all we loved the game and wikipedia more than our egos. And we returned the favor when they were the ones being hotheaded. We need to get back to being a team here!  Renmiri 18:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Devoting entire articles to describing the fictional world, without reference to the real one, is the extreme of being too detailed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that the case of Spira and other FF Worlds we have described. As time goes on we've found substantial amount of real world sources - developer interviews and feedback, the Ultimania and Brady game guide and other notable publications and game reviewers - to strenghten the fictional world articles. It is a very constructive addition to the World articles, the Project has done a good job finding them. And far from being a fanpage, the Project has made something much more better: a sourced comprehensive reference for Final Fantasy. — Bluerで す。 05:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. The level of granularity is whatever can be supported by the sources, and no more. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's precicely what my draft of WP:FICT (at User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction) will be advocating: a clearer relationship between  notability and the potential for out-of-universe perspective. — Deckiller 05:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fiction beats Facts in April 07 searches

message: Please vote or comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 June 10#Geosgaeno → Spira (Final Fantasy X). Kariteh 08:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect for deletion: Geosgaeno

message: Per the new resolution at Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria, the Final Fantasy VIII featured topic will be eligible for removal after 1 January 2008 if a third featured article for the topic is not promoted.  See also Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Final Fantasy VIII.  Thanks.--Pharos 02:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comment on the Wikipedia:Featured topics/Final Fantasy VIII. — Deckiller 02:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess this means we will need to promote another article to FA. I suggest Music of Final Fantasy VIII, it looks to be the easiest (especially considering it's 95% real-world). Even if somehow the guidelines revert, there will eventually be a need to get another article to FA.--Teggles 04:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the guidelines don't say 3 FAs. That's why I referred to the talkpage of the topic. — Deckiller 04:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems strange that the Chrono series topic apparently passes, unlike Final Fantasy VIII. It only has two featured articles, just like Final Fantasy VIII. --Teggles 04:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I guess that's fair ;)  Perhaps I did confuse it a bit with point #3.  I'm going to remove the deadline from the criteria page for now.--Pharos 04:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured topic deadline 

message: Why does Rufus Shinra have an article? The article doesn't assert notability and I don't recall the character having any prominence. I was going to merge it straight away, but there may have been some previous discussion. --Teggles 06:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final_Fantasy/archive/23#Final Fantasy VII Characters proposal. There's a resolved discussion, but nothing has been done concretely yet. Kariteh 07:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rufus Shinra]] 

message: :Thanks for that mention.  I'm truly flattered.  But I couldn't have done it without all you guys. --Sir Crazyswordsman 02:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awwww... Thanks for adding me too, Deck. * blushes *. Working at WPFF has always been a pleasure. I hope we can get 2007 to be even better than 2006 so we can fill the hall of fame with everyone here :) Renmiri 22:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wow

message: I was considering adding this message in the Plot section:
"This section has been edited to be compressed to comply with the featured article criteria. Please do not add any unnecessary information. If you do wish to add detail on certain events, please direct the detail to any article that is pertains to the topic at hand. Any unneeded info added to any of this plot will reverted quickly, this includes any addition of a spoiler tag. This plot is meant to be as comprehensive as possible, while only containing the details needed to understand plot at its most basic level."
This should warn other new users not to add unnecessary information. Any ideas? Sjones23 19:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "If you do wish to add detail on certain events, please direct the detail to any article that is pertains to the topic at hand." Try as I might, I can't parse this setence.  What is it meant to say?  --ΔαίδαλοςΣ 20:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NicholaiDaedalus, I am not sure. Most of this message comes from the Star Wars Episode II and Episode III movies made by The Filmaker (see the plot sections, it is hidden, the Filmaker explained that he did a hidden message to warn new users not to add unnecessary information in the "Plot" sections on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith/archive1). Sjones23 20:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is trying to tell the editor to look for an article about that particular plot element. If we don't know what it means maybe we should reword it?This section has been edited to comply with the featured article criteria. Please do not add any unnecessary information. If you do wish to add detail on certain events, please discuss the additions on the talk page first. Any unneeded info added to this plot will quickly reverted, including any addition of spoiler tags. This plot is meant to be as comprehensive as possible, while only containing the details needed to understand plot at its most basic level. Anomie 21:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should work, but the "please direct the detail to any article that it pertains to the topic at hand" should be added to "please discuss the additions on the talk page". Anomie, it does really not explain that the "please direct the detail to any article that it pertains to the topic at hand". For example, if you want to add detail on Aerith Gainsborough's death, go to the Aerith Gainsborough article and add this information there. Perhaps if we could say in the FFVII for exampleThis section has been edited to comply with the featured article criteria. Please do not add any unnecessary information. If you do wish to add detail on certain events, please discuss the additions on the talk page first or direct the detail to any article that it pertains to the topic at hand. For example, if you wish to add detail on Aerith Gainsborough's death, go to the Aerith Gainsborough article and add your information there. Any unneeded info added to this plot will quickly reverted, including any addition of spoiler tags. This plot is meant to be as comprehensive as possible, while only containing the details needed to understand plot at its most basic level. Just a suggestion :D Regards Sjones23 21:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh.  I'm not sure any of that really needs to be said.  If it does it should definitely be rephrased.This section has been edited to comply with the featured article criteria. Please do not add any unnecessary information. If you do wish to add detail on certain events, please discuss the additions on the talk page first or direct your proposed addition to a more detailed subarticle that pertains to the topic at hand. Any unneeded info added to this plot will be quickly reverted, including any addition of spoiler tags. This plot is meant to be as comprehensive as possible, while only containing the details needed to understand plot at its most basic level.And as a side note, Aerith's death is a really bad example since her death is not only key to the overall plot, but also regarded as a scene iconic of the game as a whole, but I do understand your point.  --ΔαίδαλοςΣ 21:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden message 

message: Ok, if this is non-controversial, fantastic; if it is, forget I said anything :) I think that the stubby Chocobo articles could be put into the newly re-established Chocobo article very nicely, bolstering that article for GA status. Take a look;
* Chocobo
Part of Chocobo
* Chocobo Collection
* Dice de Chocobo
* Chocobo Land: A Game of Dice
* Hataraku Chocobo
* Chocobo's Mysterious Dungeon
* Chocobo Stallion
Separate
* Final Fantasy Fables: Chocobo Tales
* Chocobo's Mysterious Dungeon 2
* Chocobo Racing 
* Chocobo World 
So the article will branch off to the chocobo series articles that have enough to have their own article, and we'll have a strong Chocobo article. Judgesurreal777 05:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A great idea. The articles you've suggested to merge are stubs, so it'll strengthen the Chocobo article and decrease our article count without removing any information. I can't see any reason why not. --Teggles 08:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought we were to put merging aside and focus on the main articles? — Deckiller 15:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The way I see it, the overall negative response over the mergers seemed to have been forgotten. We do have a focus now, let's put this idea away for use in the future, when we're done with the main series. — Bluerで す。 16:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are focusing on the main games, however it was suggested that Controversial mergers be halted, and indeed they have. I thought, perhaps, this would NOT be a Controversial one, but a rather smooth one to improve a recently resurrected game. By all means, the focus is on FF9 and 11, but I wanted to field opinion on this one. Judgesurreal777 19:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the merging. Just because the project has a focus doesn't mean the world has to stop moving. If someone wants to propose a merge, nobody can really stop him, and since it's non controversial, why prevent it? Kariteh 21:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chocobo games

message: Zero World. Recently created. --Teggles 05:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do with this... 

message: Okay, this is going to get out of hand if it continues. Let's leave all the articles alone except for the game articles. Let's focus on getting all the game articles to GA or FA. That's something everyone can enjoy. Let's focus on that, and take a break from the controversial stuff. That can be addressed another time. Final Fantasy IX and Final Fantasy XI are really close, and several people mentioned an interest in getting Final Fantasy Tactics Advance to at least GA. A break from the controversial stuff is needed. — Deckiller 02:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then stick with it! I do not want to see another so-called merger. p/s: FFT is already a GA. — Bluerで す。 03:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I meant Tactics advanced. Bluer, I'm sorry that these mergers haven't been completed, done the right way, gone too far, done to quickly, etc. I am partially at fault for that. Merging should be off the radar for now, and if they are needed in the future, we will ensure that they are done at the right time (I.E. when Gameplay of Final Fantasy is actually established). I think we can agree that some of the merges have been good, but I understand why you'd be upset with a few of the other ones. I think it's clear we may have taken things a little too far or, at least, too fast. But let's put that aside and focus on the main game articles. Will you still be with us with these main article pushes? — Deckiller 04:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Deckiller, we need to refocus on being productive, and remember that we are the second best Wikiproject there is, and stop beating ourselves up for following clearly defined Wikipedia policies. I know of no other wikiproject of our relatively small size that has anywhere NEAR the amount of Featured and Good Articles as we have, and we should not apologize for our good work and for following what was expected from a good encyclopedia. So lets get back to the work we love, we merged over 50 articles in the last few months after all, and that is great, but that's enough for now. Judgesurreal777 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's coming back to bite us. We did it too fast, and we overcompensated. Final Fantasy IX and Final Fantasy XI seem like good first targets for FAC. Both are more than halfway. — Deckiller 04:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed :) Let's sustain what has been done and build, after all, look at all the new good articles! :) Judgesurreal777 04:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we should all try to cool down, I for one have never taken so much time just talking about articles and not improving them before! :) Judgesurreal777 06:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, some distance. I think for the next 2+ weeks I'll focus on the redo of WP:FICT and FACs. Then we can come back, refreshed. We're all just too tired and entrenched right now. Perhaps I'm overstating it because I'm exausted :) — Deckiller 06:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a good direction.  I have for some time now expressed an interest in getting FFIX up to GA, and these mergers have been good ideas, but they were done too quickly and have been shoddy and a distraction from more productive work.  --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 13:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That's three of us interested in FFIX. I've been picking away at it for the last week or so, and I've actually had my eyes on it since last August, but never got around to is. Perhaps we should get that and XI done first. — Deckiller 00:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Restored Characters of FF2 too. Kariteh 07:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many ways of improving content that don't rely on WP:FICT's outcome, so I don't see why that should hold us up.  --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 17:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A new focus (IMPORTANT)

message: This article is in worse condition than Sephiroth, so we definitely need to take a look at it; no out of universe anything, and it's written in universe. Judgesurreal777 02:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of Sephiroth (Final Fantasy VII), in case anyone missed it, what Judge is referring to is that it got delisted as a GA yesterday, and rightly so.  --PresN 11:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jenova]]

message: oh god not again—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 06:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Um. Can someone else deal with this? I don't need to be 3RR'd again because some IP doesn't realize he can't have his bottle.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 06:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a vandal (probably the same person) assaulting my userpage and spreading nasty comments about other users. I don't care; people immature enough to resort to vandalism are probably the type who use Wikipedia as their opium to contribute everything they know about the only topic they know. — Deckiller 11:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the vandal. Sjones23 19:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, make sure vandalism in both of these pages will be treated with a block. Thanks. Sjones23 20:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "ruining Wikipedia" crap 

message: Why are all Final Fantasy articles' release dates against VG Project's guidelines about release dates? Date preference formatting doesn't work if you use the "in video gaming" links. I tried changing the release dates in Final Fantasy IX but was swiftly reverted. --Mika1h 21:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it. I was embarrassed to discover that "in video gaming" links were removed (and I was not really impressed at all that the links were removed). I prefer to go by the "in video gaming" links. I am not against this policy. By the way, if I made a mistake, Mika1h, I apologize. :D Greg Jones II 21:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've restored the preference formatting. Greg Jones II 21:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release dates 

message: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Fantasy IX. I encourage everyone to check it out and evaluate it. Don't blindly vote support, review the article and decide for yourself. --Teggles 04:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Final Fantasy IX]] is a candidate for Featured Article 

message: I haven't checked Wikipedia for almost over a week because of my Internet connection being down.  The Characters of Final Fantasy X article needs a lot of work, so a lot of help is required. I would be appreciated if you respond to this. Thanks. Sjones23 19:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will try to help what I can. — Bluerで す。 20:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone else? Sjones23 21:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Count me in.  It would be good if we can specific what are the issues that need to be addressed =) --Cyktsui 23:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly urge you to create a To Do box on the discussion page so we can coordinate what needs to be done and strike what has been accomplished on the way to GA. Judgesurreal777 00:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And also, Deckiller already listed in the now archived discussion his suggestions for what needed to be done...Judgesurreal777 03:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a to do list here from Deckiller's suggestions. Sjones23 13:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters of FFX article 

message: Hey, everyone, please comment on the Kingdom Hearts peer review. A couple of editors and I are FA-pushing it. This is quite in the same vein as the above. Axem Titanium 18:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kingdom Hearts peer review

message: After all this merging and stuff?  Wow. --Sir Crazyswordsman 03:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing that all there is in there is in-universe info, I've redirected it to the Characters article. — Bluerで す。 03:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the material merged in the FFX-2 article. At any rate, I don't mind the merge as long as that characters of FFX-2 article is reorganized into headings. — Deckiller 03:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the change because nothing was merged into Characters of Final Fantasy X-2, and I really mean nothing. I support the merging of it (somewhat), but that was not a merge. :) Perhaps I'll merge it later if no one else it up for it. I haven't done any merges (afaik), so I might not be the best person for it, but I guess it's a good learning point. --Teggles 04:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point in doing that is a redirect and not a merger. Good luck in doing the merging :) — Bluerで す。 05:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I've merged it. I only created the first and last paragraph, the middle two were just copied. :/--Teggles 06:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:POINT issues aside, I don't think anyone has done a simple redirect in the past, at least not when there was no info already on the target article :-P — Deckiller 06:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We might want to take care of the FF7/FF10 character pages sometime soon to be fair; people may incorrectly assume a systematic bias (FF7 was the worst in the series IMO, so it's definitely not bias). — Deckiller 03:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to make a quick point about the whole question of mergers and the Good article status drive; one of the reasons I became very gung ho about these two drives is because it helps us on our way to having many Featured Topics. Now that we have our model, Final Fantasy VIII topic, we know what is possible, and with  some careful restructuring of FF7 and FF10 character articles, we could be on our way to several featured topics from the same wikiproject, yet another impressive first from this group. :) Judgesurreal777 06:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, now that the Chocobo restructuring happened, once I and others get the Chocobo article and the other two games up to GA status....maybe try to get two FA chocobo articles...Chocobo Featured Topic? Laugh, but Kingdom Hearts is rapidly getting there, and not long ago their articles were thought to be terrible :) Judgesurreal777 06:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck finding sources for the Chocobo article. Did you know the existence of the mobile game "Choco-mate"? Kariteh 07:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I wonder if it's feasible for the non-Nomura games (FFVI, for instance) to become a featured topic? --Sir Crazyswordsman 13:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, as long interviews and whatnot can be found. — Deckiller 00:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Paine (Final Fantasy)|Paine]] still has an article? 

message: Check out the talkpage of WP:FICT. I got bored, so I decided to propose it early. — Deckiller 21:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to let your voice be heard. This rewrite is based on our experiences and successes. — Deckiller 15:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't feel pressured into it, but the proposed party usually has to have a lot of outspokenness, so anyone who agrees with the proposal are more than welcomed to support it, and those who disagree should make a comment on what should be altered. — Deckiller 05:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New notability guideline proposed

message: I'd like to be the first to say Congratulations to the Wikiproject Final Fantasy for yet another FA-class article: Final Fantasy IX! Cheers to all who have contributed, subtly or significantly! — Bluerで す。 18:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FFIX is now FA

message: There is vandalism here on Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy. We need to stop them from editing this page at once. Greg Jones II 17:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's from the various sockpuppets of User:Headstrust. My userpage and usertalkpage have been assaulted for weeks now, and a sweeping IP block needs to occur to prevent the child from accessing grownup stuff. — Deckiller 18:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, god have mercy on Headstrust and his/her sockpuppets for vandalizing this page. We will treat this page with a block if we can. I can't believe he/she used sockpuppets! See WP:SOCK and WP:VANDAL. This vandalism is a huge disgrace. Headstrust has underestimated us. Greg Jones II 19:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have now contacted information about this situation to User:Darthgriz98 at User talk:Darthgriz98. Greg Jones II 19:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever the motives are, hopefully his/her attacks won't require us to protect the page. — Bluerで す。 19:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. Greg Jones II 19:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads up Sjones, I blocked Headstrust, who wasn't blocked at ALL for having so many suspected sock puppets, indefinitely with an autoblock.  This situation deserves an autoblock, but if I wrongly blocked the user I will unblock them, but I doubt that is necessary.  The next step would be just wait and see if that stops them from creating accounts, and if not, auto block every sock. BTW, this project does some great stuff on Wikipedia, keep it up :). DarthGriz98 00:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "WikiProject Final Fantasy sucks ass and should be nuked." Uh, okay. I'm not sure what his problem is. --Teggles 00:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He probably lost some of his work during the consolidation. Which is laughable, since we all did. Hell, I did more work on some of those articles than the vandal. — Deckiller 00:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember someone making articles on individual Xenosaga characters... - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, two years ago. And I redeemed myself. — Deckiller 02:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I looked this article over, and it is in need of major surgery. It is in universe in parts, isn't set up like the newer fictional character articles, and has some copyediting needed. Judgesurreal777 05:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there really a necessity to disambiguate the game that he appears in?  (for instance, it's Yuna (Final Fantasy), not Yuna (Final Fantasy X).)  Or are there multiple Sephiroths that i am unaware of? hbdragon88 03:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sephiroth is also part of the Jewish Kabbalah. — Bluerで す。 04:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware of the need to disambiguate from other things.  I was questioning the necessity of needing to add "VII" to the end of the current article title. hbdragon88 05:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, it can probably be safely changed...Judgesurreal777 05:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Geez, how many different names does this character have?!  And this "Safer Sephiroth" – what is that supposed to mean?  Sounds like a poster boy for a "don't drink and drive" poster. hbdragon88 05:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Safer Sephiroth is the name of his final (sorta) form in which he has 7 wings and no legs.  --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 14:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, this article has lost GA status....guess it really did need some work. :) Judgesurreal777 02:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How ironical that after all these "hasty merges", the one article which gets de-listed is one that wasn't affected by a merge or a split... Kariteh 07:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point. Although it does need work like the rest of the FF7 character GAs. — Deckiller 10:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but that is totally false. Neither article was up to GA status, and the combined one is marginally better, in either case each needed an out of universe perspective, lots of references and copyediting. Judgesurreal777 00:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I beg you pardon ? They were both GA, just look at the history. Do I have to take a screenshot ? Besides, the current article is nowhere near the level those two were. because it was just "stapled together" without narrative so it is definitely a change for the worst Renmiri 19:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to improve the merged article. Kariteh 19:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I posted on the article talk page, I don't even know where to begin :(  Renmiri 02:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sephiroth (Final Fantasy)]]

message: Do you guys think it's possible, to link to the character articles individually on my wiki for articles which didn't survive?  That way those who want to learn more can more easily, through a single link, and those who get scared away can know there's a place for them.  Although Wikipedia is meant to provide a brief overview, we have the obligation to direct people to places where they can learn more. --Sir Crazyswordsman 03:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All cast of character articles should have links to the character category at the Final Fantasy Wikia; it would probably make the external links section too long to list all the chars. Every article here should have a wikilink to a Final Fantasy Wikia page. Perhaps each cast of characters article can provide wikilinks to each related category to make it more prominant (main characters category, etc.) — Deckiller 03:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with automatic linking. The articles should link to the FF Wikia only if the link has additional and interesting information to propose, just like with any external link. For instance, I don't think a link to Category:Final Fantasy characters is useful in the FFI article, since the Wikia category is filled with a small dozen of one-liner stubs. A link to Squall Leonhart in the Squall Leonhart article is also not necessary, since the Wikipedia article already really covers everything about Squall and the Wikia link doesn't add much. Kariteh 07:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Squall one doesn't add too much, but most of them do, I think, and I think it's, if nothing else, a good gesture to just make it across the board to always try to link to something relevant at the wikia for FF articles.  I agree with Deckiller, though, that it should be to the category for character list articles, as 10+ external links gets a bit cluttered.  --PresN 12:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any policy that says that Wikias have a privilege concerning external links? I don't see why systematically linking to them everywhere would be benefical. I mean, we could probably find for some particular entries a "better" site than the Wikia, but even still fansites seem shunned in Wikipedia (for good reasons), while you're implying here that Wikias are privilegied regardless of their usefulness. Kariteh 11:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's CoN, which I still think is better than my site.  But we have to link somewhere. If we don't link anywhere, we're saying "This character is not notable and this is the only information you ever need to know about this character."  We don't want to give that impression. --Sir Crazyswordsman 13:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK encyclopedias are meant to give you a comprehensive well thought out summary then link you to other more detailed sources. And as far as external linking there were some criteria: notability ( FF Wiki), preference for non-commercial sites to avoid WP to be used as free advertising ( FF Wiki), quality / reliability of the site ( FF Wiki), etc... Besides, considering Wikia is a sister of WP what is with the objection to linking to it ? Renmiri 02:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't forget that notability is not inherited. Just because the FF Wikia as a whole qualifies doesn't mean that every entry it contains automatically qualifies. If an entry is not interesting because it's just a non-informative one-liner (or if it has even less information than here), is a link really useful? Sure, it could be useful to have the link so that potential Wikia contributors see it and expand it, but the same thing could be said for any other website (it's easier to edit a wiki than e-mail a non-wiki site yes, but still). Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Wikia, but I just want for the criterias for external links to be followed and "fair". If there's a policy that says that sister projects can be linked to automatically, then it's fine and definitely benefical for these sister projects, but I don't know if there's such a policy. Kariteh 07:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your contention lacks foresight: As a wiki editor you should have realized by now that active Wikis are under continuous improvement so the one liner stub article of today will be the FA class article of tomorrow. FF Wiki has a large group of dedicated editors constantly filling up stub articles with thousands of edits a day. Linking to it is a very sensible policy. Besides, you can always expand the one liner FF wiki article yourself if you are unwilling to wait. Unlike a commercial external site, FF Wiki is open to ALL wikipedia editors, free of charge Renmiri 19:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but again, why privilegiate FF Wikia when there are other sites, like this one? Kariteh 19:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Awww you are so sweet! That is my site!! :D But this is precisely the reason I advocate FF Wiki: My site is a personal site, and although I don't intend to, what guarantees can you have that I won't start acting all snooty and say X and Y users won't be able to edit my Wiki ? Or charge for access ? At Wikia we have those guarantees because it is a sister project. See my point ? Renmiri 20:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmh, well okay I guess. But what about FFXIclopedia which is linked in Final Fantasy XI? There's no guarantee here either. Kariteh 20:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. We shouldn't be linking to private sites when there is a perfectly good alternative on a sister site. Like I said above, Wikia should take precedence over private sites, even when talking about my own site. Private site owners had the bad handicap of having something called a life and can not be counted to be around if their real life takes precedence ;) Renmiri 23:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But can I remove this FFXIclopedia link? There was a discussion on the FFXI talk page which led to the link being added, with the reasoning that although it's a private fansite it's also a "premier site" acknowledged by the FFXI official site. Kariteh 07:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote to remove it if you have concerns about it. But then again, we can make an exception if it's a very notable private site. How big is the External links section anyway ? Does a link to this place really add value to the article ? Renmiri 18:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the vote. We have a guideline for ELs, but it seems that the FFXI article has more unnotable ELs than the other FF articles? WHy the special treatment? — Bluerで す。 19:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I remember Deck telling me that part of the reason he okayed the merges was because of the FF Wikia articles. So wouldn't it be right for Deck to follow through on his promise? We are required to give "further reading" --Sir Crazyswordsman 04:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fair compromise to have at least category links on articles. Following policies and guidelines is good, but sometimes localized consensus and agreement overcomes those suggestions/rules. — Deckiller 04:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the one of the reasons I believed/believe in the mergers, was the understanding that the content would not be "lost", but "relocated". Judgesurreal777 05:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A small request for the lists 

message: These three articles have had their Good Article status removed. I completely agree with it. Sure, we look better with more GAs, but I don't think that's what this project is about - I hope not. P.S. Traitor? Heh.--Teggles 19:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Damn, I forgot to tell him to archive that discussion :-D. Since our goal is GA+ status for all relevant articles, it looks like we're cheating if we keep sub-par GAs. — Deckiller 19:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as List of Final Fantasy titles remains a Featured Article (even though it contains two stub sections and lacks sources), there's not much danger for FAs to get de-listed anyway. Kariteh 19:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, those section-stubs were added when the list changes its focus. — Deckiller 19:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not 100% sure about the reasons given, but I agree those aren't GA class. I also don't think anyone should be concerned about being considered a "traitor" for delisting articles that obviously aren't good enough (Yeah, I found that discussion too). Anomie 19:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "traitor" thing was mostly just a joke, but I did feel that someone from the outside should do it to satisfy any wikilawyers. — Deckiller 20:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *You forgot Chrono Trigger. --Sir Crazyswordsman 22:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I was referring to games w/o evil guys wanting to destroy the world :) Lavos technically counts as that. — Deckiller 22:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cloud Strife]], [[Aerith Gainsborough]] and [[Jenova]]