Talk:Garnet (Final Fantasy)

Original research concern

The "Love" section of this entry screams of original research. If the statements are based off of comments from the game developers, they need to be cited. But really, it smacks of someone passing off their fan-thesis as demonstrable fact. 40.0.40.10 06:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree; it should be completely removed and condensed to perhaps a paragraph in an overview of the character (using the script and perhaps developers information, if possible, to back it up). Ideally, this article (and other FF characters), should include a lead, development section, overview section, other appearences (if applicable), and references/see also/external links. — Deckiller 06:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoted dialog to back up the love section:

Steiner: "Red Rose!? Could it be...Beatrix!?" Zidane: "Quite a woman, you fell in love with!" Steiner: "You're one to talk!" Dagger: "Wait a minute, Steiner! What did you mean by that!?" Zidane: "...Alright! Let's bust through!"

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Garnet Til Alexandros XVII/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs) 18:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I will take this review! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Ok, let’s go through it!

• We need a nice, 2 or three paragraph lead to start with.
  • Done.
• concept and creation should be paragraphized as well
  • Done.
• Is there any more creation information about this character?
  • Nope, not that I have found.
• From experience, any sentence without a ref at the end is in danger of getting a citation needed tag. What source does all that creation information come from? Please put a few more tags in there so it doesn’t get challenged
  • As far as this goes, all of the content comes ref 6. I used a single reference because all of the details tie into the same concept, of Garnet's hair and how she's portrayed before and after cutting it. I'll acquiesce if need be.
• Should the image be in the appearances section? The article talks about it being her second appearance in the creation section, should it be there? I’m not saying it should, I’m just asking what you think
  • I put it there because I felt that the image squished the Concept and creation section too much.
• Is any of this plot material sourcable?
  • When it comes to plot summaries, beyond sourcing that the character appears in the game, it's assumed that the game itself serves as the source.
• USGamer should be italicized in the reception section, correct?
  • Fixed.
• ”Later in life, however, she acquired” it’s unclear if your talking about the character or the game reviewer
  • Fixed.
• ”they grew up seeing Garnet” who is they?
  • Ashley Barry.
• ”They noticed Garnet seeming happier” who?
  • Ashley Barry.
• ” They note that it combines two themes” who?
  • Fixed.
• reference 2 has an unlisted author
  • Fixed.
• what is the publisher of reference 4?
  • It's not published by anyone, it's a YouTube video on the official Final Fantasy account.

Ok @Abryn:, have at it! :) Let me know if you have any questions about this. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

” leading them to relate to her more” whose them?

Lucas. In this case, it should be assumed that the they/them refers to the last subject being discussed where such pronouns would apply.

@Judgesurreal777:

The problem @Abryn: with these “theys” is that they is usually plural, and you say it’s referring to this female reviewer. You need singular words to reference a single person. Or if it refers to the fictional couple, it needs to be clearer.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

They/them is actually acceptable for use with a singular person, where gender is not known. In this case, I've changed the she to they, as upon further inspection, Daniella does not identify their pronouns. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok but it’s still not clear, so can we use more of their names then? It’s not clear which person we are talking about in some cases in the reception section. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I mean, I think it's fairly clear; Garnet identifies with she/her, so they/them would automatically not apply to her, and thus it's fair to say that they/them is used to refer to the person who was just discussed. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not think it is clear. I can always withdraw and we can get another GA reviewer if you wish. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean, we can certainly just ask for a second opinion. That said, what do you find not clear about it? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Like this one: “ When her and her kidnappers' identities are revealed, the Queen orders her soldiers to attack the stage; however, they are able to escape” who escaped, the soldiers? The heroes?

Or this one “ She discovers the existence of a factory producing robotic Black Mages owned by Alexandria, which causes her distress. They escape to Lindblum” who escapes, the black pages? The two characters? All of them?

Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean, those absolutely need to be fixed, and are. I'm just referring to the usage of they/them in the Reception section, as I feel that there's no one those pronouns could refer to besides the authors. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m just concerned that in this case it gets tricky because the reviewers are discussing a mother and daughter relationship, and who “they” refers to in some of these sentences gets fuzzy, and the text for a GA doesn’t have to be brilliant, but it does have to be clear. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Grammatically speaking, however, it wouldn't make sense for they/them to refer to the collective of Garnet and Brahne, because they were not discussed until after the pronouns were used. Furthermore, in the same sentence, Garnet is referred to separately, so they/them could only refer to the individual writer or the writer and the Queen, and the latter would not make sense. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

[1] Good news, got verification. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

A+ work Abyrn! :) But the only one that is still fuzzy is this one: ”praising Brahne's passing and apology to Garnet as one of the series' most touching moments. They noted that it portrays a complex relationship” I think since you just named both the reviewer and the character duo you should say the last name of the reviewer for clarity. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Done, I also verified the pronouns of two other writers, but found it cleaner to just say the names. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I’ve found that too! Great work, great job making the article crystal clear! I’ll pass it now. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 4 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Garnet (Final Fantasy). (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Garnet Til Alexandros XVII → Princess Garnet

My reasons for the move proposal:

1) A google search for "Garnet Til Alexandros XVII" yield 75,500 results. "Princess Garnet" on the other hand returned 10.5 million hits. Even if one is inclined to argue that there is a percentage of false positives in the search results, which is given with every instance of a search, at least a slim majority of the results appear to directly refer to this character. There is no other notable individual in existence that we know of, fictional or otherwise, who is typically referred to as "Princess Garnet".

2) Most of the reliable sources cited in this article also refer to her as "Princess Garnet" or by her Dagger pseudonym. Going by the reliable sources, Garnet Til Alexandros XVII is clearly not the common name for the character.

3) While the character's role does transitions into that of a sovereign monarch later in the game's story, that is still not the role she is best known or remembered for according to reliable sources. Given the context, I find that the arguments presented during two move proposals documented in the archived talk page for Princess Leia are very instructive: [[2]]. I note that arguments which request for a change to "Leia Organa" or at least removing the title of "Princess" due to her different role in the Star Wars sequel trilogy as a Republic general were found to be unconvincing.

4) Even with real life royal figures, we don't usually refer to their full royal names or stylings for the purpose of determining the appropriate title for a Wikipedia page about them. Garnet Til Alexandros XVII simply isn't concise. For example, Elizabeth II's daughter is simply Anne, Princess Royal on Wikipedia, not titled Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise or any other convoluted title that invokes the House of Windsor. Haleth (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose As far as I can tell her common name is simply "Garnet", sans the "Princess". I would support an alternate move to Garnet (Final Fantasy) in the absence of an alternate name that is easily recognizable. A similar example is Byleth (Fire Emblem) who could alternately be called "Byleth Eisner" or "Professor Byleth" but neither of these are very recognizable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Based on my reading of cited sources, I disagree with your assertion that her common name is Garnet sans the Princess, although Garnet (Final Fantasy) is admittedly still a better title then Garnet Til Alexandros XVII. The reason why Byleth (Fire Emblem) is not titled or should not be titled "Byleth Eisner" or "Professor Byleth" is simple, because the cited sources for that topic do not typically refer to the character as such, whereas "Princess Garnet" is in fact quite commonly used in a lot of the sources. Princess Garnet is an extent redirect, and moving this article there serves an optimal purpose within the context of the prescribed article titling criteria at WP:TITLEDAB: it's natural and descriptive the same way "Princess Leia" is. Per the guideline under WP:TITLEDAB, it recommends using the standard disambiguation technique of parenthetical disambiguation only when no other solutions lead to an optimal article title. That isn't the case here. Haleth (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Move to Garnet (Final Fantasy) or Garnet (Final Fantasy IX). Agree that the full, spelled out "last name" essentially never comes up in the game script, and is not a "common name". She's not a real princess so the title is unneeded (nor is she referred to exclusively with the title). The only issue is that arguably, she should be at "Dagger" instead as this is how she is referred to most of the time in her origin work, but I get the impression that later works post-FFIX have used "Garnet" rather than "Dagger" (or "Sarah" for that matter, her "true" name!), so I guess using Garnet is fair enough. SnowFire (talk) 07:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The subject being a fictional character has no bearing on whether the title Princess should be used in the title of a Wikipedia page though. Just to name a few very well known or widely recognizable examples, Princess Leia, Princess Peach and Prince Hamlet are not titled Leia (Star Wars), Peach (Mario) or Hamlet (character). Haleth (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

For real-life nobility, we do actually sometimes include the title even if it's not the common name. I was merely saying that case does not apply here here. There's certainly no prohibition on using a title, but it needs to be justified on common name basis: "Princess Leia" is a common name. (Hamlet's article I actually think is misnamed, but a side note.) "Princess Garnet" is not; she is routinely referred to as either just "Garnet" or as "Dagger" in sources. So the common name argument to include "princess" doesn't fly. SnowFire (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Move to Garnet (Final Fantasy). Seems more reasonable title page. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.