Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy/Archive/19

Welcome to the discussion page. This page provides space for community members to discuss housekeeping, project and article issues. Click here to add an issue to the discussion below, or here to edit the page to respond to a specific issue.

Housekeeping

Clean-up Suggestions

I'm assigning a few tasks to keep the articles under the project umbrella nice and tidy. Several of you practice these on a regular basis, but since it's difficult to keep watch on every single article, please take initiative and fix these problems as they cross your path. ~ Hibana 17:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor tasks

• Removal of second person pronouns, such as "you" and "your" and replacement with proper syntax like "the player".
• Decapitalization of words such as chocobo, moogle, and esper, as they do not appear capitalized within the games except when they are part of a formal title, such as "Chocobo Ranch".
• Expansion of abbreviations, especially RPG to computer role-playing game or console role-playing game, and FF to Final Fantasy.
• Italicization of game and film titles.
• Instances of "Square-Enix" with a hyphen should be corrected as Square Enix; although the official website contains the hyphen for HTML purposes, the company's title contains a space.
• Remove weasel statements such as "It may be the most widely distributed video game franchise of all time" that have no citing.

Redirects

Redirects have become rampant in these past few months. Many of them are a result of major merges, such as Summon magic (Final Fantasy) into Final Fantasy magic and Compilation of Final Fantasy VII into Final Fantasy VII. These should be fixed and pinpointed (i.e. [[Final Fantasy magic#Summon magic|summon magic]]) where appropriate. Some of them may not be as obvious, and may require disambiguation. Sephiroth is frequently wiki'd in place of Sephiroth (Final Fantasy VII) even though it links to a disambiguation page. Be sure to check all articles containing these redirects using the "What links here" option.

Main Final Fantasy article

What should be the flagship article of this entire project is in dire need or some organization and serious need of citation. I know pretty much everyone's started back to school and busy as ever, but try to lend a hand if you get time. We've focused on our favorite games, gotten many featured, and watch over them like hawks, but this article needs help. ~ Hibana 02:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Community

Mid-November roll call

Hi all, don't forget to add your name to this, and what you're up to. At the end of the month I'll update the participants list to anyone who puts their name here.

• Cuahl - I'm back after a long time away and really hope to revive the project and our original ideas. — CuaHL 15:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• PresN - This thing never gets updated on time, does it. Oh well, I'm still kicking around. --PresN 19:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Sir Crazyswordsman This project's been dwindliing and WP:SE isn't much better.
• -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} I'm still here keeping an eye on various pages when I can. -08:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib)
• RaCha'ar I should probably finish revamping Final Fantasy XI, huh? Too bad it's been a year since I played it... -RaCha'ar 15:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Ummm, I suppose I've been pretty busy with the mop and bucket and haven't had time to fix a whole lot of articles, I suppose. 21:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Project revival

Hey, I've been away for a while, but it seems this project has died a bit. I'm going to do a bit on the housecleaning side of things, much like I've seen Seancdaug do lately (good to see you again :)) like tidying the archives and updating the index for example. Has anyone got any ideas how we can patch this up again? — CuaHL 15:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Everyone's still burned out from the 5-6 Featured Article summer run and/or have moved discussions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix, which is essensially where this project is right now (or so I hear). — Deckiller 18:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What about those only interested in the Final Fantasy series specifically? There are more than enough articles to merit an independent Wikiproject — CuaHL 18:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what I said, but I seemed to be in the minority. I'm in for a revival. -RaCha'ar 15:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Late December roll call

Hi all, don't forget to add your name to this, and what you're up to. At the end of the month I'll update the participants list to anyone who puts their name here.

• Renmiri - Just archived the project page. Will be working on FFXII for the next couple of weeks Renmiri 01:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• PresN - Was working on the cruft mini-project, though finals and holidays have slowed that down a lot. --PresN 17:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• ZeWrestler ^Talk - Just finished finals. So i'm back for a while. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• — Deckiller 23:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC) (BTW, once the cruft project gets full swing, it won't be mini, I promise :) )
• RaCha'ar Around, but not really, due to both a new job with a killer commute and the hoildays. I'll be back to work soon, I promise. -RaCha'ar 02:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rebby Literally just signed up, and plan on working on the Final Fantasy IX page as best as I can, as I recall seeing some things I wanted to see if I can put better --Rebby 08:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Wwwwolf Mostly been busy with mop stuff lately again, and won't do much productive stuff this month, but I'll see what I can do. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Odin of Trondheim is currently awaiting some direction. Anyone with one is more than welcome to leave a message on my talk page. 20:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC -5:00)
• Sir Crazyswordsman I'm contemplating leaving Wikipedia due to corruption issues and working on Uncyc and the FFWiki full time.
• Still here... will start editing again soon... honest! --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib)

Issues

Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix

As I've already told Hibana, the Dragon Quest articles are in a sorry state. I'm pushing to organize a project to help establish guidelines within these articles, provide badly needed inertia for the editing of the articles, and create a home for discussion that isn't as crowded as the WikiProject Computer and video games. I believe that with well over 30 articles (and more that need to be created), a WikiProject is justified. Hibana mentioned at some point merging these two under one big Square Enix project, and I like the idea. For now, though, I'd encourage any and all of you to sign up at the temporary WikiProject Dragon Quest page and sign your name at list of proposed projects. With at least five members, I'll go ahead and create an actual project out of it; I'd appreciate signups, especially from you guys, since everyone at the FFWikiProject has proven themselves more than competent for editing articles. :) --Tristam 17:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I know nothing of Dragon Quest, but I have thought about the idea of changing WikiProject Final Fantasy to Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix, as articles related to the Chrono series are on par with our articles (ALL articles about Chrono games are either GA or FA). Sir Crazyswordsman 22:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't played any DQ before but I'd be happy to help. Personally, I really like the idea of a WP:Square Enix. Axem Titanium 23:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies and support guys. Now that I think about it more and more, I like the idea of a WikiProject Square Enix (of course, this would merge into such a project) rather than a WikiProject Dragon Quest. Sure, it'd be quite a hefty number of articles, but who's to say we can't handle it. We'd just have to decide on the logo that represents our work in templates; we could fight over Chocobos and Slimes or use the more plain red and black "E." :-) More input would be appreciated, but I'd like to hear what Hibana has to say about this since we already discussed it. --Tristam 03:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Plus, changing the Project to a Square Enix one will satisfy the Kingdom Hearts fans, which is also good. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 03:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but more importantly the Chrono fans such as myself. :) Sir Crazyswordsman 04:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I also like the idea of a WikiProject Square Enix. I think all of us are familiar with at least two of the following franchises: Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Kingdom Hearts, Chrono series. Combining the expertise and interests could only serve to improve things across the four franchises, I would think, and, perhaps, serve to help some of the standalone titles from the company. Ryu Kaze 16:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It sounds very practical, and wouldn't necessarily mean the end of WikiProject Final Fantasy as a concentration of Final Fantasy either. It could be set up in hierarchal form similar to WikiProject Nintendo.

This just sounds better and better. I'm not sure how the subprojects would work out exactly, but it's a good thought! --Tristam 22:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that's something can agree on :) Renmiri 22:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for changing WP:FF to WP:SE. That would include all Square games, Enix games, and Square Enix games, right? --PresN 16:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. So, show of hands, is there anyone actually opposed to this adjustment? Axem Titanium 21:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Because this is such as major undertaking, and the project would be of greater scope than either the FF or DQ projects, we should probably bring it up on the main CVG Project talk page for more opinions. ~ Hibana 22:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, Hibana. I don't see that it would encounter much resistance though. As far as scope goes (as PresN asked), this would include all games developed and/or published by Square, Enix, and Square Enix. Of course, there would be plenty of miscellaneous pages (e.g., the Dragon Warrior TV show) as well. But I think this idea is perfect. As for the image of a WikiProject Square Enix, would it be copyvio if one of us created a red and black "E" in the same exact style as the "E" in the Square Enix logo (basically, a few black rectangles and a red one)? --Tristam 23:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If we are to create a logo, I think it should be some sort of crest bearing the symbols that represent two major franchises from each company: For Square, we'd have a Crystal for FF and a Pendilum for Chrono, and from Enix we'd have whatever the symbols for Dragon Quest and Star Ocean are. They wouldn't be copyvio if we created it ourselves from scratch. Sir Crazyswordsman 06:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest using the two most well known franchises - perhaps the crystal for Final Fantasy and the slime for Dragon Quest - along with a black "S" and a red-and-black "E" in a four-square pattern, or something similar. We already have both symbols in their respective project boxes. ~ Hibana 15:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am all for a SquareEnix project. Great idea, and keep up the good work! Altair 15:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as the logo goes, I do have the Slime for Dragon Quest that I created from scratch. I'm still in favor of simply using the "E" as the logo, but mascots would admittedly add a certain flavor. The problem is that if we go overboard, it will look messy (space limitations, anyone?) and there will be argument as to what exactly the most representative secondary franchises are (there really is no argument that Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest are the top two). Although I consider Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross among the greatest games of all time (and have never played Kingdom Hearts), there's definitely room to argue that Kingdom Hearts has surpassed the Chrono series in general popularity, although it doesn't claim the same historical roots that the Chrono series does.

To continue with Hibana's four-square pattern, the obvious placements would be the "S" in the upper left square, the "E" in the bottom right, with the crystal and Slime randomly filling the other two. I have, however, done my own experimenting with a type of crest and the results haven't been very pretty. --Tristam 19:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

A chocobo in place of the crystal perhaps? It would go with the "mascot" theme of the slime for Enix. Axem Titanium 21:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how many users are advocating for a Square Enix project, I decided to be bold and create WikiProject Square Enix. As for the idea of merging WikiProject Final Fantasy to WikiProject Square Enix, I suggest they stay separate, like how WikiProject Nintendo is separate from WikiProject Pokemon, WikiProject Legend of Zelda, and WikiProject Nintendo Wars. BTW, currently the project is using this logo:

So... any comments or suggestions?--TBCTaLk?!? 21:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that when I made the logo I didn't include any mascots due to possible fair use violations and size issues. Also, I wasn't fond of the chocobo/crystal idea, since (in my opinion) series like Chrono, Space Invaders, Bubble Bobble, Full Metal Alchemist, Star Ocean, Sword of Mana, and Kingdom of Hearts are as equally representative of Square Enix as both Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest.--TBCTaLk?!? 21:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for getting the new project going. I think I'll join soon. Excluding mascots is good, considering the recent discussion about the Black Mage (see above). However, the proposed WPSE logo copies elements directly from the official Square Enix logo (the shape of the S, and all of the E), which is copyrighted. Even if it's not an exact copy, this discussion comes to mind: Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Reproduce a Trademark/Coprighted Image ok?. Maybe we should find something better to avoid future problems. - Fx21 22:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to say thanks for getting the project off of the ground. I like your style with the logo, but I can't say I know if it's copyvio if we reproduce our own "S" and/or "E." So basically, WikiProject Final Fantasy stays on as a subproject of WikiProject Square Enix? Is there any indicator of that other than the fact that it says so on the WikiProject Square Enix's page? --Tristam 00:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've changed the image so that it now uses a different font.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I support merging WP:FF into WP:SE, rather than being a subproject, though I'm not too hung up on it. --PresN 19:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with PresN. That way the people at WPCVG will calm down about all the subprojects as well. --Tristam 19:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Same, otherwise, WP:SE would just become a dump for non-FF discussion and be practically deserted. Axem Titanium 02:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Then again, simply renaming the FF project as such while including the other franchises wouldn't change much. There are a few people who work specifically on the Chrono, Seiken Densetsu, and Kingdom Hearts, and I think it would be best to try and recruit them to actively participate in the SE project. ~ Hibana 15:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do Chrono. Sir Crazyswordsman 16:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

So we're just moving this project into WP:SE? Axem Titanium 17:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yay, if we basically rename this project WPSE, I might get some backup on Xenogears in the near future ^^— Deckiller 18:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I can help with Full Metal Alchemist a bit. Images for sure, I have the series on DVD. Renmiri 00:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm definitely for merging this project into WikiProject SE. The work on FF is what brings most of us together, and if we're going to create a WikiProject SE and really mean for it to do what it says, we should make sure we use it as the main gathering center. If need be, we can branch it later, but in getting started, I don't think there should be any branches. Severing it before it ever got off the ground would be counterproductive, I think. Ryu Kaze 02:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sooooo.....Is anyone actually going to do this? Since WP:SE exists, we need an admin to delete that page, then move WP:FF to there, we can reword the main page after that. 'Least, that's how I think it should get done. --PresN 05:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobuo Uematsu Interview

Very cool interview form a german pop site, translated by the guys at FF Extreme. Tons of "citation rich" tidbits such as the one I just added to FF Music, FFVI [1]

Link (Legend of Zelda)

Someone please help, all the work I have done on Link (Legend of Zelda) has been reverted and I don't want to break to 3 revert rule, so someone please stop them from reverting everything I did. Judgesurreal777 03:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Err... shouldn't you discuss this at WP:CVG or WP:ZELDA?--TBCTaLk?!? 05:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems the matter was taken care off. Renmiri 00:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, situation cleared up. I thought to ask here because people know me here :) Judgesurreal777 00:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yuna

I don't understand why a video game character takes precedence over a large number of other uses (listed at Yuna (disambiguation)). I propose moving the article to Yuna (Final Fantasy), per precedent for Pauline (Nintendo) and King Bowser. I would be bold do it myeslf, but I don't want to incur divine wrath (i.e. spoiler tags question), so I thought I'd ask you guys. Hbdragon88 08:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll be happy to hit anyone who objects with a cluestick, unless the other uses are really obscure. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, take a look at the other ones. Galaxy Fraulein Yuna has its own name and it doesn't seem too notable. Yuna River is a one-line stub. Hibiscus tiliaceus (which redirects to Hau (tree)) is a technical name which only translates to Yuna in one language. The only possibly notable other use would be Yuna Ito, but naming conventions dictate the inclusion of her last name. With Pauline and Bowser, there are plenty of more notable uses which would impress the need to have them not be the main page but that doesn't really apply here. Axem Titanium 19:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Article length shouldn't be an issue here - many CVG users argued that Bowser (tanker) was a two-paragraph stub while the Nintendo character was a nice long article. JzG countered that it was due to systematic bias because there were more CVG editors than Bowser tanker editors. Hbdragon88 19:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Is "what links here" considered a factor? I count 107 pages linking to Yuna. Even discounting the userspace links, that's a significant number. --Roninbk _{t c #} 04:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. At least, for JzG he used AWB or soemthing and went around fixing all of the Bowser links - twice, once for Bowser (Nintendo) and again for King Bowser Hbdragon88 05:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Google test is lame, but Googling in English turns up Yuna Ito and Galaxy Fraulein Yuna in the first page, and Googling in Japanese gets nothing even vaguely related to FFX in the first page. I realize this is en.wiki, but Yuna is apparently a common name and common word in Japanese, so I'm not entirely happy with a video game character sitting in the prime spot. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mario holds the prime spot and he's a video game character. Frankly, I don't really care either way but I think that Yuna the character is probably the most prevalent usage of the word in the English speaking world. Axem Titanium 20:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mario is...Mario. Yuna isn't exactly mentioned in the same breath as Mickey Mouse. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if someone was searching for the other Yunas, they wouldn't type in just "Yuna?" Sir Crazyswordsman 03:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Which is what we're trying to get at. As Yuna isn't the most prevalent usage, we want to move Yuna to Yuna (Final Fantasy), so people looking for other Yuna uses will go to a disambiguation page, instead of having to go to the FF page and click the (disambiguation) link. Hbdragon88 05:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's one click versus two clicks. If we want to be that considerate to the decidedly few number of people who are searching for other Yunas, we can be. I don't think anyone will get arthritis from clicking an extra link. Axem Titanium 17:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As I haven't read a real good reason why not to move the page (besdies a concern over "what links here," a generalized statement about Yuna's popularity, and a sarcastic comment) , I think I'll be moving it...I'll leave AMIB To whack anybody who opposes with a cluestick. Hbdragon88 05:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Yuna's that popular anyway. Most people I speak to speak to, including myself, like Rydia a helluva lot more. Sir Crazyswordsman 15:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Kefka split proposal AGAIN

Just a heads up; a redname slapped {{splitsection}} on List of Final Fantasy VI characters again. I'll give you three guesses on which character (and don't mind the section title ¬_¬). Someone want to explain to them why it isn't happening? I took care of the tag. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice job nipping that one in the bud. It has been discussed at length, especially at Talk:Kefka Palazzo and when all the playable characters were at risk for merging. I was the one who requested page protection all those months ago because it kept getting reverted back into article form. One question though AMIB, why do you want to merge in Gogo (Final Fantasy)? I mean he is playable, quite popular, and does appear in more than one game, albeit as a boss villain in Final Fantasy V. ~ Hibana 14:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Gogo is already merged into a generic article. Personally, I think Kefka should have his own article (at least more than Seymour...), but I know consensus is against me so I don't make it. If we are to merge player character articles, we shouldn't just do it by game. We should do it by importance to the game. For example, I'd consider keeping at least two characters from each non-job system game, preferably the main character and one who contributes a lot to the story. FFVII should keep all player characters regardless due to Square's insistance on making crap sequels. But let's not go on a merge crusade right now. Sir Crazyswordsman 15:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

To be frank, I just want to redirect Gogo (Final Fantasy); there's nothing in that article that isn't already in that list, and I strongly doubt that third-party commentary in reliable sources is going to crawl out of the woodwork for a hidden character with no backstory. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. The same could probably be said for Umaro, who has no controversial connection to a real-life politician. :) ~ Hibana 00:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that "controversy" is one of those forum-only phenomena anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, remember the Gogo/Adlai Stevenson controversey? That actually got mainstream press coverage! (Well, it did, but the articles I found on it may have gotten deleted). I do remember seeing them though. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

improving the list

I'm curious what it would take to improve List of Final Fantasy VI characters to Featured list status?--ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

References. And lots of them. And probably some more pics of the characters we don't have yet. Sir Crazyswordsman 18:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

References and a ton less plot summary. No need to list ?????, every single minor Returner, every single minor Esper, and other junk. Adding more fair-use images (there are already too many) won't help. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, for characters who don't have their own article (Kefka namely), they need the full summary as they won't have their own article for an expanded summary. All encyclopedic info needs to be in there. Sir Crazyswordsman 17:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem lies with defining "encyclopedic." How encyclopedic is a summary of the ghost's powers, advice for getting Shadow in the World of Ruin, or even an analysis of Locke's tearful past? I'm for removing all character pages and even character lists and location lists (including those I have created); this is why the CVG project gets such a bad name when it comes to cruft. I think that coverage of the individual games is sufficient. However, I realize that this is a wildly unpopular view so I would not, of course, act on it. The notability guidelines at WP:CVG are way too vague, and it's disheartening to see one-sentence stubs of "Superstar Baseball '99" or "List of weapons in [game]." I wish that the guidelines were in place so that I myself would know what and what not to create or delete; I look back on many of the articles I created with shame. --Tristam 23:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree a bit; character lists and even location lists can be made into encyclopedic megaarticles. It isn't final fantasy that gives CVG a bad name. — Deckiller 23:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to reiterate to AMIB's point about fair-use images; character lists are simply littered with them. I understand that all of these images will inherently be fair use, as game screenshots are, but images of Biggs, Wedge, Jesse, or Elmyra Gainsborough aren't really necessary as far as I can tell. EDIT: To supplement my argument, I'll copy and paste a post of mine from the WP:Zelda series:

"I think many of the articles that form the WP:Zelda series should be merged into their respective lists: Gossip Stone, Rupee, nearly all of the enemies (just take a look at Keese), most of the places/locations, Great Fairy, Agahnim, Onox, Twinrova, Vaati, Veran, and probably a few others. The lists, perhaps, can be made encyclopedic (although they can stand to remove characters GameFAQs guides might even neglect to mention), but I can't see justification for many of these individual articles. There's also the added benefit of making the templates less choad-like. I don't know how the rest of you feel regarding the inclusion of character analyses or location lists, but I think that WP:Zelda would be better represented by a smaller set of outstanding articles than a slew of trivial articles plastered with merge or cite tags (unfortunately, that's become the norm for WP:CVG)." --Tristam 00:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC).

Frankly, if the likes Belgemine, Shelinda, and Luzzu are allowed to have an image, I think the likes of Arvis and Duncan should be allowed one as well. Also, I'd like to consider turning the section on minor characters into a headerless list with short descriptions. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That's the thing: Belgemine, Shelinda, and Luzzu more than likely should not have images based on fair use. --Tristam 04:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Backstory of Final Fantasy VII

Midgar, AVALANCHE, Materia the FF7 term list, and the FF7 timeline belong in a single article similar to Spira (Final Fantasy X)....perhaps Backstory of Final Fantasy VII or something like that. This needs to be done :) I'd be willing to help. — Deckiller 23:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Terminology of Final Fantasy VII would be better, as to be similar to my Terminology of Final Fantasy VI, which I have been slacking on lately. Sir Crazyswordsman 04:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that might work. Something to compress the cruft into an GA-worthy overview. — Deckiller 05:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of GA, how come most of the current work on my article is being done by non-WPFF/WPSE regulars? I personally think the FFVI version of this article (which has existed since April) needs to be brought up to GA standards. I'd like some ideas for additional material. Sir Crazyswordsman 16:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm kind of leery on this one, although I realize it's making me more exclusionist than the most heavily mergist video game Wikiproject. ¬_¬ How much coverage of Final Fantasy VII's story do we need? I realize there's a lot of detail there, but we've got 39K in Final Fantasy VII plus whatever's in the articles for the individual spinoffs. At what point do we just leave the games to speak for themselves? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The point of this is to compress all those articles that would easily survive AfD anyway into one succinct article. — Deckiller 18:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess they'd pass AFD, I just don't see the great value in having separate articles also describing the plot of FFVII, be it a half-dozen or just one. Forced to choose between those, though, I'd choose the latter. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Compromise was the basis behind the idea. — Deckiller 01:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, compromise between what and what? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose he means compromise between not having this stuff at all and having a million articles about them. Personally, I like the idea of either shoving it all into one easily manageable article or having it completely gone. Axem Titanium 02:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to make the point that we already have a compromise; that we cover fictional subjects and plot summary as support for real-world content. I don't see how Backstory of Final Fantasy VII could be anything but plot summary/description of a fictional world. That said, I'm not going to oppose the merge (it's better than the status quo), simply question whether it's the best solution. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That said, you're probably right. It would be difficult to justify an article like that considering the requirements at WP:FICT about needing to have outside references and not be entirely in-universe (even though it would be easier to justify than the myriad articles that currently exist). On the other hand, I don't really know of a better way to quell the inclusionist camps who demand these articles' existence. Axem Titanium 03:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be no different than Spira (Final Fantasy X), which is a good article. Plus, FF7 probably has more out of universe material (since it's so "popular"), so it can include even more out of universe issues than Spira. The key is not to just throw the information in; it's to refine it into a description and out of universe analysis of the setting elements of FFVII, since complete comprehensiveness can't be attained on the main page (not to mention a compromise between 80 articles and one). The merge is our best option regardless, since we can look at this article when it's all said and done and see if there is a way to compress it into the main article (doubtful, but possible). It's merely a step in the right (or perhaps only available) direction - we should do what we can and not overshoot. — Deckiller 03:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

As usual, you're right. Even if a merge is less than ideal (still an open question, and I know I'm falling into the trap of thinking about the article I'm worried about rather than the article we're likely to end up with), it's the most practical solution at this point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, I should probably bring up Terminology of Final Fantasy VI

I won't be able to this week or next, due to heavy exams and lab report loads, but the week after I plan to turn my attention back to this article, which I wrote earlier this year. My first plan will be to submit it for a peer review for purposes of getting new ideas, then expand the article, then get a formatting peer review, and finally, submit it to GA. Sir Crazyswordsman 05:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Gameplay of Final Fantasy

I suggest we merge the airship list (much, much compressed - perhaps into two paragraphs and one or two sample images of final fantasy airships), item article (slightly compressed). armor/weapons lists (not used as lists; instead, a few paragraphs describing the systems and their evolution, with some examples cited (I.E. buster sword, pinwheel) for sourced analysis), a brief section on magic with a main article template, sections on classes, etc (main templates). In essense, we will axe the potentially endless lists of armor and weapons into sections on this page, merge the item page into this article, and so on. I think it's possible, and a great way to take the project to the next level. — Deckiller 00:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I could hug you Deckiller. --Tristam 00:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

^_^. I'm starting a skeleton at User:Deckiller/Gameplay of Final Fantasy. — Deckiller 00:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Awww, gwoup hug!!! --Roninbk _{t c #} 00:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think this could be one of the final steps to insuring that the FF WikiProject provides the most encyclopedic approach to fiction outside of the Doctor Who wikiproject :) — Deckiller 00:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What ? What are they doing that we don't ? I refuse to be second banana! ;-) (j/k). I can get some great shots of all FFX and X2 ships and weapons, in any position [2] , [3]. Even better than my DVD ones. I just hope extracting them from the game DVD is fair use! Renmiri 04:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think how you get an image is what qualifies or disqualifies an image as Fair Use, except when you get it from the internet (netiquette law means taking images from fansites without sourcing them makes you enemies very quickly), but more how you use it. Sir Crazyswordsman 05:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, we don't want this to turn into a huge list project. Really, we can summarize travel in final fantasy in 5 paragraphs: 2-3 on airships, 1 on chocobos, and 1-2 on others. As for weapons, I'd say 3 paragraphs would probably be enough to provide a succinct overview. Sure, we'd have no more huge lists of all the weapons, but Cloud's weapons should be described in more depth on his page, if at all. — Deckiller 05:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI, Square Enix, and many other companies, make sometimes extra Weapons and other stuff, but they delete it in the full game and only the data is left on the disk. On the FFX disk there is a Buster sword for Tidus, but I believe getting it in the game is impossible. Renmiri 15:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

But remember, the Buster Sword isn't an FF invention. It appeared at least as early as Lufia 2. Sir Crazyswordsman 06:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

One of my requested articles in the WP:SE To-Do list was Crystal (Final Fantasy). Perhaps this should included in this article as well. ~ Hibana 15:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy magic?

It might be difficult to compress this enough into a 5 paragraph section on the gameplay article; perhaps we should have a main template and provide a brief summary on the gameplay page instead? — Deckiller 03:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems like that page is listy and trivial enough that it can be manageable and prosified into the Gameplay article. --Tristam 01:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call it "trivial", as it encompasses over 20 works (thus, it has to be wordy to describe the progression and whatnot). We'll see how it turns out. — Deckiller 01:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how we can compress all of this. Why don't we just leave things the way they are? They're fine enough as is (ie not stubby, and provide basically a general overview of everything). Our goal shouldn't be "how few articles can we write?" Frankly, we shouldn't be trying to cut down on encyclopedic material just to merge something. I am a mergist, but mergism for mergism's sake is not the way to be a mergist. Sir Crazyswordsman 01:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the items, weapons, armor, and airships pages can probably be easily compressed, but the magic page will have to stay IMO (and, of course, the class list and so on). — Deckiller 02:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Enemies section?

What do you guys think about this? Is it really necessary to devote a section to enemies, since everything that needs to be said about them can be summed up in the basics section? — Deckiller 03:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at...

• Hank Hill. ^_^. — Deckiller 05:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  Ugh. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Also, someone just split hojo and zack into articles...— Deckiller 05:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll

To try to get a clear consensus, should this project be merged into WikiProject Square Enix? Or should it stay as a sub-project? Support is merge, oppose is, well, not merge. Discussion heavily encouraged.

Support

1. I support merging. I always saw WP:SE as just taking this project and expanding it, so I don't see the point of having 2 seperate projects. --PresN 04:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Honestly, I've pretty much transferred my membership to WP:SE anyways, --Roninbk _{t c e #} 07:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
3. I think the members have grown enough as Wikipedians to take on the added reponsibility. — Deckiller 13:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Support merging. --Tristam 18:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Support merge. Considerable discussion seems to indicate that either this or WPFF would be deleted because the subproject is too limited in scope and personally, I'd prefer it to be WPFF be deleted since WPSE is a broader but manageable project. Axem Titanium 01:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

   OK, that I oppose. WTF ? Why delete one of the most sucessfull WPCVG projects ? WPFF should still exist as history. And we should accomodate Ra'Chaar and others who want a quick way to focus on FF or other areas. Perhaps separate "to do" lists ? Renmiri 11:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

   And pardom my french but who the smurf are those guys ? I don't remember seeing most of them helping when we had peer reviews, articles up for GA and FA, edit battles... Now they come and say we have tons of FA and tell us merge this or that ? Why do we even have to listen to them ? Renmiri 11:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

   Perhaps delete isn't the best word to use here and I apologize for the word choice. I meant that this move agrees with the sentiment felt at WP:CVG (not that I care) to have fewer but more active subprojects. Of course the WP:FF page isn't going to be deleted, it's just that all activity there would be transferred here. Axem Titanium 14:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

6. Support merger. Not too much more responsability, we are a great team :) Judgesurreal777 01:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Support merger. This great team is ready for more IMHO. Renmiri 11:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Guh. I don't think I even need to say why. Sir Crazyswordsman 04:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
9. For the reasons I've mentioned before:
   • 1) most of us are familiar with at least one big name SE franchise in addition to Final Fantasy (whether it be Dragon Quest or Kingdom Hearts), so it could help articles for each to have some cross-trafficking going on
   • 2) it could only help those SE articles not related to the big name franchises by giving them a little more exposure to capable editors; it certainly wouldn't hurt them (this is also true of any mini franchises like the Chrono series, but that one has its own group of dedicated editors already)
   • 3) if we're going to make an actual effort with the SE WikiProject, it only makes sense to make it our gathering center
   • 4) Final Fantasy articles have been what brings most of us together as a group, so it's not going to help WikiProject SE to keep its core crowd displaced, and — as an extension of this point —
   • 5) it seems to me like it would be counterproductive to the SE project to sever it from WikiProject FF right from the beginning; if it needs to be branched later, branch it later, but at least give it a chance to work before any decision like that is made. Ryu Kaze 17:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Support merger. Most of the time, we're moreso RPG fans than just FF lovers, and SE is responsible for a gaggle of these games. Also, like almost half the main Final Fantasy game articles are featured these days; we've already made major strides here. Let's expand our horizons to Super Mario RPG. --Zeality 17:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

• Opposing on the minority basis that not all FF fans are SE fans, myself included. I don't personally want to have to wade through a lot of SE-related stuff to do work on FF games, which is all I came here for. I don't entirely understand why this project can't exist as well as the SE project; seems to me there's a lot of FF-specific work to be done that might overtake the SE project page anyway. -RaCha'ar 12:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Per RaCha'ar I'm not a SE fan of many other games. Therefore, I would prefer the speficied attention of the FF project. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey Deck ? Can't we use Subpages in this namespace ? This way we would be able to accomodate those who want a separate FF action page and still have the projects merged.. Renmiri 17:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • We can basically turn final fantasy into a "subproject", like our current character class subprojects and all. — Deckiller 12:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thus, we can do stuff like WikiProject Square Enix/Final Fantasy/todo or WikiProject Square Enix/Dragon Quest/todo, and so on if such huge amounts of suborganization are needed (it's quite possible with some of the larger series). — Deckiller 12:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks, that sounds great. I appreciate my opinion being taken into account.  :) -RaCha'ar 03:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • ZeWrestler- what are your thoughts on setting up subpages at WP:SE, such as WP:SE/Final Fantasy or WP:SE/Dragon Quest? --PresN 13:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Square Enix has made some other noteworthy games entirely unrelated to Final Fantasy, merging the two projects would perhaps be worthwhile in terms of people's expertise, but they are really two seperate projects, bringing them together would leave game articles like Chrono neglected even more than they already are, just because you put something on a to do list doesnt mean its going to get done. Plebmonk

Final Fantasy Logo

• Doesn't the fair old logo of our beloved game series deserve a paragraph; no I am specifically saying that i needs a paragraph in the main article. I believe a small section should be dedicated because of how recognisable the logo and typset is and how each game's, for lack of a better word, monogram weaves in and out of it. As well as explaining how the monogram relates to an element of the plot.--Squall1991 10:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, sorry. It's a logo. With the same font. That has a different Amano art for each game. Sir Crazyswordsman 05:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I reckon that that line would do--Squall1991 11:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm actually interested as to which elements are portrayed. Who is that guy on the FF1 remake logo, for example? Shouldn't that merit a line or two on the main FF article, if not the individual articles? -ryand 05:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Job system

I happened to stumble along this 4 line article the other day. Anyone have any ideas what to do with it? -- Steel 11:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Suggest merge/redirect to Final Fantasy character classes. See also: SubProject: Jobs. — CuaHL ☺ 14:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy IV update

We're featured now. Special thanks to all who helped out! Sir Crazyswordsman 17:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. Sorry I wasn't able to help with that effort beyond supporting in FAC. Ryu Kaze 17:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ryu. Sir Crazyswordsman 17:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Muy bien ^_^ — Deckiller 18:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks Deck. Sir Crazyswordsman 21:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hurrayyyyyy!!!! Judgesurreal777 02:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Well done CSM and team! Renmiri 18:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Sir Crazyswordsman 20:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
• User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
• User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
• User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Black Mage "logo" about to be deleted

Image:Black mage.svg, used extensively for the Final Fantasy WikiProject, is currently waiting to be deleted as soon as it is replaced/delinked. Although the license tag claims that is released under the GFDL, this claim has been made in error; to quote from commons:Commons:Derivative works:

Nothing you'll ever do, whether you draw Pikachu with your own crayons or sculpt a giant Sailor Moon figurine, will ever lead to the point where you magically turn copyrighted material into "free" material.

As an infinitely high-resolution image, the SVG cannot ever qualify for "fair use"; please create a .PNG replacement (a direct rendering from the Wikmedia servers, eg. [4]) at a suitable resolution and replace all usages. You have 7 days before the SVG is deleted. Thanks, [ælfəks] 02:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to notice that only the stub template, out of all of the templates used in WP:FF, used that image. It's been fixed now. I beleive that FX21's userbox is the only thing still linking to it. --PresN 18:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed; also, I found that quote to be insulting, but you didn't start the quote, so I don't have any bones to pick. — Deckiller 02:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

PresN, it is often quite difficult to tell that hundreds of uses of an image are resulting from a template; be grateful that I actually notified people that it was going to be deleted before there were dozens of redlinks everywhere. As for the quote I included, Deckiller - about turning copyrighted material into "free" material - if you're insulted by that, I suggest you go and read up on copyright law and how it applies to derivative works. Regards, [ælfəks] 15:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

POV and original research

Currently, the articles of two of the most controversial characters in FF history, Tifa Lockhart and Aerith Gainsborough (aside from that both need a OOU-perspective rehaul), contain original research and POV. While a brief glimpse of both articles give the illusion that proper citations automatically equals NPOV, on a more in-depth look, it's quite untrue. Most of the statements on the Love sections contain unpublished analysis only "supported" by official texts or statements that do not really offer a confirmed analysis of Square-Enix.

In short, this is what Wikipedia calls "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position":

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.

The MotP novella analysis (while it's well-written and sounds reasonable; however, that is not important when regarding OR) in Aerith's article and the analysis of the Reunion files in Tifa's article are examples of using published material to advance a position. However, the last paragraph in the Kingdom Hearts II section of Tifa's article can stay, because Nomura specifically describes two different interpretations.

I also noticed that Love section in Cloud's article is completely gone, which I am glad of. I would really like to get rid the Love sections in both Aerith and Tifa's articles (as well as the whole sex symbol analysis in Tifa's article); however, I was hesistant on it because there has been some controversial edits going on, particularly in Tifa's article... >_<

I wanted feedback from the rest of WP:FF editors, and if this an agreed consensus, then I will go and take action to delete the OR in the articles. The reason why I didn't go ahead and do so is because it's a controversial issue, and if I were to post this message in talk pages of both articles, I think I would most likely go through the same experience as I did here and here (which I do not want to repeat; trying to explain to IP users/a newbie why Wikipedia is not a crystal ball was rather frustrating), judging by the discussion that was started by the IP users in the talk page of Tifa's article here. —Mirlen 04:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that there is certainly a lot of OR in Tifa's article, at least. A recent issue has been the reference to Tifa as a "koibito" by Nomura in the Reunion Files. A look at the scan in question however indicates that the Nomura quote is not in any way an official statement - in fact, it sounds more like an off-hand remark that has been overanalyzed by overenthusiastic Cloti fans. As much as I would like an official statement to the affirmative, it still doesn't clarify whether SE's stand on whether Tifa and Cloud are together or not. I have just removed the reference, but there appears to be a team of dedicated IP users determined to have their say on the article:

I agree wholeheartedly. It's a stated FACT by Tetsuya Nomura, not a LT debate view. And last time I checked, Wikipedia was about stating the FACTS only. And come on, the Reunion Files is more proof then those stupid Novellas.

Why in the world would they delete it? Hell, a quote from Tetsuya Nomura stating that Tifa IS Cloud's lover/sweetheart is more important then a long, worthless article about Aeris' "Personality". I thought Wikipedia was strictly "facts only". Looks like I was wrong.

So yes, I would support an action to remove the OR in both articles. I don't watch the Aerith article, but if it is as littered with original research and interpretations as Tifa's is, then both need a major clean-up. -ryan-d 15:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

SE wasn't giving an interpretation with the koibito line, it's clearly a sentence that can be analyzed in many different ways. I know that the Tifa/Aerith debate is also fiery among the Japanese community (according to Sakamoto Maaya at least), and if it was an official statement of SE's that announced Tifa and Cloud were romantically in love with each other and were lovers, there'd have been an uproar among Japanese fans as well, but I don't see the same fervor over the statement as with Western/English-speaking fans. I honestly wish that SE would go out and state which woman it is that Cloud truly loves, which would settle at least the canonicity war debate between Cloti and Clerith fans and make our job a lot of easier in Wikipedia as well. At the same time though, I understand why they're not — rabid fans can get pretty brutal and scary. In fact, the LTD debates has almost completely neutralized me because of the rather bloody "tooth-and-nail" nature that marks a clear prescence to the point there I feel is choking the overall atmosphere.

There is a huge difference between synthesizing published material serving to advance a position and listing facts, and while the fine line may be a little unclear at times — this is a case in which such a difference can be noticed.

And yes, both articles of Tifa and Aerith need a clean-up, not only in getting rid of OR, but in rewriting some of the summaries written there in OOU perspective according to WP:WAF. I've reorganized the headings in an OOU perspective, but it still needs a lot of work. Speaking of which, both of those articles should probably be on the 'Things to do' list for clean-up. —Mirlen 21:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello. I would like to request for comment on an ongoing dispute on the Tifa Lockhart talk page. The dispute is on whether or not a certain reverted edit comprises OR, and on what information should be included under the "Love" section in the article.

I considered adding this on WP:RFC, but I figured I would try here first, seeing as to how background knowledge of the FF7 Love Triangle might help in resolving the dispute. Thanks! -ryand 08:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Seperate articles for the main characters in FFXII?

As with all Final Fantasies, shouldn't the main characters as with the main villain have seperate articles. Can someone create seperate articles for characters like Vaan, Ashe, Basch, Penelo, Balthier, Fran and Vayne only if you feel they are needed. As the game has been released, more information regarding the game is accessible to us, making it easier for us to create these articles. Whaddya say? -- Visual planet 17:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer that you didn't in the same way that I'd prefer individual character articles be collapsed for other Final Fantasy games. Why not just work on the Final Fantasy XII page itself? Cover the general roles of the characters in the plot section without "analyzing" any one character; character analysis from the primary source (the game itself) is original research. --Tristam 23:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll echo Tristam's response. At this point, I don't see much rationale or benefit for diffusing information about the game throughout more articles than necessary. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The Project's Logo

Does anyone think that the project's logo does not look good compared to the other wikiprojects' icons?

Old logo

In my opinion, it doesn't look good. So could anyone explain to me why this photo was never changed? I mean it is not bad to make a newer logo, besides those two F Letters, and that hexagon (yeah, I know it's a crystal). Mohamed 11:30, 10 November 2006 (GMT)

It was changed. Numerous times, in fact. The problem is devising an icon that adequately conveys the scope of the project and doesn't conflict with Wikipedia policy, which prohibits the use of copyrighted/fair use images outside of the article namespace. In short, no Moogles, Chocobos, or anything else that would immediately scream "Final Fantasy" to people. Working within those guidelines, I think the current logo is probably the best we've come up with yet: it uses a font fairly similar the standard title font for the series, and a crystal that is likewise quite reminiscent of graphics from the first five or so games. But I'm always open to new ideas. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

We had agreed on the Black Mage (BlackMage.svg) which got "busted" and erased out of Wikipedia for 2 reasons: SVG graphics can contain malicious code and it was a very questionable "fair use" case. In the hope to fix both issues I propose a new Black Mage log I did by hand, ie, GFDL license (the gif one has transparent background) Renmiri 19:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

proposal 1

File:FFP1.jpg

Proposal 2

I think the reason it was "busted" was because even hand copying and "reproducing" a copyrighted work is still considered fair use and not GFDL. You can draw a picture of a chocobo as many times as you want but as long as it looks like a chocobo, it's a reproduction of a copyrighted work. That's why our current logo is more "legal" according to Wikipedia policy than other projects' because it provides a sense of the project while not infringing on any copyrights. Actually, it might not be a bad idea to call WP:NINTENDO out on their mushroom before they get in trouble for it. Axem Titanium 21:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the mushroom would be a problem, frankly, since I don't think you can copyright/trademark a mushroom, and they've done a reasonably fair job of differentiating their 'shroom from the standard Mario-style 'shrooms (no dots, etc.). The problem is that Chocobos, Moogles, Black Mages, and the like can and are protected by Square Enix. So anything that resembles the hallmarks of the franchise closely enough to be useful for our purposes would likely run afoul of fair use policy, with the exception of the crystal, which I suspect is probably safe for the same reasons that the WP:NINTENDO mushroom should be safe. But, of course, IANAL. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, what about this one? It is simply double Fs and a modified arrow (a sword didn't look good) I made it myself... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamed Abdel Mageed (talk • contribs)

It looks nice but it sort of loses the distinct "FF" feel from the crystal. Axem Titanium 20:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Then should I put a crystal in the background or anywhere else? Even though the crystal has been mentioned in I, III, IV, V, IX, XI, without being in other installements. I'll try to make one with a crystal though.Mohamed 10:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The current logo captures FF quite well and crystals were always important, just not as obvious. Your logo looks like one of these Japanese gates, but not like FF at all, whether it has a crystal in it or not. The letters are only discernable as two F because you told us for what the logo was supposed to be. And what's up with "a modified arrow", why is that significant for FF and part of the logo?

• I like it! Renmiri 20:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

How about making the arrow a sword ? THAT is FF related. Renmiri 20:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Like my attempt on the right Renmiri 22:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

But shoultdn't it have any copyright infringements? I made an arrow as a sword would make a problem since it will look like the old Final Fantasies. I have a better idea in mind now, I will try to do it.Mohamed 10:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Was is the P between the supposedly double-F (that still don't seem to be connected to FF in any way)? And why that mini crystal, at this size it is barely discernable, nobody will be able to see it, when it is scaled down to the proper size.

Renmiri is just giving examples, and her example is pretty good and to the point, and that "P" is a sword, and if the crystal is put as the handler of the sword, which IS FF related.Mohamed 09:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Than why doesn't the P look like a sword? The crysatl is only discernable as a crystal, because the original picture is above it. On the large P you can hardly see it, it'll be a little pink dot once shrunk. The old project logo is fine. Imagine you are a new person, which one would you associate more with Final Fantasy, the old one with a font style similar to current FF font and the crystal in the background, or the new one with a bunch of FFs that look more like gates, don't look like anything ever used for FF, and a P in the middle that is supposed to be a sword, but doesn't follow the archetype picture on an FF-sword?. Leave the logo as it is, the new just doesn't look like Final Fantasy. --84.184.127.29 12:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What I meant that you are the only one who saw the sword as a P, and Renmiri has only given examples, in a draft. Do you actually think that she meant to leave it this way? These are suggestions, not the final version of the logo. Plus, that's a logo for the "WikiProject Final Fantasy", which means that anyone who will see this will know that it is attributed to Final Fantasy. For an example, if you open the WikiProject Final Fantasy main page, you will find on the right the logos of its sister projects, like the torii at Itsukushima Shrine's symbol for the Japan project. People with no Japanese background won't get it. Apparently not everyone is satisfied with the current logo, and the problem with making a better one is the image policy, which limits the ability of making a really good one, like what Sean Daugherty said .So, if you can help by bringing a newer and better logo, PLEASE upload one, we need it. The crystal will be put in a more obvious way in the final version, so wait and see, and if you want to, contribute with us and post your opinions on the logo, it will help!!Mohamed 16:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If I take a look at this entry, there are two persons for a new logo (i.E dissatified with the old one) and one vehemently against it, and exactly one other opinion, which didn't say much about the for or against. How many other people gave their opinion about the P? How many other people gave their opinion at all about wanting a new logo? Is there really a need or interest in a new logo?

And the first time a reader is likely to see the logo, is one of the talk pages not the project site.

I do like the current logo and think that it describes Final Fantasy quite well, I don't need a new logo or want one, I don't see a need to upload a new logo or try to contribute to building a new one. I gave my opinion on the proposal and I stand by it, the current proposals have nothing to do with FF without having the connection explained.--84.184.118.203 18:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Anon, why are you being so hostile? Especially when, according to your contributions, you haven't done anything for the project but come here and pick fights about this? The idea was put out there that perhaps we should design a new one, people are discussing it, you come in hostile from the very start and pick a fight. I have not personally weighed in because I have no particularly strong feelings about the logo one way or another, but I HAVE been watching your posts and you have been belligerent from the very start. Do you even work anywhere on the project or are you just here to harass people about the logo? -RaCha'ar 21:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that a new logo would be good, because I do agree that the current one is not up to par, but I don't like either of the proposals. It just isn't reminiscent of Final Fantasy to me at all. I don't have anything constructive to add, unfortunately, just thought I'd interject another opinion into the discussion. I'll wait and see what the other proposals are though, per Mohamed. --PresN 01:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. I'm not crazy about the current one but neither of the proposals are really ringing my bell. Lacking any graphcial talents whatsoever, though, I can't offer any constructive criticism when it comes to making a new one. -RaCha'ar 01:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the current. It seems, at least to me, to hold true to the format that the games started in, when pixellized pictures were the norm. Yes, they've gone 3D and they even have talking characters now (which they could have done starting at Final Fantasy VII, mind you), it hearkens back to the Nintendo era. Odin of Trondheim 21:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Project talk page templates

Just a quick comment: a lot of article talk pages under our jurisdiction are being afflicted with a veritable ballooning of templates. A number (for example, Talk:Final Fantasy III), include the {{cvgproj}} (CVG WikiProject), {{SEproj}} (Square Enix WikiProject), and {{FinalFantasyProject}} (Final Fantasy WikiProject) templates. This strikes me as a really messy and confusing, since all three projects fall into a rough hierarchy anyway: anything that is part of the Final Fantasy WikiProject is also considered a part of the Square Enix WikiProject, and anything that is part of the Square Enix WikiProject is also considered a part of the computer and video games WikiProject. I would suggest that we modify the templates to reflect this relationship, so that each talk page would need to present only the template for the most specific project it is associated with. Something like this:

WikiProject Final Fantasy	This article is part of WikiProject Final Fantasy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Final Fantasy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
	WikiProject Final Fantasy is part of WikiProject Square Enix (discussion) and WikiProject Computer and Video Games (discussion).
Related WikiProject to-do Lists: WikiProject Final Fantasy to-do list: Featured Topic potential: Active Featured Article pushes: Featured Article potential: Active Good Article pushes: Good Article potential: Cleanup: Other: WikiProject Computer and Video Games to-do list: Gaming Collaboration of the week: Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week/current Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks AfDs TheoTown (5 participants) Redout (video game) (10 participants) Old Grandma Hardcore (4 participants) CarX Street (5 participants) WePlay AniMajor (1 participant) İstanbul Efsaneleri: Lale Savaşçıları (2 participants) Zero Hour (video game) (4 participants; relisted) VoxelStorm (1 participant; relisted) Gilman Louie (4 participants; relisted) Yoshimitsu (7 participants; relisted) Merge discussions Nintendo DS Lite (discussion) Freedom Town, USA (discussion) Pokémon Essentials (discussion) Harvest Moon DS: Sunshine Islands (discussion) Input lag (discussion) Neo Geo Pocket (discussion) Minecraft – Volume Beta (discussion) Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Donkey Kong (nom) Hotline Miami (nom) The Suicide of Rachel Foster (nom) Good article nominations Miner 2049er (start) Pixel Piracy (start) River Raid (start) The Great Giana Sisters (nom) Haunter (Pokémon) (start) Dendy (start) Dark Urge (start) Jeanette Voerman (start) Deathloop (start) Quiver (video game) (start) Regi (Pokémon) (start) Ridley (Metroid) (start) Blast Wind (start) Project Zero 2: Wii Edition (start) Barry Burton (start) Sea of Stars (start) Pokémon Smile (start) Pokémon Stadium (start) Otogirisō (start) Schim (start) Bit Pilot (start) OK Golf (nom) Tom Clancy's The Division 2 (start) Unsighted (start) DYK nominations Sun Haven Reviews and reassessments A Space for the Unbound (rev) Bejeweled (video game) (rev) The Legend of Dragoon (rev) The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (nom) Articles that need... assessment (1) (0) reassessment (0) cleanup (3) infoboxes (14) cover art (241) screenshots (8,959) photos (69) translation from japan (187) creation merging

It incorporates all the features of the SE and CVG templates, including the quality/importance data for the Wikipedia 1.0 drive (which only show up in main talk space, which is why you don't see it here), and provides links to the relevant project pages. Viola, one template for three, and much screen real estate is saved. Thoughts, anyone? – Sean Daugherty (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Agree - don't see why not. -ryand 12:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - It's brilliant. Fits the job perfectly. — CuaHL ☺ 15:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - As Cuahl says: brilliant! !!! Renmiri 19:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - Lovin' it. Vote added here to keep the yeas and nays together. -RaCha'ar 06:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree - It's a nice idea, but only about a month ago, cvg project was trying to do the exact opposite- combine all of the templates into the cvg template, and it was shot down. See here for the long, long discussion. Personally, I'd much rather see the template be the most senior template, with the sub-projects included in it, than the least senior. How about we just combine the WP:SE and WP:FF templates? --PresN 06:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem faced by the CVG proposal were the technical and administrative problems of integrating numerous subprojects into a single template. A unified CVG template needed to accommodate the Zelda project, the Final Fantasy project, the Nintendo project, the Pokemon project, the Digimon project, et al. It foundered as much on logistics as principle. But we don't face those problems: we have a single line tracing us back to the CVG project, without much room for variation. It's significantly easier to implement from the bottom-up than from the top-down.

Beyond that, though, having the most senior template seems entirely counterproductive: the point of having subprojects is that they can provide a level of focus and expertise that the broader project cannot. This project should be the primary touchstone for issues concerning Final Fantasy articles, since that's our area of expertise. It should only broaden out to the parent projects if there's an issue of broader significance. The templates should reflect this pecking order: if someone has a problem, suggestion, or comment on a Final Fantasy article, they should come to us first, which means that the templates should reflect that. The reason that this project was created in the first (and I should know, as I was responsible :-)) was because there were issues specific to the Final Fantasy series that the broader scope of the CVG project was ill-equipped to handle. I see no indication that that situation has changed appreciably. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Navbox

I don't know how many people here participate actively in the discussion over at the CVG WikiProject (I know I usually don't...), but there's a ongoing drive there to simplify and standardize navboxes (see here). I suppose we've only been spared attention because of professional courtesy, but... well... let's be honest: our navbox is a monster. Going by the proposed guidelines offered in the cited thread, I've come up with a more streamlined approach that matches the CVG standard. In dealing with our specific circumstances, I made the following decisions:

• I removed any links to category listings. I don't think it's good practice to mix and match article and category links, since it winds up being fairly confusing.
• In the case of subseries (Compilation of Final Fantasy VII and Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy XIII), I've removed links to the individual entries in favor of the main series link. The exceptions are subseries that don't have a series article (Tactics and Crystal Chronicles).
• I put the three Crystal Chronicles games on their own line, solely for aesthetic purposes.

After that, the result is as follows:

I'm still a little concerned by the size, but at least it's smaller than the current one, and lacks the weird spacing issue with the title bar. Does anyone have any suggestions or comments? – Sean Daugherty (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• How about using smaller text size?

A la...

• Or for something seriously slimlined...

• — CuaHL ☺ 16:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

In both cases, what concerns me is that we're deviating from the CVG project standard. Less so than the current model, of course, but deviating nonetheless. I like the former (smaller text size) one more than the latter (partially hidden one) one, though. The second one strikes me as a bit confusing. But while the smaller text one saves some screen space, it doesn't really seem to address the deeper issue, which is that an overloaded navbox may be confusing to readers. I was thinking about removing the video links, on the pretense that, a) we don't need to be exhaustive, and b) they're presented as links within List of Final Fantasy titles, which is linked under "other" already. Also, maybe following the advice suggested in WP:CVG thread and removing links to forthcoming titles until they're actually release. So something like this:

Thoughts? – Sean Daugherty (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yours is certainly a step above the clutter that it is now, Sean. Well done! --Tristam 01:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think cutting off related series and parring down the more info would be beneficial. Only recently was the formatting broken and the box looks broken. I tried slimming it down on the 10th already too. Deusfaux 08:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The box simply works as a slight navigation aid anyway - after all, the whole article is wikilinked. So I think the newest version is perfect. People can still find what they want using it, and it's not an eyesore. — CuaHL ☺ 10:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What Cuahl said. I love this one. -RaCha'ar 06:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• I was bold and changed it. See {{Final Fantasy series}} — CuaHL 16:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Cuahl. It's lookin' good. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What about XIII? --KucamungaCatnip 20:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's basically a stub right now so linking there would be little better than having nothing there at all. Anyway, it looks good. Axem Titanium 20:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The proposed guidelines over at WP:CVG say to avoid unreleased/forthcoming games. I'm fairly indifferent, either way, but leaving it out does save a little bit of space for the time being. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say go with the top one. It's perfect in that it's streamlined, yet still legible. Odin of Trondheim 21:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I also think the top one would be better. The current template doesn't even mention any films or anime, which are also an important part of the series. Jagged 85 13:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think so. FF has always been a video game series. The films/anime/etc. are all simply spinoffs of the series and are all sufficiently mentioned in the List of FF titles and the main FF page. The function of a navbox is to facilitate navigation to high traffic pages, not to include all aspects of a series in some kind of uber-template. That's what a category is for. Axem Titanium 01:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to exclude films and anime from this template, we might as well rename it to Final Fantasy video games instead, since this template clearly doesn't cover the series as a whole. We could also possibly create another template for the film and anime titles instead. 13:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Gameplay of Final Fantasy rehash

This is certainly a possibility, and I'm closing in on being confortable enough to start it. — Deckiller 12:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

History of Final Fantasy Series

Got it with my FFXII as a bonus DVD, uploaded it to Youtube. Full of details on game design for our FA pages :D Wish we could post here. Can we ? Renmiri 20:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so... but nice upload. I have the DVD too and I was going to make a transcript but I suppose that works too. Axem Titanium 14:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

First I have dissapproval of how they pronounce Tidus, then I disapprove of how they pronounce Yuffie. But this is the last straw. They mispronounce Cecil's name. My beloved Cecil! Sir Crazyswordsman 02:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Aye, what a bunch of know knothings these Japanese translators are! ;-) Renmiri 17:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy character classes

We're having some fun little mini-edit wars there since Mythsearcher, Axem Titanium and I decided that any "CID HIGHWIND WAS A DRAGOON" type speculative stuff does not belong in the article. The rule is, if a character is not explicitly defined as a certain character class in the game, it cannot be listed under that character class's entry in the article, since to do so would be original research. Ever since all the Cait Siths and Cid Highwinds were removed from the article, people - mostly anons - keep adding them back in. I'm reverting at least one of these adds a day. Could I please ask the help of the project to keep an eye on this page and to help decide if we're being too draconian with these rules and their enforcement? Certainly any blatant additions along the lines of the aforementioned Cid (the biggest offender) should be gone but a recent anon added this, which is phrased in such a way that it obviously draws the comparison to the characteristics of the class without outright claiming that Cait Sith is a gambler. I can't in good conscience just take it out because I don't find it to be offending WP:OR too badly. It's becoming difficult to figure out what should be left out and what might be allowed in. Thoughts? -RaCha'ar 21:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said at that page's talk page, it's still pangs of OR. Also, taken by itself, that edit is simply adding a statement for the reader to evaluate but really doesn't develop it. As such, it probably is too tangential to include in the article anyway. Axem Titanium 22:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 00:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

FATC

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Final Fantasy X. — Deckiller 11:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Some people from this project should expand the article on the Al Bhed language. As of now it is the only article missing from the FFX featured topic. --Arctic Gnome 17:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I had quite a lot more on there, deleted by some crabby user. Renmiri 00:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Main Article in disarray

I'm afraid the main article of the series is in terrible shape. This is the first place newcomers will go to when wanting to know about FF, and my guess is that they won't go any further. It should at least be brought to GA status before we can concentrate on anything else.--SidiLemine 11:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you give more specific critiques of the article that we can respond to? -RaCha'ar 16:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, for a start, the article structure is a bit awkward, with all the genesis in the Overview section (and practically nothing else), no description of continuity of staff, and no reception/impact section. Then, the images don't do justice to the franchise. And I'm not saying that we should only insert pictures of FFXIII; FFVI had great graphics for the time. There is a lot of lists, not all relevant. Absolutely no citations or references are provided: don't let the footnotes fool you. The logo on top of the page, if appropriate, is still not very pretty. The sections are poorly balanced and hold no reflection on their respective importance. The whole prose is disconnected and hold no "juice" in it. I'm saying all that before sitting to actually review the article. All I'm saying is, the FF series is one of the very best series of WP, and this article should be at least as good as the game-specific ones. And it's miles away.--SidiLemine 17:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is it - Groundwork for the FINAL FANTASY CAMPAIGN

This is a very rough version of something I've been thinking about. I came up with this list on the top of my head without overthinking for obvious reasons. These are just the more obvious ones. Much more later.

• Final Fantasy VII issue - Merge AVALANCHE, Materia, Final Fantasy VII timeline, and List of Final Fantasy VII terms into one article called Backstory of Final Fantasy VII or thereabouts
• Merge Final Fantasy items, List of Final Fantasy armor and accessories, List of Final Fantasy weapons, and bits of other articles (perhaps a few other whole ones) into Gameplay of Final Fantasy.
• Revamp and attain at least GA status for the 15-16 major FF titles (full list later). Preferably FA, but that might take longer.
• All main FF games (1-12) FA status.
• Significant changes to series articles:
• Characters only deserve articles if they can have at LEAST 1 full, 4+ sentences of DEVELOPMENT/BACKGROUND information in addition to 5+ SUCCINCT paragraphs of in-universe-based information. Ideal character articles for main FF character (in terms of length, etc): Squall Leonhart, Tidus, and Terra Branford. In other words, only Squall and Rinoa would have articles for the FF8 series; the rest would be merged into the character list.
  • I should tell you that if there isn't enough development info but there is some, don't take out what's there. Also, don't give characters such as Squall longer story sections than those of, say, Steiner, should you decide to merge Steiner. Sir Crazyswordsman 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Absolutely. No development information should be removed during merges anyway; besides, Steiner is significant enough and well-sourced enough to merit a single article :) — Deckiller 03:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Likewise, all minor characters involved in the lists should be given at least 1-2 sentences of sourced development information. Inspiration, design, etc. Let's not make character and location lists into plot summaries.
• Location lists - inspiration, not what story events happen at these scenerios (except for background information). Locations in Spira is a fairly decent example, but let's go for a bit more out of universe info.
• The key is to follow what the FFX series of articles has done, but minus a bit of in-universe information for those minor characters and add a bit more out of universe information. We can do it.
• Final Fantasy bestiary concerns me a bit. Is it really necessary to list every single monster and every appearence? Can we compress this to about 5 paragraphs on the gameplay of final fantasy article? Same applies to races; especially races, since such details will/are noted in the article story sections.
• Classes - might be a good list, but we might be able to compress into 5 paragraphs of prose.
• Magic - might be difficult to compress, but we can try. If necessary, we can use Final Fantasy magic as a guideline for what the bestiary and class list(s) should look like.
• Plot element articles (AVALANCHE, Garden (Final Fantasy VIII) - big no-nos. Let's try to keep in-universe articles to main characters and combo articles.
• Back to gameplay of final fantasy - how do we turn the weapons/armos lists into prose? Simple - we describe the evolution of weapons and armor in final fantasy, what they do, etc. Some examples are in order, such as the more popular ones. But no lists.
• List of Final Fantasy airships - again, we can compress this into the main article (plus more details on the gameplay page and, of course, there's already details on the respective articles).

— Deckiller 05:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Category: Final Fantasy minigames should be merged into Minigames of Final Fantasy. That includes blitzball, triple triad, etc. This list might not be necessary on the basis that minigames are individual games on their own.

I know this is all poorly written, disorganized, and whatnot, but this is my train of thought. I think evolved versions of this list can make us into the best wikiproject on the site. — Deckiller 05:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm...I likey. I'm going to try to merge FF Minigames together into one article tomorrow (it's too late now to start a big project). This Wikiproject has slowed down a bunch, and I'd like to see some work get done. --PresN 05:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

AWESOME, DecKiller! This is a great to-do list for us. :) -RaCha'ar 17:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Couple of reactions here as I'm thinking about it:

Re: Classes. It's already cut down a ton from what it used to be, and AxemTitanium, MythSearcher, and I are on constant cruft alert. I think it's fine in its current format, especially since that's what we came to after lots of talking about what belonged and what didn't.

I hate the bestiary list but never wanted to touch it. It needs to be cut down using the same criteria we've been using at the classes page - if the beastie hasn't appeared in many games, it should not be on the list. There are tons of critters there that have appeared in two games at the most. I view the bestiary in much the same way as I view the class list - it should be about the creatures that make you immediately think Final Fantasy, like tonberries and Malboros, and not the fringe beasties that show up in a couple of games.

I definitely agree with a lot of the merging - I've always wondered why some elements have their own articles but never had a strong argument against it.

I'll volunteer to spearhead a return to getting the FFXI article to GA status. We made some good inroads a few months ago but interest dropped off (my fault, mostly). I will need the help of people who currently play the game since I have not played for several months now and am rusty on some things.

Great job again, Deckiller. This is exciting. :D -RaCha'ar 17:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I started the Minigames article, btw. --PresN 20:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Triple Triad, Tetra Master, and Blitzball have been merged into Minigames of Final Fantasy. I'll finish moving the rest of the category in later, but if someone could check out what I've done so far, that'd be awesome. --PresN 22:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, the character class page looks great (the XI list can ultimately be taken care of if necesasry at a later date). But yeah, if we can change the FF bestiary into "Creatures of Final Fantasy" and the races list "Races of final fantasy" for the time being. The key is to keep consolidating; as time goes on, we can find more ways to consolidate. Ultimately, the class list page (with the others) will have a 3 paragraph sectobn explanating the evolution of the system(s) and other out of universe information, which can be summarized in Gameplay of Final Fantasy and whatnot. PresN, great start! The information has been retained and compressed, and it looks like an awesome beginning for that list. We can make our names known across Wikipedia as the only project that finished what it has been working on for roughly a year. — Deckiller 01:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• I've been looking around, and everyone has been doing an amazing job since I was last really active. I'm glad to be apart of the project with you guys! — Deckiller 02:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Opinions needed- the last page to merge into the Minigames page is Chocobo World. Should I, though? It's sort of a separate game, and I'm on the fence. Someone push me over! --PresN 04:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This is a tough call, but I'm going to say it should maintain a separate article. It is certainly more of a separate game than Tetra Master, Blitzball, et al. -RaCha'ar 06:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Alright, status report then. The minigames category is emptied out (and proposed for deletion), the article is in existence with 6 refs (though it needs quite a bit of rewriting), and the other articles are redirects to Minigames, execpt for Blitzball, which has info about some other Blitzball. I'm going to move on to another thing now, maybe coming back to ref up minigames some more later. I'd like it if someone could look through it for me, though. --18:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Somehow when this is all over I have a feeling we'll only have one article left. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• One minigame article left? Trust me, the end result will be worth all the stress now, and we'll still have plenty of material. Heck, we'll probably end up expanding a lot of articles with more sourced, out of unvierse information to balance out all the in-universe excess. — Deckiller 03:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If you meant one article total left, then no. If we tried to merge all of these into one article, it would either be 300kb long or so depth-less as to be useless entirely. All I'm personally going for is to remove things like a step by step guide to Tetra Master that's as in depth as the (very handy) gamefaqs guide, or a description and history of every monster that's appeared in 2 final fantasy games. Final Fantasy may be the only game series there is with enough games and depth to support as many articles as it has, but there is a limit, and we're a bit past it. The last thing I want is for this project to turn into a Runescape- they went from 20+ articles to 5 in a month, all through AfDs, as they were all cruft-ridden game guides. Our GA/FA to article ratio is the best of any wikiproject- and the closer we get to 100%, the happier I'll be. --PresN 04:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Speaking of Tetra Master, you can put that on the Final Fantasy Wiki on Wikicities if you like (we lack a Tetra Master article at the moment), provided you do so within policy. Sir Crazyswordsman 08:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Done. It's not de-wikified, and none of the images work, but it's there. --PresN 16:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, and it's the old crufty version, not the new, condensed version. Figured that's what you were going for. --PresN 16:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
        • You couldn't be a sport and dewikify it? How sad. :( Sir Crazyswordsman 18:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, I de-redlinked it, at least. The main problem with it is that the images aren't there. I'll try to find them and uplaod them wherever you guys draw from later. --PresN 06:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Opinion/consensus time! Minigames of Final Fantasy currently has the minigames that had articles. An editor has suggested that we add FF7's CHocobo Racing and FF9's Chocobo Hot and Cold. This leads me to ask: what minigames should be included? Which ones are the most notable? The fact that someone wrote an article on them isn't the best qualification. --PresN 06:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say definitely add Hot and Cold, especially since FFXI is apparently about to add their own version of it. Chocobo Racing I'm not so sure on. -RaCha'ar 12:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Tactics Ogre

The current GCOTW is Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together, by FF Tactics creator Yasumi Matsuno. If anyone here has played the game and could expand the gamplay section that would be great. jaco♫plane 16:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XI - fancruft?

An editor has apparently newly created a template, Template:fancruft, for the express purpose of putting it on the Gameplay section of Final Fantasy XI. I admit I'm taking this personally since I put in many, many hours to removing all the cruft that the article had formerly been laden with, so I can't look at it with an objective eye. I've asked the editor to come to the talk page of the article and explain his reasoning, but I would appreciate it if people here at the project would take a look, too. The rest of the article has not been rewritten, mostly because I don't play FFXI anymore and find it hard to get up any passion to do the article (sorry...), but the Gameplay section was extensively rewritten with a lot of input from the talk page. I'd really love to know what problems it might still have. Thanks! -RaCha'ar 17:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no official policy or guideline on fancruft. Wikipedia:Fancruft is just an essay. As long as WP:NOT#IINFO is followed, there should be no problem. Personally I feel the gameplay section of that article is rather long and probably a little too detailed for an encyclopedia article, but you should feel free to remove that fancruft template. jaco♫plane 17:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm looking it over again and trying to figure out what to pull out - the problem is, I keep going to World of Warcraft as an example of an MMO article and it's not helping, heh. Given that there is no official policy on fancruft, do you think the template should be put up for deletion? I'm personally of the mind that there's plenty of other templates that cover the same territory and actually refer to existing policies... -RaCha'ar 18:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The template was a recreation of deleted content (original Tfd here) so I speedied it. That said, the gameplay section does look incredibly long (12 sections!?). The Servers section can probably be nixed in favor of just mentioning the ability to change servers with a World Pass. The rest with World Migration and stuff doesn't look vital. Interface can probably be put into a System requirements section like the WoW article has. Game environments and Nation allegiance can probably be moved to the Plot area. Missions, Crafting and PvP can probably be merged into a general "what you can do in Vana'diel" section, summary style. Job system can stay but Leveling looks a little too specific and can mostly be removed. For the last two sections, try to limit the original research if you can. Axem Titanium 21:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll start poking at it to try to deflate it a little. Would you suggest using an article like World of Warcraft as a model, since it's another MMORPG, or using the other Final Fantasy articles as a model? -RaCha'ar 06:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

WoW is a good model, but if you strip the gameplay section down that far, you can't really get a feel for what the game is about. Personally, I think the WoW gameplay section is a bit on the short side (ie, it's not "comprehensive"). Axem Titanium 21:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Project: Consolidation of the Final Fantasy bestiary

This should really be compressed to one page, entitled, "Creatures of Final Fantasy" or "Monsters of Final Fantasy". It can still be a list of the 15-20 most common and key monster/monster series throughout the series. A few probably dserve their own articles, as well, but I seriously think this page needs significant compression. How about a rule of three: if the monster has not appeared in more than three games and can not be subject to more than a 4 sentence paragraph of non-crufty information, it should be excluded and/or transwikied. — Deckiller 03:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've begun the process at User:Deckiller/Beasts of Final Fantasy. — Deckiller 04:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE DO NOT TRANSWIKI THIS. We've our own system going on at Wikia, where each individual monster from each individual game gets an aricle (although the most common monsters get a main article, even as common as Basilisk. Go ahead and transwiki that if you want, but don't just dump articles on us). But like I said, mergism for mergism's sake is very, very bad, just as inclusionism/deletionism for their sakes is bad. Sir Crazyswordsman 16:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Dammit, I was just about to volunteer to do this. I'll go help out.  :) -RaCha'ar 16:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Character articles

Hello. Could someone come up with a standardized format for character articles? The sample article given for character articles is Squall Leonhart, but compare that to articles like Aerith Gainsborough and Zidane Tribal and you'll see a lot of inconsistency. What information should be included in these articles?

As it stands, the FFVIII and FFX character articles are the most concise, with sections for backstory, appearances, and characteristics. The FFVII articles are generally okay except for the Tifa Lockhart and Aerith Gainsborough articles, which bear clear signs of the Tifa-Aerith fan war (additional sections about love, personality, Aerith's theme, et cetera - while notable, I'm not sure how much information is too much). The FFIX articles are, to put it bluntly, in a mess - Adelbert Steiner for one is completely unstructured.

If anyone could add a section to the manual of style, that would be helpful. -ryand 08:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As of right now, we're looking into merging all but the most major characters into characters lists per #This is it - Groundwork for the FINAL FANTASY CAMPAIGN. You're welcome to contribute for now but be aware that some of it may be merged into one of those lists. Axem Titanium 19:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we're in the process of stabilizing things and consolidating, but we should get a clear picture within a couple months. Leonhart mixes a lot of the good ideas, taking a "best of all words" sort of approach. — Deckiller 21:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It'll be a long and tedious process. I may be able to help next week after I finish exams. Sir Crazyswordsman 20:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XII

Is full of missed translations and little inaccuracies. I tried to improve it a bit but it needs some major work. Unfortunately I'm also busy with my own site so I can't do much. You guys are welcome to get my images from my site though. Renmiri 00:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Seperate articles for the main characters in FFXII?

As with all Final Fantasies, shouldn't the main characters as with the main villain have seperate articles. Can someone create seperate articles for characters like Vaan, Ashe, Basch, Penelo, Balthier, Fran and Vayne only if you feel they are needed. As the game has been released, more information regarding the game is accessible to us, making it easier for us to create these articles. Whaddya say? -- Visual planet 17:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer that you didn't in the same way that I'd prefer individual character articles be collapsed for other Final Fantasy games. Why not just work on the Final Fantasy XII page itself? Cover the general roles of the characters in the plot section without "analyzing" any one character; character analysis from the primary source (the game itself) is original research. --Tristam 23:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll echo Tristam's response. At this point, I don't see much rationale or benefit for diffusing information about the game throughout more articles than necessary. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The Project's Logo

Does anyone think that the project's logo does not look good compared to the other wikiprojects' icons?

Old logo

In my opinion, it doesn't look good. So could anyone explain to me why this photo was never changed? I mean it is not bad to make a newer logo, besides those two F Letters, and that hexagon (yeah, I know it's a crystal). Mohamed 11:30, 10 November 2006 (GMT)

It was changed. Numerous times, in fact. The problem is devising an icon that adequately conveys the scope of the project and doesn't conflict with Wikipedia policy, which prohibits the use of copyrighted/fair use images outside of the article namespace. In short, no Moogles, Chocobos, or anything else that would immediately scream "Final Fantasy" to people. Working within those guidelines, I think the current logo is probably the best we've come up with yet: it uses a font fairly similar the standard title font for the series, and a crystal that is likewise quite reminiscent of graphics from the first five or so games. But I'm always open to new ideas. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

We had agreed on the Black Mage (BlackMage.svg) which got "busted" and erased out of Wikipedia for 2 reasons: SVG graphics can contain malicious code and it was a very questionable "fair use" case. In the hope to fix both issues I propose a new Black Mage log I did by hand, ie, GFDL license (the gif one has transparent background) Renmiri 19:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

proposal 1

File:FFP1.jpg

Proposal 2

I think the reason it was "busted" was because even hand copying and "reproducing" a copyrighted work is still considered fair use and not GFDL. You can draw a picture of a chocobo as many times as you want but as long as it looks like a chocobo, it's a reproduction of a copyrighted work. That's why our current logo is more "legal" according to Wikipedia policy than other projects' because it provides a sense of the project while not infringing on any copyrights. Actually, it might not be a bad idea to call WP:NINTENDO out on their mushroom before they get in trouble for it. Axem Titanium 21:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the mushroom would be a problem, frankly, since I don't think you can copyright/trademark a mushroom, and they've done a reasonably fair job of differentiating their 'shroom from the standard Mario-style 'shrooms (no dots, etc.). The problem is that Chocobos, Moogles, Black Mages, and the like can and are protected by Square Enix. So anything that resembles the hallmarks of the franchise closely enough to be useful for our purposes would likely run afoul of fair use policy, with the exception of the crystal, which I suspect is probably safe for the same reasons that the WP:NINTENDO mushroom should be safe. But, of course, IANAL. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, what about this one? It is simply double Fs and a modified arrow (a sword didn't look good) I made it myself... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamed Abdel Mageed (talk • contribs)

It looks nice but it sort of loses the distinct "FF" feel from the crystal. Axem Titanium 20:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Then should I put a crystal in the background or anywhere else? Even though the crystal has been mentioned in I, III, IV, V, IX, XI, without being in other installements. I'll try to make one with a crystal though.Mohamed 10:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The current logo captures FF quite well and crystals were always important, just not as obvious. Your logo looks like one of these Japanese gates, but not like FF at all, whether it has a crystal in it or not. The letters are only discernable as two F because you told us for what the logo was supposed to be. And what's up with "a modified arrow", why is that significant for FF and part of the logo?

• I like it! Renmiri 20:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

How about making the arrow a sword ? THAT is FF related. Renmiri 20:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Like my attempt on the right Renmiri 22:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

But shoultdn't it have any copyright infringements? I made an arrow as a sword would make a problem since it will look like the old Final Fantasies. I have a better idea in mind now, I will try to do it.Mohamed 10:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Was is the P between the supposedly double-F (that still don't seem to be connected to FF in any way)? And why that mini crystal, at this size it is barely discernable, nobody will be able to see it, when it is scaled down to the proper size.

Renmiri is just giving examples, and her example is pretty good and to the point, and that "P" is a sword, and if the crystal is put as the handler of the sword, which IS FF related.Mohamed 09:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Than why doesn't the P look like a sword? The crysatl is only discernable as a crystal, because the original picture is above it. On the large P you can hardly see it, it'll be a little pink dot once shrunk. The old project logo is fine. Imagine you are a new person, which one would you associate more with Final Fantasy, the old one with a font style similar to current FF font and the crystal in the background, or the new one with a bunch of FFs that look more like gates, don't look like anything ever used for FF, and a P in the middle that is supposed to be a sword, but doesn't follow the archetype picture on an FF-sword?. Leave the logo as it is, the new just doesn't look like Final Fantasy. --84.184.127.29 12:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What I meant that you are the only one who saw the sword as a P, and Renmiri has only given examples, in a draft. Do you actually think that she meant to leave it this way? These are suggestions, not the final version of the logo. Plus, that's a logo for the "WikiProject Final Fantasy", which means that anyone who will see this will know that it is attributed to Final Fantasy. For an example, if you open the WikiProject Final Fantasy main page, you will find on the right the logos of its sister projects, like the torii at Itsukushima Shrine's symbol for the Japan project. People with no Japanese background won't get it. Apparently not everyone is satisfied with the current logo, and the problem with making a better one is the image policy, which limits the ability of making a really good one, like what Sean Daugherty said .So, if you can help by bringing a newer and better logo, PLEASE upload one, we need it. The crystal will be put in a more obvious way in the final version, so wait and see, and if you want to, contribute with us and post your opinions on the logo, it will help!!Mohamed 16:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If I take a look at this entry, there are two persons for a new logo (i.E dissatified with the old one) and one vehemently against it, and exactly one other opinion, which didn't say much about the for or against. How many other people gave their opinion about the P? How many other people gave their opinion at all about wanting a new logo? Is there really a need or interest in a new logo?

And the first time a reader is likely to see the logo, is one of the talk pages not the project site.

I do like the current logo and think that it describes Final Fantasy quite well, I don't need a new logo or want one, I don't see a need to upload a new logo or try to contribute to building a new one. I gave my opinion on the proposal and I stand by it, the current proposals have nothing to do with FF without having the connection explained.--84.184.118.203 18:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Anon, why are you being so hostile? Especially when, according to your contributions, you haven't done anything for the project but come here and pick fights about this? The idea was put out there that perhaps we should design a new one, people are discussing it, you come in hostile from the very start and pick a fight. I have not personally weighed in because I have no particularly strong feelings about the logo one way or another, but I HAVE been watching your posts and you have been belligerent from the very start. Do you even work anywhere on the project or are you just here to harass people about the logo? -RaCha'ar 21:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that a new logo would be good, because I do agree that the current one is not up to par, but I don't like either of the proposals. It just isn't reminiscent of Final Fantasy to me at all. I don't have anything constructive to add, unfortunately, just thought I'd interject another opinion into the discussion. I'll wait and see what the other proposals are though, per Mohamed. --PresN 01:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. I'm not crazy about the current one but neither of the proposals are really ringing my bell. Lacking any graphcial talents whatsoever, though, I can't offer any constructive criticism when it comes to making a new one. -RaCha'ar 01:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the current. It seems, at least to me, to hold true to the format that the games started in, when pixellized pictures were the norm. Yes, they've gone 3D and they even have talking characters now (which they could have done starting at Final Fantasy VII, mind you), it hearkens back to the Nintendo era. Odin of Trondheim 21:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I made two new ones (hope you'll like them).Mohamed 09:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

proposal 3

proposal 4

Comon guys, at least state an opinion or just say that you don't want a new logo. Mohamed 08:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Project talk page templates

Just a quick comment: a lot of article talk pages under our jurisdiction are being afflicted with a veritable ballooning of templates. A number (for example, Talk:Final Fantasy III), include the {{cvgproj}} (CVG WikiProject), {{SEproj}} (Square Enix WikiProject), and {{FinalFantasyProject}} (Final Fantasy WikiProject) templates. This strikes me as a really messy and confusing, since all three projects fall into a rough hierarchy anyway: anything that is part of the Final Fantasy WikiProject is also considered a part of the Square Enix WikiProject, and anything that is part of the Square Enix WikiProject is also considered a part of the computer and video games WikiProject. I would suggest that we modify the templates to reflect this relationship, so that each talk page would need to present only the template for the most specific project it is associated with. Something like this:

WikiProject Final Fantasy	This article is part of WikiProject Final Fantasy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Final Fantasy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
	WikiProject Final Fantasy is part of WikiProject Square Enix (discussion) and WikiProject Computer and Video Games (discussion).
Related WikiProject to-do Lists: WikiProject Final Fantasy to-do list: Featured Topic potential: Active Featured Article pushes: Featured Article potential: Active Good Article pushes: Good Article potential: Cleanup: Other: WikiProject Computer and Video Games to-do list: Gaming Collaboration of the week: Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week/current Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks AfDs TheoTown (5 participants) Redout (video game) (10 participants) Old Grandma Hardcore (4 participants) CarX Street (5 participants) WePlay AniMajor (1 participant) İstanbul Efsaneleri: Lale Savaşçıları (2 participants) Zero Hour (video game) (4 participants; relisted) VoxelStorm (1 participant; relisted) Gilman Louie (4 participants; relisted) Yoshimitsu (7 participants; relisted) Merge discussions Nintendo DS Lite (discussion) Freedom Town, USA (discussion) Pokémon Essentials (discussion) Harvest Moon DS: Sunshine Islands (discussion) Input lag (discussion) Neo Geo Pocket (discussion) Minecraft – Volume Beta (discussion) Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Donkey Kong (nom) Hotline Miami (nom) The Suicide of Rachel Foster (nom) Good article nominations Miner 2049er (start) Pixel Piracy (start) River Raid (start) The Great Giana Sisters (nom) Haunter (Pokémon) (start) Dendy (start) Dark Urge (start) Jeanette Voerman (start) Deathloop (start) Quiver (video game) (start) Regi (Pokémon) (start) Ridley (Metroid) (start) Blast Wind (start) Project Zero 2: Wii Edition (start) Barry Burton (start) Sea of Stars (start) Pokémon Smile (start) Pokémon Stadium (start) Otogirisō (start) Schim (start) Bit Pilot (start) OK Golf (nom) Tom Clancy's The Division 2 (start) Unsighted (start) DYK nominations Sun Haven Reviews and reassessments A Space for the Unbound (rev) Bejeweled (video game) (rev) The Legend of Dragoon (rev) The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (nom) Articles that need... assessment (1) (0) reassessment (0) cleanup (3) infoboxes (14) cover art (241) screenshots (8,959) photos (69) translation from japan (187) creation merging

It incorporates all the features of the SE and CVG templates, including the quality/importance data for the Wikipedia 1.0 drive (which only show up in main talk space, which is why you don't see it here), and provides links to the relevant project pages. Viola, one template for three, and much screen real estate is saved. Thoughts, anyone? – Sean Daugherty (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Agree - don't see why not. -ryand 12:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - It's brilliant. Fits the job perfectly. — CuaHL ☺ 15:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - As Cuahl says: brilliant! !!! Renmiri 19:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - Lovin' it. Vote added here to keep the yeas and nays together. -RaCha'ar 06:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree - It's a nice idea, but only about a month ago, cvg project was trying to do the exact opposite- combine all of the templates into the cvg template, and it was shot down. See here for the long, long discussion. Personally, I'd much rather see the template be the most senior template, with the sub-projects included in it, than the least senior. How about we just combine the WP:SE and WP:FF templates? --PresN 06:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem faced by the CVG proposal were the technical and administrative problems of integrating numerous subprojects into a single template. A unified CVG template needed to accommodate the Zelda project, the Final Fantasy project, the Nintendo project, the Pokemon project, the Digimon project, et al. It foundered as much on logistics as principle. But we don't face those problems: we have a single line tracing us back to the CVG project, without much room for variation. It's significantly easier to implement from the bottom-up than from the top-down.

Beyond that, though, having the most senior template seems entirely counterproductive: the point of having subprojects is that they can provide a level of focus and expertise that the broader project cannot. This project should be the primary touchstone for issues concerning Final Fantasy articles, since that's our area of expertise. It should only broaden out to the parent projects if there's an issue of broader significance. The templates should reflect this pecking order: if someone has a problem, suggestion, or comment on a Final Fantasy article, they should come to us first, which means that the templates should reflect that. The reason that this project was created in the first (and I should know, as I was responsible :-)) was because there were issues specific to the Final Fantasy series that the broader scope of the CVG project was ill-equipped to handle. I see no indication that that situation has changed appreciably. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Navbox

I don't know how many people here participate actively in the discussion over at the CVG WikiProject (I know I usually don't...), but there's a ongoing drive there to simplify and standardize navboxes (see here). I suppose we've only been spared attention because of professional courtesy, but... well... let's be honest: our navbox is a monster. Going by the proposed guidelines offered in the cited thread, I've come up with a more streamlined approach that matches the CVG standard. In dealing with our specific circumstances, I made the following decisions:

• I removed any links to category listings. I don't think it's good practice to mix and match article and category links, since it winds up being fairly confusing.
• In the case of subseries (Compilation of Final Fantasy VII and Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy XIII), I've removed links to the individual entries in favor of the main series link. The exceptions are subseries that don't have a series article (Tactics and Crystal Chronicles).
• I put the three Crystal Chronicles games on their own line, solely for aesthetic purposes.

After that, the result is as follows:

I'm still a little concerned by the size, but at least it's smaller than the current one, and lacks the weird spacing issue with the title bar. Does anyone have any suggestions or comments? – Sean Daugherty (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• How about using smaller text size?

A la...

• Or for something seriously slimlined...

• — CuaHL ☺ 16:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

In both cases, what concerns me is that we're deviating from the CVG project standard. Less so than the current model, of course, but deviating nonetheless. I like the former (smaller text size) one more than the latter (partially hidden one) one, though. The second one strikes me as a bit confusing. But while the smaller text one saves some screen space, it doesn't really seem to address the deeper issue, which is that an overloaded navbox may be confusing to readers. I was thinking about removing the video links, on the pretense that, a) we don't need to be exhaustive, and b) they're presented as links within List of Final Fantasy titles, which is linked under "other" already. Also, maybe following the advice suggested in WP:CVG thread and removing links to forthcoming titles until they're actually release. So something like this:

Thoughts? – Sean Daugherty (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yours is certainly a step above the clutter that it is now, Sean. Well done! --Tristam 01:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think cutting off related series and parring down the more info would be beneficial. Only recently was the formatting broken and the box looks broken. I tried slimming it down on the 10th already too. Deusfaux 08:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The box simply works as a slight navigation aid anyway - after all, the whole article is wikilinked. So I think the newest version is perfect. People can still find what they want using it, and it's not an eyesore. — CuaHL ☺ 10:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What Cuahl said. I love this one. -RaCha'ar 06:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• I was bold and changed it. See {{Final Fantasy series}} — CuaHL 16:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Cuahl. It's lookin' good. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What about XIII? --KucamungaCatnip 20:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's basically a stub right now so linking there would be little better than having nothing there at all. Anyway, it looks good. Axem Titanium 20:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The proposed guidelines over at WP:CVG say to avoid unreleased/forthcoming games. I'm fairly indifferent, either way, but leaving it out does save a little bit of space for the time being. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say go with the top one. It's perfect in that it's streamlined, yet still legible. Odin of Trondheim 21:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I also think the top one would be better. The current template doesn't even mention any films or anime, which are also an important part of the series. Jagged 85 13:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think so. FF has always been a video game series. The films/anime/etc. are all simply spinoffs of the series and are all sufficiently mentioned in the List of FF titles and the main FF page. The function of a navbox is to facilitate navigation to high traffic pages, not to include all aspects of a series in some kind of uber-template. That's what a category is for. Axem Titanium 01:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to exclude films and anime from this template, we might as well rename it to Final Fantasy video games instead, since this template clearly doesn't cover the series as a whole. We could also possibly create another template for the film and anime titles instead. 13:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we include Weapons (The big bad critters) in the Navbox? We already have Beastiary, Races, and Weapons (The equipment). --Daedalus 21:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Gameplay of Final Fantasy rehash

This is certainly a possibility, and I'm closing in on being confortable enough to start it. — Deckiller 12:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

History of Final Fantasy Series

Got it with my FFXII as a bonus DVD, uploaded it to Youtube. Full of details on game design for our FA pages :D Wish we could post here. Can we ? Renmiri 20:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so... but nice upload. I have the DVD too and I was going to make a transcript but I suppose that works too. Axem Titanium 14:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

First I have dissapproval of how they pronounce Tidus, then I disapprove of how they pronounce Yuffie. But this is the last straw. They mispronounce Cecil's name. My beloved Cecil! Sir Crazyswordsman 02:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Aye, what a bunch of know knothings these Japanese translators are! ;-) Renmiri 17:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy character classes

We're having some fun little mini-edit wars there since Mythsearcher, Axem Titanium and I decided that any "CID HIGHWIND WAS A DRAGOON" type speculative stuff does not belong in the article. The rule is, if a character is not explicitly defined as a certain character class in the game, it cannot be listed under that character class's entry in the article, since to do so would be original research. Ever since all the Cait Siths and Cid Highwinds were removed from the article, people - mostly anons - keep adding them back in. I'm reverting at least one of these adds a day. Could I please ask the help of the project to keep an eye on this page and to help decide if we're being too draconian with these rules and their enforcement? Certainly any blatant additions along the lines of the aforementioned Cid (the biggest offender) should be gone but a recent anon added this, which is phrased in such a way that it obviously draws the comparison to the characteristics of the class without outright claiming that Cait Sith is a gambler. I can't in good conscience just take it out because I don't find it to be offending WP:OR too badly. It's becoming difficult to figure out what should be left out and what might be allowed in. Thoughts? -RaCha'ar 21:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said at that page's talk page, it's still pangs of OR. Also, taken by itself, that edit is simply adding a statement for the reader to evaluate but really doesn't develop it. As such, it probably is too tangential to include in the article anyway. Axem Titanium 22:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

FATC

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Final Fantasy X. — Deckiller 11:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Some people from this project should expand the article on the Al Bhed language. As of now it is the only article missing from the FFX featured topic. --Arctic Gnome 17:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I had quite a lot more on there, deleted by some crabby user. Renmiri 00:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Main Article in disarray

I'm afraid the main article of the series is in terrible shape. This is the first place newcomers will go to when wanting to know about FF, and my guess is that they won't go any further. It should at least be brought to GA status before we can concentrate on anything else.--SidiLemine 11:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you give more specific critiques of the article that we can respond to? -RaCha'ar 16:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, for a start, the article structure is a bit awkward, with all the genesis in the Overview section (and practically nothing else), no description of continuity of staff, and no reception/impact section. Then, the images don't do justice to the franchise. And I'm not saying that we should only insert pictures of FFXIII; FFVI had great graphics for the time. There is a lot of lists, not all relevant. Absolutely no citations or references are provided: don't let the footnotes fool you. The logo on top of the page, if appropriate, is still not very pretty. The sections are poorly balanced and hold no reflection on their respective importance. The whole prose is disconnected and hold no "juice" in it. I'm saying all that before sitting to actually review the article. All I'm saying is, the FF series is one of the very best series of WP, and this article should be at least as good as the game-specific ones. And it's miles away.--SidiLemine 17:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is it - Groundwork for the FINAL FANTASY CAMPAIGN

This is a very rough version of something I've been thinking about. I came up with this list on the top of my head without overthinking for obvious reasons. These are just the more obvious ones. Much more later.

• Final Fantasy VII issue - Merge AVALANCHE, Materia, Final Fantasy VII timeline, and List of Final Fantasy VII terms into one article called Backstory of Final Fantasy VII or thereabouts
• Merge Final Fantasy items, List of Final Fantasy armor and accessories, List of Final Fantasy weapons, and bits of other articles (perhaps a few other whole ones) into Gameplay of Final Fantasy.
• Revamp and attain at least GA status for the 15-16 major FF titles (full list later). Preferably FA, but that might take longer.
• All main FF games (1-12) FA status.
• Significant changes to series articles:
• Characters only deserve articles if they can have at LEAST 1 full, 4+ sentences of DEVELOPMENT/BACKGROUND information in addition to 5+ SUCCINCT paragraphs of in-universe-based information. Ideal character articles for main FF character (in terms of length, etc): Squall Leonhart, Tidus, and Terra Branford. In other words, only Squall and Rinoa would have articles for the FF8 series; the rest would be merged into the character list.
  • I should tell you that if there isn't enough development info but there is some, don't take out what's there. Also, don't give characters such as Squall longer story sections than those of, say, Steiner, should you decide to merge Steiner. Sir Crazyswordsman 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Absolutely. No development information should be removed during merges anyway; besides, Steiner is significant enough and well-sourced enough to merit a single article :) — Deckiller 03:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Likewise, all minor characters involved in the lists should be given at least 1-2 sentences of sourced development information. Inspiration, design, etc. Let's not make character and location lists into plot summaries.
• Location lists - inspiration, not what story events happen at these scenerios (except for background information). Locations in Spira is a fairly decent example, but let's go for a bit more out of universe info.
• The key is to follow what the FFX series of articles has done, but minus a bit of in-universe information for those minor characters and add a bit more out of universe information. We can do it.
• Final Fantasy bestiary concerns me a bit. Is it really necessary to list every single monster and every appearence? Can we compress this to about 5 paragraphs on the gameplay of final fantasy article? Same applies to races; especially races, since such details will/are noted in the article story sections.
• Classes - might be a good list, but we might be able to compress into 5 paragraphs of prose.
• Magic - might be difficult to compress, but we can try. If necessary, we can use Final Fantasy magic as a guideline for what the bestiary and class list(s) should look like.
• Plot element articles (AVALANCHE, Garden (Final Fantasy VIII) - big no-nos. Let's try to keep in-universe articles to main characters and combo articles.
• Back to gameplay of final fantasy - how do we turn the weapons/armos lists into prose? Simple - we describe the evolution of weapons and armor in final fantasy, what they do, etc. Some examples are in order, such as the more popular ones. But no lists.
• List of Final Fantasy airships - again, we can compress this into the main article (plus more details on the gameplay page and, of course, there's already details on the respective articles).

— Deckiller 05:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Category: Final Fantasy minigames should be merged into Minigames of Final Fantasy. That includes blitzball, triple triad, etc. This list might not be necessary on the basis that minigames are individual games on their own.

I know this is all poorly written, disorganized, and whatnot, but this is my train of thought. I think evolved versions of this list can make us into the best wikiproject on the site. — Deckiller 05:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm...I likey. I'm going to try to merge FF Minigames together into one article tomorrow (it's too late now to start a big project). This Wikiproject has slowed down a bunch, and I'd like to see some work get done. --PresN 05:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

AWESOME, DecKiller! This is a great to-do list for us. :) -RaCha'ar 17:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Couple of reactions here as I'm thinking about it:

Re: Classes. It's already cut down a ton from what it used to be, and AxemTitanium, MythSearcher, and I are on constant cruft alert. I think it's fine in its current format, especially since that's what we came to after lots of talking about what belonged and what didn't.

I hate the bestiary list but never wanted to touch it. It needs to be cut down using the same criteria we've been using at the classes page - if the beastie hasn't appeared in many games, it should not be on the list. There are tons of critters there that have appeared in two games at the most. I view the bestiary in much the same way as I view the class list - it should be about the creatures that make you immediately think Final Fantasy, like tonberries and Malboros, and not the fringe beasties that show up in a couple of games.

I definitely agree with a lot of the merging - I've always wondered why some elements have their own articles but never had a strong argument against it.

I'll volunteer to spearhead a return to getting the FFXI article to GA status. We made some good inroads a few months ago but interest dropped off (my fault, mostly). I will need the help of people who currently play the game since I have not played for several months now and am rusty on some things.

Great job again, Deckiller. This is exciting. :D -RaCha'ar 17:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I started the Minigames article, btw. --PresN 20:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Triple Triad, Tetra Master, and Blitzball have been merged into Minigames of Final Fantasy. I'll finish moving the rest of the category in later, but if someone could check out what I've done so far, that'd be awesome. --PresN 22:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, the character class page looks great (the XI list can ultimately be taken care of if necesasry at a later date). But yeah, if we can change the FF bestiary into "Creatures of Final Fantasy" and the races list "Races of final fantasy" for the time being. The key is to keep consolidating; as time goes on, we can find more ways to consolidate. Ultimately, the class list page (with the others) will have a 3 paragraph sectobn explanating the evolution of the system(s) and other out of universe information, which can be summarized in Gameplay of Final Fantasy and whatnot. PresN, great start! The information has been retained and compressed, and it looks like an awesome beginning for that list. We can make our names known across Wikipedia as the only project that finished what it has been working on for roughly a year. — Deckiller 01:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• I've been looking around, and everyone has been doing an amazing job since I was last really active. I'm glad to be apart of the project with you guys! — Deckiller 02:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Opinions needed- the last page to merge into the Minigames page is Chocobo World. Should I, though? It's sort of a separate game, and I'm on the fence. Someone push me over! --PresN 04:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This is a tough call, but I'm going to say it should maintain a separate article. It is certainly more of a separate game than Tetra Master, Blitzball, et al. -RaCha'ar 06:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Alright, status report then. The minigames category is emptied out (and proposed for deletion), the article is in existence with 6 refs (though it needs quite a bit of rewriting), and the other articles are redirects to Minigames, execpt for Blitzball, which has info about some other Blitzball. I'm going to move on to another thing now, maybe coming back to ref up minigames some more later. I'd like it if someone could look through it for me, though. --18:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Somehow when this is all over I have a feeling we'll only have one article left. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• One minigame article left? Trust me, the end result will be worth all the stress now, and we'll still have plenty of material. Heck, we'll probably end up expanding a lot of articles with more sourced, out of unvierse information to balance out all the in-universe excess. — Deckiller 03:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If you meant one article total left, then no. If we tried to merge all of these into one article, it would either be 300kb long or so depth-less as to be useless entirely. All I'm personally going for is to remove things like a step by step guide to Tetra Master that's as in depth as the (very handy) gamefaqs guide, or a description and history of every monster that's appeared in 2 final fantasy games. Final Fantasy may be the only game series there is with enough games and depth to support as many articles as it has, but there is a limit, and we're a bit past it. The last thing I want is for this project to turn into a Runescape- they went from 20+ articles to 5 in a month, all through AfDs, as they were all cruft-ridden game guides. Our GA/FA to article ratio is the best of any wikiproject- and the closer we get to 100%, the happier I'll be. --PresN 04:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Speaking of Tetra Master, you can put that on the Final Fantasy Wiki on Wikicities if you like (we lack a Tetra Master article at the moment), provided you do so within policy. Sir Crazyswordsman 08:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Done. It's not de-wikified, and none of the images work, but it's there. --PresN 16:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, and it's the old crufty version, not the new, condensed version. Figured that's what you were going for. --PresN 16:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
        • You couldn't be a sport and dewikify it? How sad. :( Sir Crazyswordsman 18:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, I de-redlinked it, at least. The main problem with it is that the images aren't there. I'll try to find them and uplaod them wherever you guys draw from later. --PresN 06:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Opinion/consensus time! Minigames of Final Fantasy currently has the minigames that had articles. An editor has suggested that we add FF7's CHocobo Racing and FF9's Chocobo Hot and Cold. This leads me to ask: what minigames should be included? Which ones are the most notable? The fact that someone wrote an article on them isn't the best qualification. --PresN 06:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say definitely add Hot and Cold, especially since FFXI is apparently about to add their own version of it. Chocobo Racing I'm not so sure on. -RaCha'ar 12:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Tactics Ogre

The current GCOTW is Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together, by FF Tactics creator Yasumi Matsuno. If anyone here has played the game and could expand the gamplay section that would be great. jaco♫plane 16:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XI - fancruft?

An editor has apparently newly created a template, Template:fancruft, for the express purpose of putting it on the Gameplay section of Final Fantasy XI. I admit I'm taking this personally since I put in many, many hours to removing all the cruft that the article had formerly been laden with, so I can't look at it with an objective eye. I've asked the editor to come to the talk page of the article and explain his reasoning, but I would appreciate it if people here at the project would take a look, too. The rest of the article has not been rewritten, mostly because I don't play FFXI anymore and find it hard to get up any passion to do the article (sorry...), but the Gameplay section was extensively rewritten with a lot of input from the talk page. I'd really love to know what problems it might still have. Thanks! -RaCha'ar 17:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no official policy or guideline on fancruft. Wikipedia:Fancruft is just an essay. As long as WP:NOT#IINFO is followed, there should be no problem. Personally I feel the gameplay section of that article is rather long and probably a little too detailed for an encyclopedia article, but you should feel free to remove that fancruft template. jaco♫plane 17:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm looking it over again and trying to figure out what to pull out - the problem is, I keep going to World of Warcraft as an example of an MMO article and it's not helping, heh. Given that there is no official policy on fancruft, do you think the template should be put up for deletion? I'm personally of the mind that there's plenty of other templates that cover the same territory and actually refer to existing policies... -RaCha'ar 18:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The template was a recreation of deleted content (original Tfd here) so I speedied it. That said, the gameplay section does look incredibly long (12 sections!?). The Servers section can probably be nixed in favor of just mentioning the ability to change servers with a World Pass. The rest with World Migration and stuff doesn't look vital. Interface can probably be put into a System requirements section like the WoW article has. Game environments and Nation allegiance can probably be moved to the Plot area. Missions, Crafting and PvP can probably be merged into a general "what you can do in Vana'diel" section, summary style. Job system can stay but Leveling looks a little too specific and can mostly be removed. For the last two sections, try to limit the original research if you can. Axem Titanium 21:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll start poking at it to try to deflate it a little. Would you suggest using an article like World of Warcraft as a model, since it's another MMORPG, or using the other Final Fantasy articles as a model? -RaCha'ar 06:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

WoW is a good model, but if you strip the gameplay section down that far, you can't really get a feel for what the game is about. Personally, I think the WoW gameplay section is a bit on the short side (ie, it's not "comprehensive"). Axem Titanium 21:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Project: Consolidation of the Final Fantasy bestiary

This should really be compressed to one page, entitled, "Creatures of Final Fantasy" or "Monsters of Final Fantasy". It can still be a list of the 15-20 most common and key monster/monster series throughout the series. A few probably dserve their own articles, as well, but I seriously think this page needs significant compression. How about a rule of three: if the monster has not appeared in more than three games and can not be subject to more than a 4 sentence paragraph of non-crufty information, it should be excluded and/or transwikied. — Deckiller 03:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've begun the process at User:Deckiller/Beasts of Final Fantasy. — Deckiller 04:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE DO NOT TRANSWIKI THIS. We've our own system going on at Wikia, where each individual monster from each individual game gets an aricle (although the most common monsters get a main article, even as common as Basilisk. Go ahead and transwiki that if you want, but don't just dump articles on us). But like I said, mergism for mergism's sake is very, very bad, just as inclusionism/deletionism for their sakes is bad. Sir Crazyswordsman 16:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Dammit, I was just about to volunteer to do this. I'll go help out.  :) -RaCha'ar 16:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Character articles

Hello. Could someone come up with a standardized format for character articles? The sample article given for character articles is Squall Leonhart, but compare that to articles like Aerith Gainsborough and Zidane Tribal and you'll see a lot of inconsistency. What information should be included in these articles?

As it stands, the FFVIII and FFX character articles are the most concise, with sections for backstory, appearances, and characteristics. The FFVII articles are generally okay except for the Tifa Lockhart and Aerith Gainsborough articles, which bear clear signs of the Tifa-Aerith fan war (additional sections about love, personality, Aerith's theme, et cetera - while notable, I'm not sure how much information is too much). The FFIX articles are, to put it bluntly, in a mess - Adelbert Steiner for one is completely unstructured.

If anyone could add a section to the manual of style, that would be helpful. -ryand 08:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As of right now, we're looking into merging all but the most major characters into characters lists per #This is it - Groundwork for the FINAL FANTASY CAMPAIGN. You're welcome to contribute for now but be aware that some of it may be merged into one of those lists. Axem Titanium 19:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we're in the process of stabilizing things and consolidating, but we should get a clear picture within a couple months. Leonhart mixes a lot of the good ideas, taking a "best of all words" sort of approach. — Deckiller 21:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It'll be a long and tedious process. I may be able to help next week after I finish exams. Sir Crazyswordsman 20:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XII

Is full of missed translations and little inaccuracies. I tried to improve it a bit but it needs some major work. Unfortunately I'm also busy with my own site so I can't do much. You guys are welcome to get my images from my site though. Renmiri 00:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)