Talk:Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130120190834/http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-03/12/qa-ffxiiis-yoshinori-kitase-and-isamu-kamikokuryo to https://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-03/12/qa-ffxiiis-yoshinori-kitase-and-isamu-kamikokuryo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Androgynous characters in Final Fantasy

The title Androgynous characters in Final Fantasy redirects here and the original content on that page claims to have been merged here, but there is no mentions of the subjects here.★Trekker (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs) 20:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

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:

GA Review

This is going to be quick, because the article is amazing and fantastic and I always said it was, but I have found a few nits to pick :)

• There is a message on the free use image “ Add a one-line explanation of what this file represents” - please do so
  • Done.
• I feel there should be just a bit more information on the Chocobo and the Moogle since they have ended up representing the series in a similar way to the Slime represents Dragon Quest. I know there is more Chocobo information on the main chocobo page. Again, not too much, but just a bit.
  • I've added some extra on the moogle. I thought more information on them should be sensibly incorporated into the articles themselves. This one's already large enough as it is.
• The other “big thing would be reception. Does the reception section cover all the elements from the article? I’m not exactly sure what I would say should be added, I just generally notice it is small relative to a very robust article.
  • I realise it looks small, and that's because I was limiting myself to discussion of the series impact as a whole. Most retrospectives focus on single games within the series, and this article covers the series/franchise as a whole. I also wanted to avoid "best of" and "worst of" lists. Plus, there really wasn't much overarching commentary that didn't fall into those categories, which I avoided for the sake of clarity and balance.
• Also, I think you might want to consider a three paragraph, somewhat larger introduction. You have so much material here that is fascinating, there should be more glimpses of what’s in store for the reader with a longer introduction.
  • I've expanded the lead a little.
• Those are my thoughts. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Judgesurreal777: I've done edits, and hopefully addressed concerns. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You added just the right amount of Moogle info, I never knew that about them! That info should probably at some point find it’s way into the Mana (series) article, and the creators too! :) The introduction now is delightful, as it gives the reader a hint of the large scope and breadth of the article. Giving an article like this a Green Plus is a mere formality. I don’t know if the reviewers at FAC will appreciate this like I do, but this article is very special: it’s a hundred former articles that were stubs and junk and trivia turned into one beautiful work of art. Here’s a Good Article icon, I hope one day it will have a star and be on the front page! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Renaming and tidying article

Following the closure of the AdF, I think it's . Looking at the article, it's...very old me, rather rambling in places. I can certainly do trimming and consolidation (though I'm really busy in real life ATM), but extra input on what actually needs to be in here would be useful. The article seems to need more focus, and if so where? Also, since it was a common suggestion from people, what alternate title would be best? My mind's floating towards "Common elements" after the stuff's been trimmed and tidied, but that's just my opinion.

Pinging @PresN, David Fuchs, Zxcvbnm, Sergecross73, Maplestrip, SnowFire, Phediuk, and Salvidrim!: for comment. ProtoDrake (talk) 07:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Focus/scope-wise, the idea of making this into Final Fantasy setting/Final Fantasy universe or such makes sense. Although even that would be hard pressed to accomodate stuff like "The Final Fantasy series and several specific games within it have been credited for introducing and popularizing many concepts that are today widely used in console RPGs." which should probably be merged to the main article (Final Fantasy). In either case, WP:GAR is in order, the review was very cursory and this article has issues. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I technically have no problem with it as is. But I'll weigh in on proposals for change as they come in. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

"Biggs and Wedge(Final Fantasy)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Biggs and Wedge(Final Fantasy) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6 § Biggs and Wedge(Final Fantasy) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

"Evrae" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Evrae has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6 § Evrae until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)