Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy/archive/21

March Roll call

Please sign your name below to show that you are around and still with the project.

1. — Deckiller 22:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
2. — Daedalus 22:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
3. — Axem Titanium 20:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC) (although I'm still not technically here...)
4. — Djsonik 01:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC) (I was taking a long wikibreak, but I'm back!)
5. — Thanatosimii 01:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC) (Around but still looking for somthing to actually do)
6. — RaCha'ar 15:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Girding my loins to start hammering away at Final Fantasy XI with an eye towards FA.
7. — wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Still mostly mop stuff, and busy with RL stuff... but I try to get stuff done eventually.
8. — Gavin Scott Still imposing myself on the List of Final Fantasy VII characters and the Shinra pages.
9. — cocopopz2005 been busy with year 12 but can help around if needed.
10. — Teggles 07:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
11. — Melodia Might as well add myself ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
12. — Judgesurreal777 I'm around, here to help, let me know if you need something :) Judgesurreal777 20:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
13. — anomie I guess I'll officially join, even though my only interest here at the moment is the NES version of Final Fantasy Anomie 21:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
14. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib)
15. — PresN 17:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC) March 26th isn't too late to sign this, I suppose. I'll have to notice next month's sooner

Character pages

I just finished the rework of the FF8 character list (now Characters of Final Fantasy VIII). I will continue to add script cites. I also merged most of the character articles, except Squall and Rinoa. My opinion is that we should follow a style similar to this and turn the other "lists" into articles. Thoughts? — Deckiller 02:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you really merge most of the individual character articles? Thank you! That's awesome. Personally, I'm going to try to stay focused on the FFXII FA push since, ostensibly, that is the reason I'm editting at all during my wiki-break. I'll be sure to help out with this stuff as soon as I get back for real though. Axem Titanium 02:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool, and thanks. Plus, the article is already near GA status, so hopefully it will set a precedent. — Deckiller 03:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged the map of FF8 into the FF8 article and redirected the location list. Now all that remains is to get all the FF8 subarticles to GA status and I'd say we're done with our FF8 coverage for good. — Deckiller 03:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. This kind of maneuver should be followed for other Final Fantasy games. However, I don't particularly agree with the locations merging. I would've thought a "World of Final Fantasy VIII" article would have the potential for sufficient development information, but I guess it doesn't. --Teggles 03:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) The problem is the lack of context or out of universe info available; I couldn't find much beyond what Ryu and myself found for FF8 and what's already on the page. Although location articles like VII, X/X-2, and T/TA/XII (ivalice), and perhaps Vana'diel can stand on their own for sure. If we dig a little deeper, perhaps we can find info for a World of Final Fantasy VIII article? — Deckiller 04:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing something similar at List of Final Fantasy IX characters, but I haven't gotten around to merging yet, there's a lot of cruft that needs clean up first. Just look at General Beatrix's article, it's a redundant plot summary and a poorly written one, to boot. What you did with FFVIII's characters is essentially the goal I set for FFIX, so now that you're done, I'll use it as my precedent. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 14:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have moved List of Final Fantasy VII Characters to Characters of Final Fantasy VII inline with your edit of Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. I must admit the new title is much better- however, I am going to go about merging the character pages Lucreciea Cresent and Prof. Hojo with the main article.Gavin Scott 19:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I've been a bit cheeky and moved all List of... articles to Charcters of... Gavin Scott 19:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Banning spoiler warnings completely

WP:FF Consensus

Let's just not use spoiler warnings at all, and not just omitting them for sections labeled as plot. Clearly, others agree with this, but do we have a consensus? — Deckiller 16:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agree. "Wikipedia is not censored." Spoiler warnings break apart the prose and screw up formatting. It's ambiguous at what point in a game events must occur to not be a spoiler. A spoiler for one game isn't a spoiler for its sequel. Encyclopedic information is complete. It's ambiguous how long after a game is released that information becomes widely known and no longer a spoiler. Etc... --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 20:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well said. — Deckiller 20:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Agree: Spoiler warnings are useless - whether or not a reader knows if there are "spoilers" ahead. I don't find it reasonable to disrupt the flow and integrity of an article to "be nice" to a few readers. There's also the issue of deciding what exactly a spoiler is - as NicholaiDaedalus put it, "encyclopedic information is complete" - it's impossible to decide what a spoiler is, doing so would be POV and unreferencable. Summary: I don't like them :) --Teggles 09:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Agree: Let's not forget, this is an encyclopedia. I think everyone or near enough everyone who searches Wikipedia knows that it will contain spoilers, the warnings add nothing to the article other than problems. I have removed them from near enough every article I have made additions too, including Final Fantasy. Gavin Scott 17:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Agree: I wasn't aware that they weren't already specifically excluded. At any rate, they're kind of ugly, provide nothing to the article except formatting and flow issues, censor information and are generally synonymous with "plot" and "story" anyway. They introduce POV and are too ambiguous to employ usefully. Axem Titanium 20:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• I think we'll all more or less agree; I'll be bold and change it. — Deckiller 20:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Interesting that everyone agrees here, since it seems to be a pretty big split across WP in general if they should be use. I'm in the "no" camp myself (I find they look ugly, beyond the above reasons), but there are enough people who want them that for now they'll probably stay on most fiction articles... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Very late Agree, but yeah, it is odd that everyone here doesn't like them, when, as the last TfD proved, WP as a whole is very much in love with them. --PresN 15:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: the tons of people who are for the warning probably aren't even aware of this small discussion existing here. Kariteh 20:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Since this is handled among the Wikiprojects as a case by case basis, this discussion only applies to Final Fantasy articles. For all the people that want to add spoilers to FF articles, point them in this direction and let them comment and add their views. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 21:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I thought the FF project already decided to ban them. I started a topic eariler (about six months ago, IIRC) and got some heat for suggesting that they follow the parent CVG project's norm of using them. Hbdragon88 22:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This is mostly a clarification, because before, there were still some templates around. This has nothing to do with your statement, but let me remind people that the decision for a WikiProject to not adhere to a style guideline is that wikiproject's decision to make, not the rest of Wikipedia's. People can certainly express their opinions, but this debate has been exausted, and it is clear that most members of this project are against the tags. — Deckiller 22:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside opinions and recommendations

This was originally a portion of the discussion that I have dubbed WP:FF Consensus, I have seperated these sections out since this discussion expands beyond the scope of WP:FF and it's editors, and discusses points that have developed tangentially from the spoiler warning discussion. I hope this makes our project's consensus more clear to parse. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 23:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Thank you, Kariteh, for raising attention to this in the Village Pump (Policy). I oppose for the following bulleted reasons (largely acquired from an earlier response I had made on the recent FA Shadow of the Colossus:

• Censorship: I do not see it as censorship, as no information is being removed or hidden; it is only being denoted.
• No Contributive Context: While they add nothing to the article, they prevent unsuspecting readers from inadvertently losing something from the subject of the article.
• Spoilers Should Be Expected: Spoilers are most often an issue on entertainment-related articles for which the user may only be seeking basic information out of interest of renting/buying the item; the reader may not be interested in receiving all of the information.
• Flow of Article / Clutter: A limit of spoiler tags may be a break in the flow of an article, as it requires articles to be written in such a way that spoilers are contained together (or else a plethora of spoiler tags can clutter the article), but I have yet to see a case where an article cannot be written with only 1 or 2 spoiler sections.
• Ambiguous: I agree that what is a "spoiler" can be ambiguous. However, I do not believe this should result in a complete nixing of spoiler warnings entirely; but rather I feel such a concern should prompt further discussion to define what information falls under the category of "spoiler" so that we can apply the warnings more appropriately.

I hope this helps spur further discussion. Sláinte! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 22:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not a regular editor to the Final Fantasy articles. Spoiler warnings are handled on a case by case basis; we don't impose their exclusion on other wikiprojects, and we'd appreciate that other wikiprojects do not do the same to us. In the case of Shadow of the Colossus, it's not a WP:FF article, so tags aren't a major issue there unless there is consensus not to use them (and it's not part of another WikiProject) — Deckiller 22:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not attempting to impose anything on anyone: I am only making additional points of discussion and providing a viewpoint that may not have been considered. Please remember to assume good faith. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 22:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It was not a matter of assuming faith; I was just attempting to clarify that consensus will be reached by WikiProject editors and readers, and that any other outside opinions are not likely to be included in determining consensus. I'm sorry if it seemed snappy; I've seen this occur so many times in the past and eat up so much time that it scares me to see it happening again, because the lines are going to be drawn the same exact way. — Deckiller 22:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As some IP asked some time ago, are editors writing the articles for the readers or for themselves? Personally, I don't understand why only regular editors to the FF articles could participate in the debate. If someone isn't a regular editor but is a regular reader, shouldn't their arguments be considered? Kariteh 22:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Readers should also be considered, but those readers should be those who read Final Fantasy pages (in addition to whatever else they read). However, a lot of readers do not know about talkpages or the concept of templates, so it will be difficult to pull them in. Some people who edit generally pass by and add them, or express their opinion on the talkpage. However, pages get thousands of hits per day, and only a couple people express disagreement. I wish I could find a source for pageviews, but the only one available only goes over the top 100. — Deckiller 22:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

When I suggested pointing other people here to discuss their views, I meant people who want to contribute specifically to Final Fantasy articles as that is our project's scope and jurisdiction. Yes, there are other people who advocate the use of spoilers, but I made this clear that this is a case by case basis. We are deciding whether or not to ban spoilers within Final Fantasy ONLY. I don't intend to invalidate what Bossi says, it is a valid viewpoint, but unless editors are contributing to FF, this decision does not concern them. By inviting editors outside of FF articles in, we are opening Pandora's box. This is a controversial topic that we should not be repeating exhaustive discussions on. This is just an attempt to find consensus within WP:FF, NOT consensus within WP as a whole. Since we have the option to WP:IGNORE and this issue is controversial and a case-by-case issue, we as a Wikiproject have the perogative to determine what we feel is best for our project, even if that means ignoring general WP consensus if we so choose. This is a decision limited to the Wikiproject, and is discussed on the main talk page of the wikiproject. Bringing attention to this discussion in the village pump was inappropriate. Should we post there that we might be deciding to merge character articles into their respective lists? We are dictating practice in WP:FF, not WP, and thus it does not concern WP as a whole. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 22:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said. I apologize if my frankness has come at a cost of the reputation of people within this WikiProject, but we cannot open the floodgates once again. It will derail everything. Here's another comparison: an organization has departments. Departments should obvious communicate, but they need a certain level of norms and cohesion to keep things flexible and smooth. The maintenance and manufacturing departments do not tell the accounting department how to debit accounts receivable; sure, they can give suggestions, but it's a departmental decision. China and Russia can tell the United States to conform to an international guideline, but if the US disagrees, they have the right to. Note that this does not apply to policies; policies must be followed. Guidelines do not have as strong of a foundation or consensus, which is why we have a separation of policy and guideline. — Deckiller 23:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Another clarification — for approximately a year, this project has not used spoiler warnings in subjects labeled "plot". Many editors extended this to other articles, to the point where few had any spoiler warnings at all. The discussion was sparked because I added a spoiler warning to a page not labeled as plot, and a fellow WikiProject editor reverted. Then, I wanted to see if anyone with the project had any real interest in using them at all, because of the fact that I've only seen a handful of Final Fantasy articles with them around still. It may have seemed like a "jump the gun" concept, but I saw the same old editors listing their same old reasons for opposing spoiler warnings (and not just in plot sections). Heck, the only reason I started this thread was to not look like an hypocite for adding a spoiler tag to an article. — Deckiller 22:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Question - is there anything harmed by the presence of spoiler warnings? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Community consensus seems to ok spoilers for situations where one would not likely expect to find a spoiler. Even if you guys get a consensus here, I doubt that would be considered enough support for a real ban. If you want something you might be able to enforce then you'll need more exposure for this discussion.

Personally, I no longer care much about the issue. The last time I was in a spoiler debate we generated about a megabyte of text and even had Jimbo Wales comment about it (he doesn't like spoiler warnings either). In that debate, nothing really changed..

I think readers will eventually have to realize that we do include spoilers and that they should expect them when reading about those specific topics. In other words, the readers will just have to deal with it, and it won't be the end of the world.

On the other hand, if something is "major" enough, and seems in a place a reader wouldn't expect it, then I don't see a big problem with spoiler warnings. I don't see them as evil or unprofessional, I just see them as a normal element that you might see on the internet.

But, as I started to say, this discussion here alone is not enough to ban spoiler warnings in articles under this scope. I'm a little surprised to see one of the responses here to someone because they were not a "regular" editor. One thing that gets really under my skin is WikiProjects that feel they have ownership over their articles. No one is excluded from WikiProjects, and you are apart of that project by simply being in a discussion involving that project (you may or may not choose to list yourself as a long term participant, but you always have equal rights). The WikiProject does not make the consensus, but a discussion the WikiProject houses might. Get more exposure to the discussion and then you might be able to enforce something. -- Ned Scott 04:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't completely agree. Like you said, the debate is always locked, the lines are always the same. This situation was supposed to be a minor clarification on how the WikiProject editors felt. I can understand your feeling that we are acting like we WP:OWN the articles, but if WikiProjects cannot make group decisions about guidelines, what's the point of having them in the first place? There's nothing wrong with people stating their opinions and recommendations to see if they can influence the WikiProject consensus, but to hold a straw poll with their !votes counted defeats the purpose of having individual WikiProject style guides, among other things. That's what my reply to the user above meant; the user was welcome to share the stance and opinions, but if everyone else in Wikipedia comes in and begins a straw poll, then of course we'll be outnumbered. We aren't going to impose are opinions about the spoiler warnings to other projects (although we might leave a recommendation if they are used for a section already labeled "plot"). Honestly, I think less harm will be done if this discussion is ceased before it gets blown out of proportion and turns into another megabyte of debate - this time on a different battlefield. Again, I stress the difference betwen policies and manual of style guidelines; manual of style guidelines have exceptions, and I believe it's fair to say that if a large group of editors working on the same group of articles disagrees with one guideline alone, then they should have the ability to do so. Otherwise, we might as well just turn all guidelines into policies. — Deckiller 04:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The point of WikiProjects is to give a centralized place for collaboration, not necessarily to "make rules". WikiProjects can make group decisions about guidelines, but when you know something is controversial, and you know many people might disagree with you, then it's not ok to just ignore that. It would be one thing if you guys really felt that everyone would be ok with it, and then it would be understandable that you didn't go out of your way to make the discussion known, stuff like that is ok. However, this is not that kind of situation. Making a consensus "here" with just those you know will agree with you is not a consensus.

I have to say, I'm a bit annoyed by this line of thinking. Mostly because I don't really care about spoiler warnings as much as I care about people's attitudes about WikiProjects making their own exceptions. What you are asking for here is a way to revert anyone who puts a spoiler tag in an article under this project's scope, and to be able to say "we can do that because we have consensus". That's the wrong way to use a WikiProject, because the WikiProject isn't representing consensus in that situation. -- Ned Scott 05:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we thought it was clear that people knew that this is one of the WikiProjects that does not advocate the spoiler warning guideline. If I had known there was such resistance of us not adding them into our plot summaries (a practice that has occured for the past year, including two mainpage features), I would have approached the situation differently. Granted, not using the warnings at all is a bit more extreme than not using them in sections clearly labeled as "plot" or "appearences", which is why I drew up a compromise below. Also, I'm sorry that you are annoyed by the concept that WikiProjects should have some flexibility with certain guidelines in regard to the articles they cover. — Deckiller 05:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not annoyed by that concept, I'm annoyed when I see users telling other users that their opinions don't matter because they don't edit X group of articles enough. It's fine if this all started in good faith, but don't try to block out the outside when they become aware of the situation. If someone doesn't seem to understand the situation (a newbie to Wikipedia or something) and you don't give their argument much weight because they might not be fully aware of the situation, that's one thing. A "stranger" can come into a situation and be on equal grounds with those who focus more on a group of articles (assuming that "stranger" has logic to back them up). But I'm thinking this is an isolated issue, and that you guys most likely do treat "strangers" as equals. I apologies if I've over-reacted. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's ok; I overreacted above too. My "you're not a regular editor" comment should have been clarified. It wasn't a matter of blocking out those users, it was a matter of making sure the opposite didn't happen, where the WikiPrject's beliefs were blocked out by the wikipedia-wide advocates of the spoiler tags. That reasoning might have been distorted by my knee-jerk reaction. I believe I did end up clarifying somewhere above, so I won't waste time. Most, if not all, of us welcome outside opinions about many issues; a lot of our style guide was taken from opinions of users like Silence. Spoiler warnings are the one exception, it seems. — Deckiller 05:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope I'm not going to upset anyone since I have nothing to do with the WikiProject, but this section did say "outside opinions", so I hope that it's OK for me to comment here. I dislike the idea of an outright spoiler warning ban. I feel that given the plot-heavy nature of Final Fantasy games, spoiler warnings are a common courtesy where spoilers show up in unexpected places. I agree with the compromise proposed by Deckiller at the bottom of the page, except for the bit about

"Spoilers must be kept out of the lead sections of all articles, regardless if the tags are used later in the article. An exception is if the character is notable for the spoiler, or is influenced by that spoiler for the majority of the game. Case by case basis is key."

which I feel I must respectfully disagree with. For example, someone who didn't know what happened to Aerith could quite easily have the story spoiled for them if the plot information about her was found in the lead section. Lead sections IMHO really ought to just contain the minimum information necessary to give an overview of the subject. The current Aerith article has a perfectly informative introduction that doesn't spoil anything. Anyone who wants to find out more can read on at his or her own risk.

Another couple of thoughts people may like to consider - anyone who edits these articles will be well aware of the WikiProject's stance on th spoiler warning, but the casual Wikipedia reader may not be. Since there are spoiler warnings in other parts of the encyclopaedia, banning them completely here could cause some confusion. Also, I may as well add that the argument "is there anything harmed by the presence of spoiler warnings?" is probably not relevant, because in itself that doesn't justify their inclusion. I think there are plenty of good reasons to include the warnings over sections where a reader won't otherwise be expecting spoilers, but "they don't do any harm" is not one of them. RobbieG 19:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dissagree. They might "destroy the flow of a artical" , but honestly is it that big of a problem , its not like a banner add or anything. Also spoilers can ruin many games , personally i saw no warning on ffx and <guess whats next, yeah a spoiler> finding out the ending is yuna lives , and tidas dies (see the picture and subtitle on the artical) ruined the game for me. That is why you need spoiler warnings. Read wp:spoiler and it explains it well. Wikipedia is not a source for just people who spend many hours on it, and should be friendly to all users which includes people who do not read this site firist.as somone below said , I did avoid reading the plot/story section , but pictures should not be spoilers at all, as we all know they are harder to ignore then just text.
  • The paragraphs and paragraphs of text, as well as the headings "story", "setting", and "plot", not to mention the time it took to load the page, did not make you realize that it might cover the entire game, especially if it went into that much detail? — Deckiller 20:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Usually, images do not contain spoilers, and that image just showed an embrace (it did not show Tidus "dying", which is actually not true). I'm sorry that you were spoiled, but at least now you know that Wikipedia contains spoilers. Besides, if the warnings were in place, you would have still scrolled down to read the development and other sections. In that process, you might have seen the images anyway. — Deckiller 20:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • To the user who, disagreed, when looking up an encyclopedia did you not know that the entire game would be revealed? Lets remember this is an encyclopedia NOT a review centre!Gavin Scott 21:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree but I can't be bothered arguing my case except to say I feel spoiler warnings are not censorship & don't disturb flow. Nil Einne 14:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Another opinion

Agree that spoiler warnings should be used. I think spoiler warnings were created for a reason: to prevent spoiling! We have 'em on a variety of other articles so I just don't see what the problem is. For me, it would be like going to see two of the Lord of the Rings films and then someone telling me exactly how it ends. Loads of people use wikipedia, why not simply warn 'em that there might be info they'd rather not see. I don't think endings in games should be revealed to those who don't want them to be revealed, especially to such a great series as final fantasy.
Seraphim Whipp 18:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Note. Just realised how late I am about this. Lol.

Seraphim Whipp 18:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

why not simply warn 'em that there might be info they'd rather not see Well, I ask, why do we not censor pictues that people might not want to see either? Not everyone wants to see a penis, even if they goto that article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Simple answer? The page penis is likely to have a picture of a penis on it or information, as that is what the article is for. Final Fantasy games are far more complex. It's unlikely to know what to expect. I really can't understand what the problem is! Spoiler warnings were created for this exact reason!

Seraphim Whipp 19:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Response: Someone who goes to the penis page should expect to see a picture of a penis, whether it offends them or not. Someone who goes to a Final Fantasy Article should expect to see spoilers, whether it offends them or not. It is an encyclopedia article about a game. That means that it's going to be comprehensive. That means that it's going to have spoilers. To expect an article to not have spoilers, whether it has a warning or not, is illogical. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 19:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, at no point did I say that wikipedia shouldn't have comprehensive information or that it shouldn't have spoilers. This debate is about whether or not spoiler warnings should be used. My opinion is that they should; that is what they were made for.

Seraphim Whipp 19:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify: Spoiler warnings are implied because an encyclopedia is comprehensive, the warning that there might be spoilers is redundant and readers should expect spoilers in the articles as that is common sense. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 20:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference is having seen a penis doesn't affect one in any way (well except for some odd people). But it's well established that many, many people prefer to not know the plot before playing a game. No one is expecting article not to be comprehensive and it's obviously implied that articles will have spoilers. What is not clear is when an article will have spoilers. By clearly identifying cases when articles have spoilers, readers can easily choose to skip such sections. Just because your interested in a topic doesn't mean you're interested in spoilers. You may very well have not played the game (or whatever). But once you have read a spoiler, you can't go back and it has greatly affected you. I understand why some feel there is no point having spoiler warnings in plot sections but when a spoiler is unexpected, the spoiler warning does the reader a great service. Nil Einne 14:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

But it's a guideline!
From WP:SPOILER

A spoiler is a piece of information in an article about a narrative work (such as a book, feature film, television show or video game) that may reduce one's enjoyment of reading, viewing, or playing the work by revealing certain plot events or twists. If someone hasn't read, watched or played the material to which the warning refers, they might wish to avoid reading the spoiler before fully reading the work.

Although Wikipedia strives first to inform and so may include spoilers, not all visitors will recognize this function, so some people will appreciate a spoiler notice. An article may contain analyses and background detail not available or at least not obvious in the work described. Where this is the case, some people feel a spoiler notice should be made prominent as a simple courtesy. Some WikiProjects, such as WikiProject Final Fantasy, have decided to limit use of this guideline.

"Readers should expect spoilers in the articles as that is common sense". Not when you're looking at an FF article. As they are quite comprehensive, there is a lot of information. People read the articles in FF for many reasons and not necessarily to find out plot twists or the way a game ends. Please answer me this: what is sooooo wrong with letting people know that a spoiler is ahead?
--Seraphim Whipp 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to express my opinion, and I know that not everyone will agree with me on this. You said it yourself, FF articles are "quite comprehensive", therefore one can expect to see spoilers. Your asking of a vague, rhetorical question does not refute my opinions. The obvious answer, there is nothing wrong with letting people know that a spoiler is ahead. A better question for you to ask should be "What is wrong with a spoiler warning?" which I can answer easily. As I've expressed, I feel that the reader should already know that there are going to be spoilers in the article, thus making the warning redundant, that is the only issue I have addressed in this section. Admittedly it isn't a reason to exclude them, but it is a rebuttal to your reason to include them. For reasons why they should be excluded, see my points in WP:FF Consensus above. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 21:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If I'm reading a section called "Plot", I expect it will spoil the plot. If it doesn't, I'm going to be disappointed. In general, I agree with the compromise posted below. Anomie 21:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on the spoiler logic, I'm sure it would be fine to use this warning:

Porn warning: Porn and/or curves follow.

I'll propose it if no one disagrees. --Teggles 00:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. — Deckiller 03:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hidden notes on pages

I feel that these hidden notes border on incivility. It might reflect poorly on us, because there is a difference between frankness and rudeness, and sometimes it's hard to walk that line (see any of my comments related to this issue; I'm not happy with them, but I felt it necessary). How should we rewrite them to kindly point new users or readers to this page and our manual of style, as well as the general CVG concept of case by case basis? — Deckiller 23:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

I've drawn up a compromise to this issue to prevent a large debate from ballooning. Please see the bottom of the page. — Deckiller 05:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Why have all of the FF character articles been moved?

List of Final Fantasy VIII characters was changed to Characters of Final Fantasy VIII because it includes development information, merchandise information, reception etc. But now all of the other ones have been renamed in the same suit; which should not have happened, they are still normal lists. Why did this happen? --Teggles 07:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

While what you say is correct, the uniformity introduced by the new title brings these articles into line. After all they all link to each other. Besides, Characters of Final Fantasy # doest actually mean anything other than List of Final Fantasy # Characters. Gavin Scott 21:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the moving; our eventual goal is to get all articles to at least GA status, so they will all have to be moved eventually anyway. Also, in the past, I've noticed users mistaking these character lists for something like, say, List of rock instrumentals. The two are not the same; the character "lists" are, more accurately, merged superarticles. — Deckiller 21:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If I can just say, I am sorry if my moving of all the articles has vexed anyone, but it was the direction we were going in. Gavin Scott 21:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hyphens and colons

There's been a slow moving pseudo edit war going on over the past few months about the article titles of the Compilation articles. The argument is over the use of colons and hyphens (e.g. "Before Crisis: Final Fantasy VII" or "Before Crisis -Final Fantasy VII-"). Basically, according to the WP:MOSTM, "follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment". According to User:SeizureDog, this entails removing the hyphens. However, it also stipulates "don't invent new formats", which is precisely what would be happening if one added an extra colon. I don't believe it would be too unreasonable to keep the hyphens in the article title (respecting Square Enix's copyright), while still "following standard English text formatting" within the article after mentioning the full title in the lead section (e.g., it would be referred to as "Dirge of Cerberus" instead of the full title "Dirge of Cerberus -Final Fantasy VII-", per WP:VG's style guidelines). I just thought I'd open up the discussion to the rest of WP:FF. Axem Titanium 21:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the colon looks much more professional and clean, but that's a personal opinion. — Deckiller 00:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally am inclined to using hyphens, but I feel that the guideline tends towards the use of colons. My reluctant vote: colons. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 00:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

But does it make sense not to "invent new formats" such as using a colon? Axem Titanium 02:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How is using a colon inventing a new format? It is simply using standard English. Kariteh 15:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Standard English doesn't involve adding colons where they don't exist. I would prefer "Before Crisis Final Fantasy VII" over adding a new colon. Axem Titanium 15:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, "standard English text formatting" rules include the usage of the colon to separate clauses within a sentence, as well as to separate a title from a subtitle. Both would seem to apply in this situation: the title of the game as presented by SE clearly intends the specific game title to be separated from "Final Fantasy VII," which explains the inclusion of the hyphens. They're using a nonstandard method of dividing the title, yes, but the title is clearly divided. The standard method would be to use a colon, not to remove the division entirely. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I realize consensus is against me and also that I don't care about the issue quite as much as I did when I first brought it up back in October. Anyway, if Square Enix's own preference and the fact that using hyphens in an article title doesn't hurt anyone don't convince you, then so be it. Axem Titanium 03:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I remember why I first brought this up. It was the case of Dirge of Cerberus Lost Episode, because it's just so weirdly titled. I'd like to come to a consensus about the title of this article before moving on. Axem Titanium 15:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that this hasn't been brought up in a while but I was just checking the talk topics for Crisis Core and Dirge of Cerberus, I just wanted to point out that whilst some people are chalking it up to Japanese fanboyism (in the Crisis Core talk page specifically), the English boxes for the games follow the same hyphonated rule (at least I know my European English box does for Dirge of Cerberus, still waiting for this month's European release of Crisis Core to check that). The press releases announcing the games for American and European formats also use this same format (DIRGE OF CERBERUS -FINAL FANTASY VII- and CRISIS CORE -FINAL FANTASY VII- to be precise), so wouldn't it make sense to adhere to the format established by the company as opposed to what is gramatically correct to us? Its a "brand name", it'd be like saying Ipod and Itunes instead of iPod and iTunes (not exactly the same I grant you, but *shrug*). Just my two cents worth anyway. TonyKM (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

How did FFVII cut the line for front page?

FFVI, FFVIII, FFX-2, and I believe Chrono Trigger all got FA before FFVII. --Sir Crazyswordsman 01:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Only Raul knows that one; I think he picked the "most popular". :-) — Deckiller 01:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Where do I bitch about this? --Sir Crazyswordsman 15:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Raul654, but it'd be a waste of your time, since the FA queue is pretty much done by whim. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can pull some strings, right? --Sir Crazyswordsman 22:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Pull some strings with whom? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Warnings: a compromise

I try not to be stubborn, and I try to know when to quit or realize that previous ArbCom decisions will result in a losing scenerio anyway. To keep this issue from turning into another Wikipedia-wide debate on a new battleground, I have drawn up an idea for a compromise. Hopefully, this will allow both the Final Fantasy WikiProject and those who feel that spoiler warnings need to be used in certain situations to walk away without stress.

• As it has been for the last year, the Final Fantasy WikiProject should not use spoiler warnings for sections or articles labeled as "plot", "story", or "appearences".
• Spoilers must be kept out of the lead sections of all articles, regardless if the tags are used later in the article. An exception is if the character is notable for the spoiler, or is influenced by that spoiler for the majority of the game. Case by case basis is key.
• Because all articles should have an out of universe perspective, spoilers will naturally be geared toward the end of the synopsis/appearences sections, which is why warnings are not necessary for those sections. The exception is setting sections, which are not spoiler-heavy anyway.
• Spoiler warnings should be used in articles where they are not already labeled by sections or article titles, such as Music, Gameplay, or Locations. One tag at the end of the lead section should be enough. However, not all of these articles require spoiler warnings; if a user expresses a need for a spoiler tag in one of these articles, it should be included unless a solid counterargument is given. For example, if the Music of Final Fantasy VII article mentions a certain character's death at the end of the first disk as one of the times in which a theme song plays, there should be a spoiler warning, as it is not expected.
• The in-line editors notes telling users not to add spoiler warnings to plot/story/appreances sections will be turned into polite statements, with an explanation of the rationale and a gesture to this talkpage or the project's style guide.

Thoughts on this compromise? — Deckiller 05:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. You could probably be even more strict/persuasive than that, and just avoid using the word "ban". -- Ned Scott 05:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay; I added a point to the fourth bullet at the end. — Deckiller 05:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Um. About no spoilers in the lead...

Aerith Gainsborough is most noted for being killed in Final Fantasy VII. I don't want to start Yet Another Pointless Aeris Spoiler Fight (although I DID start the last Yet Another How To Spell Her Goddamned Name Fuck It I'm Naming It The Final Fantasy VII Heroine Who Isn't Tifa fight), but what fact could possibly be more important to take from the Aeris article than the fact that she's in FFVII and dies halfway through? Darth Vader, while not the greatest article ever by any means, rightly mentions in the lead that Darth Vader is Luke's father. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I reworded that bit. — Deckiller 05:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

An unclosed spoiler tag encompassing everything in the article but the lead is certainly a... novel way of dealing with the issue. --PresN 05:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This compromise doesn't seem so much a compromise, as it does a clarification of what we were already doing at the beginning of the month. I still believe that the project consensus is against spoiler warnings in any form, and that we should follow the project consensus. I am voicing my disagreement, but I will follow this compromise if no one else objects to the compromise. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 19:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This compromise was not really sparked by the outside opinions above; a similar situation has been seen before with naming conventions, and has resulted in an ArbCom case. I'm not willing to waste time at ArbCom, especially since people might want to use it as a quick way to get rid of our opinions. — Deckiller 19:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts- I don't like spoiler tags at all. I see them as really unprofessional, no matter where they are used. Nevertheless, I agree that there is a reasonable assumption by readers that there will not be spoilers in sections that aren't named things like "plot" or "story", and that there will certainly not be spoilers in the lead. I see a different solution, however: not that we should use spoiler tags for spoilers in those sections, but that we shouldn't use spoilers in those sections, if it can be at all avoided. I know it's a pain, especially for big ones like Aerith Dies, but in most cases doable. If there's no way around it, I reluctantly agree that tags can be used (case-by-case basis, how'd that happen?). I also agree on the rewording of some of the "invisible" comments, as a few of them seem to be written by someone who had reverted a lot of tagging that week and were in a pissy mood about it. --PresN 05:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that they are unprofessional, but sadly, we're in the minority here, so we have no choice but to compromise now. — Deckiller 05:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I recently changed the "invisible" comment in Final Fantasy (video game)'s Plot section to reference this discussion, which may be useful as a starting point for a standard comment. The other comment there, BTW, reflects the consensus that the NES names should be used in the non-remake-specific sections of that article. Previously we had no consistency due to people editing in whatever name happened to be used in the remake they just played. Anomie 15:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Main character," "male/female protagonist," or "hero/heroine?"

I'm in the middle of a huge debate over what main characters should be called. What do you think they should be called? --Sir Crazyswordsman 22:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment:I think you could use protagonist or hero in articles it makes little difference. However,

Cloud Strife (クラウド・ストライフ, Kuraudo Sutoraifu?): The game's hero

Squall Leonhart (スコール・レオンハート, Sukōru Reonhāto?) is the main protagonist

Zidane Tribal (ジタン・トライバル, Jitan Toraibaru?) is the hero

Tidus (ティーダ, Tīda?) is the hero

As you can see, hero is used more often, I recomend you go with the majority in this debate. (Though, I wouldn't say main protagonist I would say primary protagonist.)Gavin Scott 23:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We've ruled out the hero/heroine one in numerous debates with an anon user named "Eileen". I'd say either of the first two would be fine. The Eileen user just refuses to go with consesus and she keeps on including the word "hero' in articles. It's POV and unencyclopedic. — Deckiller 23:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap! The person fighting with us is also Eileen! --Sir Crazyswordsman 23:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We've already surpressed her on numerous occasions. Plus, I've been lenient and haven't blocked her for the numerous times she's violated 3RR. I think it's time to steamroll. I know we're not a groupthink device, but there comes a time where policy is being upholded by all but one editor, so that one editor needs to stop having such a large say in stalling consensus. — Deckiller 23:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment — I've seen some of these debates, and the three primary reasons (that I've seen) that are argued to use "Hero" instead of "Protagonist" are 1) "Hero" is an easier/simpler word to use, 2) "Hero" describes the character as a person of great achievements which he surely is, and 3) "Protagonist" is an unknown word to the editor and thus must be not well known in general. On the first point, simplification is inappropriate when it does not preserve the exact concept of the more complex word. On the second point, that is entirely POV, is unattributable and is actually a reason why NOT to use the term "Hero". On the third point, ignorance of a word is no excuse to exclude it's usage, nor is it a reasonable to assume that everyone else is also ignorant of it just because you are. Bottom line, we are an encyclopedia, and we are not Simple English Wikipedia. If you want to change the word to be simpler and easier for you to understand, go edit there and not here. This encyclopedia is about making coverage complete and as clear as possible as long as it is not over-simplified. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 00:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm entirely against the use of "hero" and "heroine", I'll just have to correct you there. The argument isn't limited to those points. The manuals of Final Fantasy VII and VIII respectively refer to Cloud and Squall as heroes. --Teggles 03:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that those were the only points, but rather those were the points that I was aware of. I did not mean for my list to be all-inclusive. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 04:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment To be honest, I am very unsure on this topic. I can understand why hero could be used, but I also understand the reasons it shouldn't be. Is it point of view? I would disagree, in the case of Final Fantasy VII there is no debate that Cloud is the hero of the game, I think the real problem is people are against hero due to its connotations rather than its meaning.

According to the freedictionary, 4. The principal male character in a novel, poem, or dramatic presentation

Gavin Scott 10:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That's an incomplete definition. From www.dictionary.com:

1. a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.
2. a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal: He was a local hero when he saved the drowning child.
3. the principal male character in a story, play, film, etc.
4. Classical Mythology. a being of godlike prowess and beneficence who often came to be honored as a divinity.
5. Classical Mythology. (in the Homeric period) a warrior-chieftain of special strength, courage, or ability.
6. Classical Mythology. (in later antiquity) an immortal being; demigod.
7. hero sandwich.
8. the bread or roll used in making a hero sandwich.

"Protagonist," on the other hand:

1. the leading character, hero, or heroine of a drama or other literary work.
2. a proponent for or advocate of a political cause, social program, etc.
3. the leader or principal person in a movement, cause, etc.
4. the first actor in ancient Greek drama, who played not only the main role, but also other roles when the main character was offstage. Compare deuteragonist, tritagonist.
5. Physiology. agonist.

The difference is clear: the vast majority of the definitions for "Hero" refer to something far more POV than simply a main character. "Protagonist", on the other hand, ONLY refers to the NPOV main character concept. This is in accordance with their denotations NOT connotations. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 00:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Reply to NicholaiDaedalus- the leading character, hero, or heroine of a drama or other literary work.. So, the definition of Protagonist is hero? This is what the dictionary indicates. However, Protagonist according to wikipedia is- the central figure of a story...can be a hero or a villain. So, in trying to reach a conclusion (I havn't actually given my personal opinion) I recommend we do go with, protagonist as our lead in. However, for those who are unsure of what protagonist means (saving them the trouble of googling/googleing) should it not be hyperlinked to the wiki-article? Just for accessibility reasons. Gavin Scott 09:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• In addition: If the lead character of the game is called the protagonist then why is the lead female character called the primary female protagonist? This doesn't make sense, shouldn't Squall, in the case of FFVIII, be introduced as the primary male protagonist? Nay, I doubt any would favour that, instead I think that we should remove primary female protagonist and perhaps introduce the lead female as, if applicable the love intrest as that is what she usually is or not give her any special introduction at all.Gavin Scott 10:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

To your reply. As you no doubt know based on your posts, dictionaries are often unclear and subject to interpretation. My interpretation is that this definition is to be read as "either the leading character, OR the hero, OR the heroine" meaning that Hero and heroine are examples of a protagonist. This does not to me imply that the list is all-inclusive, and I see no reason that a villian cannot be included in the intent of that definition. I see nothing wrong with wiki-linking "Protagonist", and think that that's a harmless idea.

To your addition. I believe that that was an attempt to clarify the term "heroine" once the POV issue with "Hero" was brought up. Personally, I feel that "heroine" is most often associated with a love intereast than it is with a female hero, and see nothing wrong with using that term. However, I can easily see how someone can argue that it is as equally innappropriate as "hero". I don't like the phrase "primary male protagonist" because Squall is THE protagonist, no sense over-complicating his title. So by association, I don't like using "primary female protagonist" in conjunction with Squall's "protagonist". I second your idea and think that we should simply use "love interest." --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 19:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

M-m-m-monsters?

I could probably use my ever-expanding Final Fantasy XII bestiary to help write and improve articles or sections of articles about monsters. Or are monsters too minor to have their own articles? Shadow Scythe of Strongbadia?! 12:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Monsters are way too minor. Creatures of Final Fantasy only covers the monsters seen in the most games (like Cactaur, etc), and even that is borderline notability for Wikipedia. You might be interested in helping the bestiaries at the Final Fantasy Wiki though. — Deckiller 14:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Dang. I can never find anything to contribute to on Wikipedia. Oh, except Bomberman Quest. Maybe I should go ahead and do that. Shadow Scythe of Strongbadia?! 22:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Listen to what Deck says. We NEED your help over at Wikia. --Sir Crazyswordsman 16:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Articles: Game Covers

I was thinking, maybe the Final Fantasy games should have their japanese game covers in the articles (In replacement of the mostly US covers) As this keeps consistency, in all of the articles and also the consistency of the games japanese origins. Just asuggestion that I had in mind, what do you think? Keyblade Wielder 10:44, 24 March 2007 (AWST)

I'd like to point you to a discussion above. Axem Titanium 03:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Current results of Article Improvement Drive

I just passed Final Fantasy II for GA, which means that every single main final fantasy, as well as Adventures and Mystic Quest, are now GA or higher. Our featured topic is looking pretty good right about now. Speaking of Featured Topics, with Characters of Final Fantasy VIII almost certainly to pass FAC, and Rinoa Heartilly up at GAC, it wouldn't take much to make a Final Fantasy VIII featured topic pretty soon. FF8 and characters would be FA, Squall and Rinoa GA, which leaves Music of Final Fantasy VIII and Chocobo World in the template as B-class. I know everyone's busy with projects like pushing FFXII to FA and improving the other "characters" articles to match FF8's, but it's something to think about. Good job to everyone who helps out this project, good luck to the people working on FFXII right now, and a big thanks to Deckiller, who with his GA nom of FF2 and his FAC of chars of FF8, will have significantly contributed to 7 FAs and 8 GAs, with a 9th coming. --PresN 17:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles has yet to reach the GA status; it even has a big Clean-Up template at the top of its page. But I guess it's not a main FF. Kariteh 18:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks PresN, although everyone has conributed to make this possible. Ouch, that one does need a lot of work. Perhaps before we get into improving all the gameplay subarticles and after the CharFF8 FAC, the FFXII FAC, and the FF8 FTC, perhaps we should focus our attentions on getting all the titles to GA? — Deckiller 23:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Out of those titles remaining to get GA/FA status, the only one I've played significantly is Tactics. I might be able to help out with that. — Deckiller 23:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Bold proposal

This is a bold proposal, but it will only take 10-15 minutes of effort. I propose we merge the article Locations in Spira into Spira (Final Fantasy X). My rationale is that the games with significant out of universe sources available - 7 through 12 - really only need one setting subarticle. A subarticle for a subarticle seems excessive, especially with today's standards. Both are excellent works, so it should only make the core stronger by performing this merge. Of course, we can (and probably should, in my opinion) save this and the other setting articles until after the main articles reach maximum status. — Deckiller 00:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this as being all that bold, in the sense that it could take a bit of work, but it makes perfect sense! Gavin Scott 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The only problem I can see is that they are both reasonable sized articles, so merging would require reducing the amount of content, which may dissadvantage readers. Mattyatty 18:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it could also serve as a means to preserve only the most necessary information, which is what an encyclopedia should do. We can take the full sections to the Wikia and provide an external link. I saw an editor flag one of the articles for some WP:WAF issue a few weeks back, and that's what got me thinking. — Deckiller 22:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Logic of the FF series template

Unreleased games don't belong in the template... but then why does Ivalice Alliance appear in it? No game or this collection has been released yet. Kariteh 20:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Now it doesn't. You can still get to it with the "Others" link, which is why it exists in the first place. --PresN 21:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for having removed it. Kariteh 14:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Need some help with the FFVI article

Someone added some tags that say the article needs sources. (specifically, the Localization section and the GBA section). I'm looking for sources from around the web, and I need help finding and adding them. I also think that much of this is trivial anyway, and should be removed from the article. --Sir Crazyswordsman 16:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That was me, in case you didn't know. I added it, because some sections do not cite its references or sources. So, please, cite your sources for FFVI. Sjones23 21:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of it's finished now. I just need a source where someone says something about character lengths. Woolsey interviews may have the source. --Sir Crazyswordsman 05:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you all hear that? If sources when someone says something about character lengths for the FFVI article, that will be totally appreciated! I quote from Sir Crazyswordsman that "Woolsey interviews may have the source." Sjones23 20:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If I can't find the source in a week, I'm going to remove that sentence. I won't let my prized work die. --Sir Crazyswordsman 22:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And speaking of the FFVI article

I found a "Masters' Guide" which is what Ultimania used to be called, for FFVI. I don't know why we don't have articles on these or at least mention them in the Ultimania article. --Sir Crazyswordsman 22:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can find some info on it to add, that would be great! Axem Titanium 02:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically, what these are are called "Final Fantasy Settei Siryou," (or "Final Fantasy creation material.") and these are the actual name for Ultimanias. Ultimania is in no way unique to the Sony FF games, to FF in general, or to Square in general. I don't have anymore FFVI info, but Here is an FFIV one in the process of being translated. It looks really cool. I think this just MIGHT be the thing that allows us to bring other FFIV topics into Featured status (the article already is). Even if you don't find anything useful, it's still a great read. Enjoy! --Sir Crazyswordsman 05:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

FFVIII Featured Topic and "World of" articles?

For anyone who hasn't seen yet, Final Fantasy VIII has a FTC here. Anyway, a current point of contention is the necessity of a "World of" type of article as Deckiller mentioned. This hypothetical article would replace the "List of foo locations" articles by converting it into an article with out-of-universe perspective. Personally, I really like the idea but I'm a little worried about sources. On the other hand, I think all the other FF articles should follow FFVIII's template of having a "Characters of" and "Music of" supplement articles. Anyway, I digress. Are we up for a "World of" article? Axem Titanium 02:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have one in the sandbox right now User:Deckiller/World of Final Fantasy VIII to see if enough material can be gathered. — Deckiller 02:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Argh, I thought now was too early for a Featured Topic Candidate. I'd like to see Music of Final Fantasy VIII featured article and World of Final Fantasy VIII good article. Right now I'm considering to vote against the FTC. Let's observe what we have: 2 FAs and 3 GAs. It doesn't sound very substantial for an FTC. --Teggles 11:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

To add to that, I've found a very good official interview that could help A LOT with the "creation and influence" section in Music of Final Fantasy VIII (which has yet to be created...). After that there needs to be a compact of the albums (remove those ugly infoboxes), a "sheet music" section, and a "legacy" section (with things like concerts etc.). I plan to do this myself, I probably won't, but I'll attempt it. --Teggles 12:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Many featured topics do not even have all their articles at GA status. 2 FAs and 3 GAs is actually very good for a featured topic. More work can obviously be done to get the GAs to A-class or FA-class (for example, the star wars episodes FT and even our own final fantasy FT), but it's already met the criterion for FT quite well. Also, a lot of featured topics add subarticles as they are created or improved (the Final Fantasy titles FT is a good example). — Deckiller 13:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting how you wanted to do FFVIII before Ivalice. Ivalice is probably much easier. I think Ivalice should be our next target. --Sir Crazyswordsman 14:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Ivalice may be able to be upgraded to a Good Article given the exposure it receives on FFXII and even the Ivalice Alliance series. Bluerです。 ^なにか? 08:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Are "Compilation of FFVII," "Fabula Nova Crystallis FFXIII," and "Ivalice Alliance" series?

(copy-pasted from User talk:Kariteh#Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy XIII)

I question the addition of Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy XIII as a series to the Final Fantasy XIII, Final Fantasy Versus XIII and Final Fantasy Agito XIII. Fabula Nova Crystallis is not a series; in essence it is just a collection of games formed around a common mythos. Final Fantasy VII, for example, doesn't list the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII as a "series", even though it includes many spinoffs, and I don't see why FFXIII should either. If Fabula Nova Crystallis is linked to in the first couple of paragraphs of any given article it covers, that would be perhaps more helpful than listing it as a series. --EvilReborn [会話]

We have to consider these things from an out-of-universe perspective. FFVII doesn't list CoFFVII as a series (and I didn't add it myself to the infobox) because FFVII simply is not part of CoFFVII, and neither are FFVII Snowboarding and Maiden Who Travels The Planet. Even though they are all part of the Final Fantasy series and are related to FFVII. As for Fabula Nova Crystallis, isn't "a collection of games formed around a common mythos" precisely what a series is at the very least, if it's what the creators state (regardless of the presence or absence of storyline connections between the games)? The creators of the games are the ones who decide what's part or not of a series, and the storyline connections are often not considered. For instance FFAdventure is part of both the FF and the Seiken Densetsu series (while Secret of Mana is only part of the SD series).

In any case, I'm going to copy-paste this on the WP:FF talk page, since if it has to be discussed, it has to be discussed with everyone. Kariteh 14:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem here? Please don't tell me we're going to be arguing about the semantics of the word "series". Axem Titanium 11:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is that EvilReborn questioned the addition of Fabula Nova Crystallis as a series to the infoboxes of the FFXIII/etc. articles. I put this stuff here for people to read in case someone were to revert the edits and say that FNC is not a series. But if no one disagree that FNC, Compilation of FFVII, etc. are series, then alright there's no problem. Kariteh 16:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you define a series? "Final Fantasy" is a series, and yet the games are even less like each other than Fabula Nova Crystallis. "Seiken Densetsu" is a series, and yet their games are as different from each other as "Final Fantasy." The word "series" is very vague, and operates on subjective levels. For example, the book The Legend of Huma is part of the Heros series, which in turn is part of the Dragonlance series, which in turn is part of the Dungeons and Dragons series. The heroes series is a collection of stories that are related to each other. The Dragonlance series is a collection of stories that are unrelated to each other, but take place on the same world. The Dungeons and Dragons series is a collection of books that are unrelated, take place on different worlds, but all hold to a common mythos and theme. Just because they aren't sequels/prequels doesn't mean it can't be a series. I can name several examples off the top of my head that refute such a rule: The Dragonlance series I just described, The Xanth series (since book 10, 1-9 were sequels), The Alfred Hitchcock Presents series, Boogiepop Phantom, The Star Trek series (just try and tell me that DS9 and Voyager are related beyond the basic technology/mythos, I dare you!), the Tales from the Crypt series, etc. The list just keeps going. Obviously, a collection of games based around a common mythos can very well be a "series". --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If the only issue is whether or not the "Fabula Nova Crystallis FFXIII" page should be linked in the infobox, then the answer is a resounding "yes". Axem Titanium 21:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it shouldn't, as no games have been released in the series, though I agree with Nicholai's point. --PresN 05:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Released or not, they are still part of the series. FNC should absolutely appear as the listed (and linked) series in the infobox of the XIII articles. Perhaps you were thinking of the Navigation Box (in which it shouldn't)? --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 14:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was definitely thinking of the wrong box. Silly me. Yes, Fabula blah blah should appear in the series section of the FF13 infobox, as it is in fact a series, and one that FF13 is a part of. --PresN 22:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Summons article

Final Fantasy Summons. ...déjà-vu. Kariteh 09:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This looks familiar, again, and again, and again. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 15:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone deleted and salted it, so we'll finally have no more of that. --PresN 16:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the salted article redirect to Final Fantasy magic#Summoning magic instead? This would be more useful than that cold, empty page. Kariteh 19:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that anyone can change a redirect into an article thus repeating history, and salting and protecting should prevent that from happening. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 20:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I know, but I was suggesting about having the Final Fantasy Summons page be a redirection and also be a salted/protected page. It is possible to do this, isn't it? Kariteh 20:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

But what if we change the name of the Final Fantasy Magic page? Then a protected redirect would cause problems, wouldn't it? It is an interesting idea, though. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 21:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed. — Deckiller 22:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

FFXIII

User:Movellon keeps putting up this unconfirmed piece of news about FFXIII not exclusive to PS3. I've reverted basically two edits, not going to do it again. He's also violated the 3RR rule. Bluerです。 ^なにか? 19:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

When you sense a revert war, try to invite them to the talk pages in the edit summary, and start the dialogue yourself. I've put in a compromise, hopefully it will make both parties happy. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 20:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow, never thought of that. Thanks for clearing it up. Bluerです。 ^なにか? 20:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)