Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Square Enix/archive/8

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Square Enix
Latest comment: 13 years ago by PresN in topic Project idea


Wait a second

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

World of Final Fantasy VIII was merged, but Gaia (Final Fantasy VII) remains intact, merely because it describes the setting of FF7 in excruciating detail? This strikes me as setting a bad precedent; Gaia should be merged with FF7, or World of FF8 should return as a sub-article. I think it's also interesting to note that World of FF8 featured a greater balance of out-of-universe content, despite covering less material. If there was consensus to merge that article, then I would assume such consensus should exist for FF7 as well.

The anticipated counterargument of using the page as a unifying plot summary for the series is potentially rendered obsolete by the existence of Compilation of Final Fantasy VII page. — Deckiller 00:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Spira (Final Fantasy) should also be merged given the latest trends and norms; most of the content and creation can be explained/is already explained in the two parent articles, and the setting/plot is summarized in the respective articles. It's only dealing with two games, after all. — Deckiller 00:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I personally would be fine with removing the Gaia article, and perhaps cutting away the unnecessary details and merging important aspects into some other articles. Currently, it really isn't much more than a summary of Gaia. It will only grow longer as more games are created. At this point, there isn't substantial out-of-universe information on the page, and everything noteworthy should be covered elsewhere. The same appears to be true for Spira. The problem with many FF games is that a lot of concept information is released, but it often pertains more to characters or the information is minor enough that an entire paragraph containing it would be very choppy. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. Even as creator of the World of FF8 article, I know how difficult it can be to create encyclopedic articles on game settings. With Ivalice, it works because it's a common thread used in multiple different settings. I believe that uncontested merge late last year sets an important precedent; even I never got around to objecting to it. Heck, I created it exclusively to demonstrate how to write an encyclopedic setting article/push for a DYK feature. — Deckiller 00:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps an AFD discussion would be appropriate in this case. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I am opening up a discussion on whether Spira should be merged here. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I think a lot of the universe articles could be expanded with encyclopedic information if the developers' interviews were translated:
Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't think there's anybody either here or at WP:VG that reads Japanese. You've done a great job finding all of those, but I worry that they'll never be used. As to these two articles, I reluctantly agree to their destruction. There was some potential there, but both of them are about 99% sourced to in-game quotes or Ultimanias- i.e. first party sources. There's nothing there to indicate any sort of third-party interest or notability as to the worlds themselves. World of FFVIII was a much better article, and since we decided that it wasn't good enough to stay around, these should go too. --PresN 22:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding biased (as I wrote the article), I don't think it was merged because it wasn't good enough; a few people seemed to feel it was unnecessary. A big part of me wants to restore that article and maybe find a bit more information to keep people from feeling it can be summed up in the parent article. Those translations would probably be enough to expand the setting development section by two or three paragraphs. Additional reception information would be easy to come by. — Deckiller 00:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe one of the issues is that all the reception is directed at the game's graphics rather than the actual world of the story. I think it won't be that easy to find more significant reception information, because the world of FFVIII is less distinctive than, say, the odd crossover Universe of Kingdom Hearts which is distinctive regardless of the graphics of the games. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

We've got a serious situation here...

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Childrenpokemon (talk · contribs) has made a false claim that Kingdom Hearts is adults only in Japan and changed the CERO ratings from "A" to "Z" in these examples shown here. I have swiftly reverted them, but to prevent an edit war from going on here, I am taking this issue to the talk page here. I believe this account might be compromised, since this user does constructive editing and non-constructive editing back to back. The user also did test editing on Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories by adding in the CERO rating to it, and removing it as indicated in the article's history page. Is the series adult-only or not? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that serious. :p Obvious troll. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and also the user was engaging in disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, which will not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but no point getting worked up about it- it's easy to revert, and so obviously untrue that there's no need to waste time worrying about it. I'll keep an eye on him- good test of my new admin powers if it goes too far. --PresN 21:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you may have to use your new, already tested tools as a preventative (not punative) measure for a variety of editors in extreme cases. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 22:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Characters of Final Fantasy XIII

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

PresN has left a message on my talkpage regarding an article on Characters of Final Fantasy XIII (it can be found here. At his suggestion, I moved it from my sandbox (redirected it of course) since it is substantial enough to be an article, and I have trimmed the plot section in FFXIII also from my sandbox. Any editing assistance on this article should be very much appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XIII GA push (x2)

Latest comment: 13 years ago18 comments3 people in discussion

Related to the above section, I'm going to start working on the Final Fantasy XIII article with a mind to push it to GA. It's really not too far away right now, I think, and the spike of editing/vandalism that happened after the game was released has mostly vanished. This is a call for other members of the project to help out! I know Sjones will be there, as he's been working on the article for a while now and has gotten the bulk of the work done, so the rest of WP:SE should come on by as well. --PresN 06:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, does anyone know where I can find a game script for FF13? I'd like to use some quotes for the plot section. --PresN 21:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The plot section, especially the story needs to be trimmed. The plot isn't exactly the most complex nor is it long. (in fact it was criticized for that in part) Lots of more complex games have a much shorter plot. As it stands, I would oppose it on the missing numerous critiera (specifically 1a, 2c (although there isn't much), 3b, 6a and 6b. That said, it is still much better than the last time i checked it out.陣内Jinnai 06:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The problem with the story is not that it is complicated, but that it doesn't make any sense/isn't easily compressible. (seriously- I can come up with reasonable reasons why they attack Orphan at the end, but none that are actually stated in the game script.) Trying to shorten it ends up with a muddled mess. I'm going to have to cut out some minor characters, I think- there's a sweet spot at two paragraphs that works well, and one at 5 long ones where it is now that works sort of, but I'd prefer 4 short ones. The PSICOM dude/dudette will probably have to go, as they don't really affect anything more than a faceless organization would. (Kind of how I hacked apart FF2 and FF4's plot for that GAN- there are a bunch of minor characters that don't exist in our summaries now.) As per the GA criteria- yeah, the prose needs some more going over (1a) and I need to find a lot of refs (2c), parts of it certainly stray into wayyyy too much detail still (3b) and I haven't touched images yet (6a/b). Like I said, any help is welcome- it's a big article, plenty of room for collaboration. That said- Sjones, I know you spent a lot of time on shortening the plot and characters sections, so I apologize if I accidentally run roughshod over your changes. Feel free to revert anything you don't like. --PresN 07:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I made it to 4 big paras; how's that? If you think it's still too much, please tell me what to cut. --PresN 07:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Well part of the problem is the prose. I did some minor copyediting and condensed the space it took up. The other problem is there is just too much detail. Take Chrono Trigger (after it kept its FA) which is easily given its multiple endings a more complex game than this. There isn't a lot of unnessasary detail like listing what type of settlment a place is. Ie, no "city of XXX" just "XXX". The other thing is that it doesn't bother with unnessarry detail like who captured Snow (in this edit) as its not relevant. What is relevant is who he meets and where.陣内Jinnai 16:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'll follow that thread through with the rest of the section. Thank a bunch, I've never been very good at plot sections- I try to keep it small, but it always gets away from me. --PresN 17:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
As for the setting and characters section, do they need to include development material (for example, see the setting and characters section of Final Fantasy XII and Final Fantasy X)? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
No, Characters and Setting are subsections of Plot, so they should only have the in-universe information. The development information for the characters/setting should be in the development section. Speaking of which... right now we have dev info for Lightning and... Fang, which seems out of place. Can you find any dev info/pull it from your characters article for the cast as a whole? The dev section needs to be rewritten, as it's suffering from "people adding everything they can find 1 sentence at a time before the game is released" syndrome ("PAETCFOSAATBTGIS syndrome"). Right now it's taking 4 paragraphs to convey maybe 2 paragraphs of relevant information.
Actually, that was kind of the problem with every section of this article, wasn't it? They're all over-inflated and wordy- the character section alone was long enough to be its own article before it was replaced. Maybe that's why I'm having such a hard time of it- usually I work on articles that are scantily filled out, not stuffed with trivia. --PresN 22:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
For the characters, I'll see what I can do. Meanwhile, most of the the relevant devel info from most of the articles (i.e. FFIX and FFX) have been moved to the development section. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Would this source do for character development? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks great to me; site is professional and is owned by Imagine Publishing. It's a bit of a fluff piece, but there's a few good quotes and obviously for characters we need every scrap of development info we can find. --PresN 07:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

All right. With our efforts in improving this article, can we nominate it for GAN when we have the chance to do so? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll do it soon, I've been plugging away at it. Finally snagged a copy of the post-mortem Toriyama gave to Game Developer. Still need to do some more cleanup passes, rewrite the lead, and get some more cites in the plot section, but it should be up sometime this week if I don't get bogged down at work. --PresN 05:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Or tonight. Tonight is this week. Now at GAN. --PresN 09:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is now at GA class. Thanks to everyone for all the effort in improving this article. I've also listed it at peer review here to ask for suggestions this article might need before we nominate it for FAC. As for the Characters of Final Fantasy XIII article, which is currently at start class, might have to be expanded and improved on in order to attain GA status. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for listing at PR, that was the next step. It's feeling pretty solid, so with some improvements and a good copy-edit I was planning on taking it to FAC. --PresN 05:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, this is the project's 100th GA, FA, or FL! Err... again. but we're back over 100, is the point! Keep writing new classy articles! --PresN 05:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Voice Fantasy?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just wondering if there is a person out there working on a Voice Fantasy article? if not, i found a few things. the official site [1], a few other sources [2], [3], and some reviews [4], [5], [6]. I'm not entirely sure all of these are reliable sources but i hope it can help.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

January 2011 Roll Call

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments11 people in discussion

Please sign with four tildes if you are still with us.

  1. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  2. PresN 09:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  3. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  4. The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  5. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  6. Bread Ninja (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  7. Holiday break winding down. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 21:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  8. back from holidays.陣内Jinnai 23:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  9. January is exams month. Probably won't see much of me. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  10. Ost (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  11. its on my watchlist so i occasionally pay attention Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

So...

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

XIV, anyone? I haven't played it either, but I don't see why that should matter. --PresN 19:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried to do a little by removing the crufty class list; however, it was reverted, and is being discussed here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Odd template

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

found this template Template:Final Fantasy character. It seemed to have a lot of fictional information that seems a lil out of place for a infobox. I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts to it. such as changes and all.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Huh. That's...weird. Really weird. Looks like it's used to "standardize" the Fictional Information section of the regular VG character infobox... except that it doesn't, as it has eight fields and its users seems to fill out a different 2 for each article. Frankly, I'd delete it, as I don't think that fictional information belongs in the infobox. Other people's thoughts? --PresN 16:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 5#Template:Final Fantasy character is up for deletion.陣内Jinnai 21:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Main template

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Template:Final Fantasy series: Looks like the sub-section for FNC is getting a little unwieldy. Should we split it off a la FFVII, FFX, and Ivalice? Axem Titanium (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

i dont think so, some of them are part of the main series.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I pulled some extraneous 'Final Fantasy's, but 7 article's isn't too many. Wish there was a way to get them on one line while still indicating that the characters and music articles only relate to FF13 itself. --PresN 20:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Came up with something, how does that look? --PresN 20:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks cooler, but i think FF13 will eventually have to have it's own template considering there are two other spin offs that might end up having another character and music section. it just takes one more game though. I think it's fine how it is now though.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:Square Enix and Dragon Quest

Latest comment: 13 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#WP:Square Enix and Dragon Quest. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

A point has been raised in that thread that I think would be better answered here: there are a few articles that are on the edge of our scope, and we should decide whether or not to include them in this project. Specifically, there are some remakes of games that SE has done, where the original game was not made by Square/SE. We're currently including Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together in this project, but not Star Ocean: Second Evolution. Should we include both? Neither? Additionally, there is Deus Ex: Human Revolution, which Eidos is making but the FMVs are made by SE- does that one count? --PresN 23:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I would have to say any series that isn't directly involved with Square enix shouldn't be added. Deus Ex: Human revolution is part of a series, and is the only game published by Square enix in the series(unlike dragon quest) unless they were officially announced as part of the development. Tactics Orge: Let Us Cling Together is much difficult for me to decide, but i would put it in our scope just to be safe. As for Star Ocean: Second Evolution, it appears that the original game was published by enix, the remake was both developed by and published by Square enix. so it should be added to SE's scope. But i really don't think the article is notable enough to be split, as it's a remake. and seems to have alot of the information on in-universe. I suggest we just merge the two so it can be easier to put in our scope.Bread Ninja (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
After some time thinking, i thought of a simpler way to solve this problem. i think the rule should be:
Specifically, the project supports all articles that cover anything that Square, Enix, or Square Enix designed or produced. It does not cover articles covering items only published by Square, Enix, or Square Enix, and it does not cover articles related to Square Enix's wholly owned subsidiaries Taito and Eidos, which were bought in 2005 and 2009, respectively, as their domains are too large and distinctive to be included in this project's scope. However other games that were published by Square Enix not developed by Eidos or Taito may be included depending on the history between the given series and Square Enix
It may not sound very smooth, but i think this will allow games such as Star Ocean, that were developed by tri-Ace but have consistently been published by Enix (and later Square Enix), to be added into the scope without many problems. That and it doesn't serve much justice to make one game enter the scope, i say either the whole series or not at all.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The biggest question would be the Ogre Battle series.陣内Jinnai 15:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
"That and it doesn't serve much justice to make one game enter the scope" -> Why? Just because it is or isn't in the project doesn't mean editors can't make the articles of the series consistent in style. Remember, wikiprojects are just tools for Wikipedia editors. For the actual readers, it shouldn't make a difference whether Tactics Ogre: TKOL is in a specific wikiproject or not in it. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
ok what are you talking about? from the looks of it, you're agreeing with me.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I just think one game developed by square enix doesn't mean much in this project if the entire series was developed and published by other groups. but then again another remake was published by square enix...so i suppose it's harder than it looks.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to remind everyone that we don't have to include articles that are on the edge of our scope if we don't want to- this is our wikiproject, we can define the scope to be whatever we want. We could leave it as it is and just add (or not) Dragon Quest, we could say that it is just FF, KH, Chrono, and DQ, we can add or remove all instances of Ogre and Star Ocean, etc. Bring in things if you think people are going to work on them. --PresN 17:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
While that's true, to play the devil's advocate, this will certainly be the natural location for many of the titles not currently under the scope. Dragon Quest is a good example here. It's certainly more welcoming to new people with a slightly broader, but still clearly defined, scope that may contribute to the current articles and also others and enhance the Wikiproject overall.陣内Jinnai 16:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Star Ocean is different than OGre Battle. a lil more similar to DQ.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there's a better way of doing things. like if a certain series wasn't developed by Square Enix but they still hold the rights. For example, Final Fantasy Legends: Hikari to Yami no Senshi.

EDIT: Basically any game developed by Matrix SoftwareBread Ninja (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well let's look at where there seems to be general agreement on. Titles published under SE's subsidiaries of Taito and Eidos seem to be an agreement that this project doesn't handle and see if we can try working from there. FE: We could exclude any of its subsidaries' subsidiaries. We could also exclude Digital Entertainment Academy Co. Ltd. and UIEvolution because they are not under the Square-Enix brand.陣内Jinnai 21:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok How about Matrix Software? Co-developed games for Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy. I think anything made by Matrix Software and published by Square enix (without being developed by square enix) can be added. And of course tri-Ace and tri-Crescendo that have made Valkyrie Profile and Star Ocean. in fact I've seen a Valkyrie Profile game on square enix site once. I don't remember star ocean though.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What to include

Latest comment: 13 years ago61 comments5 people in discussion

Alright, this is getting a bit complicated. More complicated than when it started, in fact! I'm going to break it up into yes/no questions in order to give this some structure, have us all !vote yes or no on them, and then once we're done we can try to piece together a coherent scope statement. So, please state whether you think the following should be included or not included under this wikiproject. Feel free to add on new sections! Whenever I say titles, assume that it includes non-games published by that entity as well and associated character/gameplay articles as well. --PresN 22:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Titles developed by Square/Enix/Square Enix itself

Titles developed by Taito prior to being acquired

Titles developed by Taito after being acquired that are not part of series developed beforehand

Title developed by Eidos prior to being acquired

Titles developed by Eidos after being acquired (aka Square Enix Europe) that are not part of series developed beforehand

Titles developed by Square Enix Europe's (formerly Eidos) subsidiaries

Titles published by Enix/Square Enix where Enix/SE had a hand in shaping development (aka Dragon Quest)

Titles published by Enix/Square Enix where E/SE was well-known as the publisher (aka Star Ocean)

Titles in series run by SE that are developed by other companies (aka Matrix Software, spinoffs, remakes)

  • Yes. I honestly don't see this being a problem- we were already including remakes that were made by 3rd parties without thinking about it. A Final Fantasy game doesn't drop out of our scope just because Matrix made it. --PresN 22:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • yes. i brought it up so that all doubt with dragon quest would be gone.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral here. I can see where this could get into some dangerously murky waters. I mean would we be covering a doujin game using FF characters if it met the GNG? Should we be covering FF7 famicom?陣内Jinnai 07:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: the famicom version has not been remade officially. it's not recognized as an official remake. neither published nor developed by Square Enix. Overall, Square Enix has to still be involved with it. with that i would hope this allows Valkyrie Profile. but not entirely sure if it can.Bread Ninja (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes. FFVII Famicom not being remade has nothing to do with anything. As PresN said, we already include 3rd-party remakes in the project, so FFVII Famicom is included. See also Chrono Resurrection -- not an SE title, but clearly a title in an SE series (its unofficial and cancelled status has no bearing on this objective fact), so it's been included in the project. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • that's not what i'm saying. obviously it was made as a remake. And what third-party remake compares to ff7 famicom?Bread Ninja (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Then I don't know what you're saying. I personally am just agreeing with PresN in saying that "titles in series run by SE that are developed by other companies", like FFIII DS (developed by Matrix) or FFVII Famicom (developed by some ShenZhen Nanjing Technology) or Chrono Resurrection (developed by Resurrection Games), should be included in the project. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
      • But Square Enix had a role in those remakes. thats not the case with ff7 famicom. there are no ties with square enix other than the fact that it's a remake of a game that square enix has made. you can't just say square enix is invovled without proving it.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
        • So what about non-remakes that meet the GNG? There are tons of doujin out there and i'm sure eventually one of them could meet the GNG.陣内Jinnai 19:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
        • If they aren't involved, they game can't be run by square enix. even if it's a remake to the game they made. thats like saying Dead fantasy is run by square enix. it's not. It could make it into our cope, but dojin is a little odd to say, I personally wouldn't put it in our scope as it's much different from other titles released under square enix, because there is no third-party involvement what-so-ever. IF we do add it in, i suggest we give some mention to it in the guideline. that and it doesn't seem to be a regular thing on wikipedia. if we saw a constant fan-based media out there, then i would say yes. but this to me seems like it wont matter if we do or don't add it in. Note: just because it's in our navbox template doesn't mean it has to fall into SE scope.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Remakes made by SE of titles that are not in the scope themselves (aka Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together)

  • Only for articles on the remakes themselves. That means the remake article of TO if there is one or if its part of the main article of TO we cover it. If there are 2 articles, we don't cover the original. This is how it works with other WikiProjects already. FE: when I merged all the School Rumble games into the main article, WP:VG moved its scope there and even when it was clear the section wasn't going to get large or changed to deal with some non-video game related stuff, my attempts to remove the banner were reverted because it was felt the article had enough influence in the project with just 1 section in the article. Therefore a remake of a game, which may have only 1 section, is just as - if not moreso - valid that we cover it.陣内Jinnai 07:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok I'm sure that is wrong.....if it's too small then i doubt we can put it in our scope. that's like putting an article within a manga wikiproject just because there's a manga adaptation in the related media section. no no no no. School Rumble barely mentions a video game. WP:VG cannot cover that article and put FA rank under the standards of VG. that has to be removed. not even a section dedicated to it. But back on topic....I say it depends on different it is from the original, if it's an enhanced remake, i suppose. but if gameplay is the same. i wouldn't bother too much entering in the scope just to cover a section.it has to be sourced, adding various different aspects the original didn't have. i rather not, i would like to see if they own the rights to the entire series or so.Bread Ninja (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Summary and definition

Latest comment: 13 years ago33 comments7 people in discussion

Alright! I think that worked out well. That's pretty much everyone who's going to comment about this, I think- it's all of the above participants. So!

What we agreed to include: All titles developed by Square, Square Enix, and Enix (yes, I know that's nothing); All titles in series made by SE Europe after its name was made that (currently: none); Spinoffs/remakes/related by 3rd-party developers (gray areas should probably be brought up here first).

What we agreed to not include: Taito titles (ever), Eidos pre-merger titles/series, Eidos' subsidiaries' titles

What we're hazy on: Titles published by Enix/SE, remakes of games not in the scope otherwise by SE.

For remakes: I say no, Bread Ninja wants only enhanced remakes, Jinnai and Jonathan say yes. I'd say that this goes as yes, but edge cases should be brought up here for discussion.

For published titles: Well, this was always the sticky bit. I think Jonathan has a good point- in practice this is going to get super-subjective as to when Enix was "involved" and when they weren't. As such, lets just go all the way!

I propose that our scope statement be the following:

Specifically, the project supports all articles that cover anything that Square, Enix, or Square Enix designed or produced. It does not cover articles related to Square Enix's wholly owned subsidiaries Taito and Eidos, but does include titles in new series developed by Square Enix Europe. While in general it does not cover articles covering items that Square, Enix, or Square Enix only published, by consensus it does include the video game series X, Y, and Z as they are associated with the Square Enix brand.

If we're cool with that, we need to decide what "series X, Y, and Z" are. I say it's just Dragon Quest. The other options that seem to crop up above and in the WT:VG disucssion are: Star Ocean and Ogre Battle. Star Ocean has always been published by Enix/SE (except in Europe). SE published the North American (but not Japanese) version of Ogre Battle: The March of the Black Queen and some of its Playstation remake (but not all, or the other remakes), developed/published the remake of Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together (but not the original), and had nothing to do with Ogre Battle: Legend of the Zenobia Prince, Ogre Battle 64: Person of Lordly Caliber, or Tactics Ogre: The Knight of Lodis. As such, I don't see how Ogre Battle can count at all. Do we want Star Ocean, then, is really the question. Not "does it fit?", but "do we want it?". Comment away, and feel free to mention other series. --PresN 19:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Square enix involvement with Star Ocean is pretty close to Dragon quest. I suggest we add it. On another note, could we consider Valkyrie Profile aswell?Bread Ninja (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with PresN's summation. With respect to Ogre Battle series, I would say that since it's developed by Yasumi Matsuno, who we can call a "Square Enix person", and so it's ok to retroactively include his older works, at least in this particular grey-area case. But in my opinion, at the end of the day, it's up to we members of this project to be actually interested in developing these articles. Hypothetically, I could work on Star Ocean and come to you guys and say "hey, it's vaguely related to SE, will you guys help me copy-edit and stuff?" You'd be hard pressed to say "no way", and thus, our scope would organically expand to include Star Ocean. The above scope is good and I think we should intentionally keep the fringe vague for now so in the future, if someone is interested, they can feel open to come to us for help on it. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I do think its being a bit narrow with Enix titles since this is going to be the main place people will get directed toward (other than WP:VG) to ask about those titles. I understand the apprehension with Ogre Battle series, but as its basically the same team who worked on FFT I don't see too much of an issue. IMO if a title has been solely published by Enix/Square/SE unless it was published by the console company (Nintendo for a Nintendo game or Sony for a PS game) in US or Japan (sorry Europe you don't have much to offer), then it should be included here because of that.
An alternative that would be a bit more restrictive would be only to include SE/Enix titles developed by Churnshoft, Level-5, Heartbeat, Artepiazza. At the very least I think we can include titles developed by Armor Project as its a developer that is exclusive to SE/Enix.陣内Jinnai 19:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I can agree to that, but what about TOSE? games remade by final fantasy butother series that were just published by SE, such as valkyrie profile.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
tose is not a developer, it's a porter. jonathan hardin' (talk) 21:17, 10 february 2011 (UTC)
That's not what Tose says and Super Princess Peach is not a port. —Ost (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
TOSE is not a developer, it's a porter as far as we (SEproj) are concerned. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Alright, lets bring this back in. We're branching off into this developer or that developer and everything is majorly overlapping- Jinnai mentions Armor Project, Artepiazza, etc., but the only thing they've made for SE is... Dragon Quest games. Which would be covered anyway. So!
I say lets go by series, and add a line below the scope statement: "Additional titles or series can be easily added to this project's scope by agreement on the talk page." This demonstrates that the list isn't hard and fast- you want to work on a game with us (as in Axem's example)? Just say so, and we'll take it on. Right now I'm just trying to draw a line- what articles will have our talk page template, what articles will be listed in the index. The line is movable, it's not fixed at all. We cover what we want to cover. I think going by developer makes the gray area problem even worse, not better, and just blindly adding everything Enix published isn't helpful (are any of us really going to work on Bust a Groove 2?)
So- looks like we're cool with Dragon Quest, Star Ocean, Ogre Battle, and Valkyrie Profile. Each of these series has their own justification for inclusion, but they don't matter- we want them/to work on them, so we'll have them. What other games/series do you guys want? --PresN 21:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the series approach, but don't know what the point is saying that Tose is not a developer; Dragon Quest Monsters: Joker is not a port. —Ost (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, but lets not get distracted; We've generated tons of text on this issue and I feel like we're close to being done. --PresN 22:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is a simple fix, such as any series that had a history with square enix including third party developers can be added into our scope. for example, both Valkyrie profile and star ocean have been published by square enix. square enix has made remake of the game. Valkyrie has had a port, and was developed by TOSE. We also have to consider what mainly known as something that is part of square enix. like star ocean (toher than the fact that they own it). well it's just a suggestion.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Note - Armor Project has made a few non-Dragon Quest titles and I cannot see a good reason to exclude them since they're exclusive developers for Enix/SE. One of those - Chrono Trigger - we already cover. Its not like the Star Ocean or Tactics Ogre; I mean for a wikiproject that covers SE/Enix/Square titles, what would you say to someone who came here because of that? Go somewhere else because Armor Project isn't a part of SE? I think the other tiles created by it are largely the spinoff titles from DQ, but that still is a bit more than just DQ and there are a few others like CT that aren't really a part of DQ at all.陣内Jinnai 05:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
idk why chrono trigger is mentioned alot, it was only co-developed. square's dream team did it. true, most of it was Armor project probably before it was known as such. but still. Bread Ninja (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you guys are really making way too big a deal out of nothing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree, i think there's a really simple way to solving this.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I also agree, the only things that Armor Project made that aren't CT or DQ are Portopia Renzoku Satsujin Jiken and Karuizawa Yūkai Annai. If you want to work on them or have them added, just say so. Lets not go making a big deal out of minor additions. Anyways, sure, we can add those two games. Anything else, or are we good now? --PresN 16:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what i can do with Karuizawa Yūkai Annai, but i haven't had much free time as a new editor is forcing me to add mroe information for the sake of a confusing merge. Portopia looks like it's at GA status but might be challenged later on. i'm not the most useful person when it comes to SE project. but i'll see what i can do.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a few more. The Japanese list is more complete. I don't think I'd probably work on many of them, but from time to time the Itadaki Street i might; maybe some others. What I'm saying is, we also have to consider this is the place people will come to ask for help on Enix titles and as such saying that we won't help on certain titles that are from an exclusive developer for SE/Enix seems to go against the intent of a Wikiproject's mentality to be inclusive, but with firm limit on scope. Having a few extra titles that we may cover to give help if someone asks for it, but don't actively work on won't hurt things here and may actually improve its exposure and membership in the long run. If someone comes here interested in Portopia Renzoku Satsujin Jiken, they may also decide to help on occasion with Chrono Trigger.
I do agree there needs to be a firm line though and I think with Armor Project its similar to "allowing all games developered by SE/Square/Enix under the scope and for the rest: Star Ocean, Tactics Ogre, etc. it should be case-by-case.陣内Jinnai 18:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, other than Armor Project no one has raised any additions or objected to the proposed scope, so I'm going to go ahead and change the scope/index/tag a bunch of pages. The new scope can be see on the front page, but I'll also post it right here.

This WikiProject supports all articles that cover anything that Square, Enix, or Square Enix designed or produced. It does not cover articles related to Square Enix's wholly owned subsidiaries Taito and Eidos, but does include titles in new series developed by Square Enix Europe. While in general it does not cover articles covering items that Square, Enix, or Square Enix only published, by consensus it does include the video game series Dragon Quest, Ogre Battle, Star Ocean, and Valkyrie Profile as well as games developed by Armor Project as they are associated with the Square Enix brand. Additional titles or series can be easily added to this project's scope by agreement on the talk page, and all currently covered articles can be seen in this project's index page.

Thanks everyone for hashing this out! --PresN 19:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok sounds good. glad it all worked out.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I think it's all done- things are tagged and added (though it looks like I missed one) and everything Dragon Quest now redirects here. Jinnai- I changed what category your DQ task force userbox added people to, but didn't change the wording- up to you if you want to keep it around and reword it (like the old FF project one) or delete it or whatever. Let me know if I missed anything! --PresN 20:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. Well if they were taken as Square enix legacy, such as "in popular culture" then probably int heir respected articles, but not in it's own. for example, we would be also including dead fantasy and other. that and iv'e been against their inclusion from the beginning as Square enix isn't involved in any way.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • We should make that explicit then because otherwise I think someone may add our banner later on if its not clear. I'd just rather it be, for fan made stuff, media that is more closely linked to the games. So that if there was a popular fan comic that was closely linked to Chrono Trigger, we'd cover it, but if it spins off and just ends up using the characters, like 8-bit threater, then no.陣内Jinnai 17:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I dont think we need to worry about that as we'll be taking it as a case by case basis. I suppose ff7 and chrono resurrection are allowed considering they've been released or meant to be released. other than that, stuff like dead fantasy and 8-bit theatre can't due to them just using the characters.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bring up one more

I can't believe i didn't think of these, probably because they i thought they were already in the scope, but just in case i thought maybe Lord of Vermilion 1, 2 and Sigma Harmonics would make it in due to the developer Think Garage only known to be made itadaki street games at the moment. Well this is a really simple one i think and probably will take just one or two of you to make consensus.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not opposed, but I'm also not sure- Armor Games was basically an external Square Enix team, but is that the case of Think Garage? Or are they a separate company that is publishing their stuff through SE because they have a good relationship after working on Itadaki Street games? Anyone else know? --PresN 20:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
it's hard to say, the article doesn't share much. It was founded in 2005, so it's possible that it is a external team for square enix. i guess some expansion on that article might help.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I checked there website, it does not say anything about them being part of square enix, but the games list does show that square enix owns the rights to the games.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the new scope is already confusing people: [7] [8] Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

dont know why it was removed...someone probably didn't look out our scope well enough.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011 Roll Call

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion

It's close to middle of the month so a Roll Call should have been made.

  1. — Blue。 05:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC) - I admit I have this WP on my watchlist.
  2. --PresN 09:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC) - I'm obviously here! Dunno if we need this every month, we tend to average every 2-3. Nice to know who's still around, though.
  3. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  4. Bread Ninja (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC) it's highly unnecessary to do this every month. every six months maybe...but it will just be time consuming.
  5. - 陣内Jinnai 17:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  6. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  7. Ost (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  8. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Since the DQ TF was merged here and we had 1 unique source and WP:VG/S had one two specific to SE game, I decided to start a new section here.陣内Jinnai 05:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

What two sources are they specifically?Bread Ninja (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

He means Chrono Compendium and Square Enix Music Online. Point of order, though- SEMO, despite the name, now covers all sorts of video game music, it's still a great source for us, though, as that is their core. --PresN 21:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Which is why I didn't remove SEMO from WP:VG/S.陣内Jinnai 21:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

PRs for DW & DQ

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I want to get atleast one of either Dragon Quest and Dragon Warrior to FA status for the May 25th anneversay. Both have PRs ongoing so I'd like some input into them. DQ has some sources tagged atm I'm checking for replacements or asking about the reliability of the sources (mainly just Magic Box).陣内Jinnai 19:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You could probably get the main series article. I personally think the common elements can be done better or probably spun out if possible and reworking the opening paragraph to not list the platform installations.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
There is actually a spinout for gameplay...in fact 2 spinouts (or well a spinout of a spinout). Gameplay of Dragon Quest and Dragon Quest classes. There's only so much you can't say on a main page per WP:SS though. You have to cover the basics. Perhaps the new paragraph about "puff puff" could be moved to gameplay, but that's about it.陣内Jinnai 19:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the overall approach of the common elements could be taken better too. Maybe the character from dragon warrior 1-3 can have it's own article depending if there is enough reception and development about him. and mini-medal be added to part of gameplay.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I doubt there is. Thing with Dragon Quest is those working on them I guess are more conservative about creating spinout articles. There used to be more, but they've been merged. The Zenthia and Loto/Edrick sections used to have their own articles, but were merged, probably due to failing WP:N (and maybe WP:OR.
As for mini-medals I can move the whole section there, but I'd like to leave something on the main page as they've had some commentary on them. Copied it there. I copied the text for puff puff also. Since the main section should summarize the gameplay, I will need to add some items from the gameplay not mentioned on the main page. I'll start summarizing mini medals.陣内Jinnai 22:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Project idea

Latest comment: 13 years ago51 comments6 people in discussion

Hey all, I had an idea that I was waiting for the merging hubbub to settle down to bring up. Currently, this project has ~80% of its articles as higher than Stub class- amazingly good for any project of reasonable size. The VG parent project, by comparison, has only ~43% of its articles higher than Stub class. My thought was- why don't we try to push for all of our Stubs to be Start class? (or List-class, or higher.) There's currently 79 stubs- it's certainly not an un-doable task. If other people are willing to help out with this, I'd be willing to design a WPSE barnstar to give out to whoever improves the greatest number of articles, as well as anyone who does more than, say, 10. Is anyone else interested in joining this project? --PresN 01:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

i can see what i can do. though on a much smaller note... i think we could also reupdate the SE logo we have to resemble more of Square enix logo font and letter "e" to resemble theirs? i think it could help distinguish it a lil more. but thats just something really small.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
OK this is incredibly hard. I can't even find one source for some of these. I'm not good at looking for sources, but usually i am able to find at least one or two.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
At the time of this post there are 80 pages in Category:Stub-Class Square Enix articles and the automatically-updated number is 1. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Dragon Quest X was merged per AfD, might be a good idea to salt against recreation until an appropriate time. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Remember that the big counting template on the front page lags behind the actual categories- a bot updates all of those. Thus- at Category:Stub-Class Square Enix articles it says 75 but the box on the same page still says 79. Go by the category number.
I don't think it needs salting, just deleting/watching. The merge needs to take place- Jinnai? I know you're the one working on Dragon Quest- do you have everything you want out of DQX in that article now? --PresN 19:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh wait, now I see the talk page where its agreed to hold off for a bit to see if any info comes out from the DQ6 release so as not to mess up your FAC push. Sounds good. --PresN 19:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Everyone who participates in this- please either list here what articles you've updated or update the index page, so that I can keep track. Thanks! --PresN 19:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

well i'll be attempting the third birthday. i don't think that one will be too difficult to put up at start class. But as for the rest, it may be a lil more difficult. i'm not good with biographies and some of the games square enix has made are a lil hard to find expansion. but i propose possibly merging Code Age Brawls with Code Age Commanders and Delete the main Code Age Article, consider only two games and a manga series is what makes up the Code Age series, it wouldn't fix up that problem. Bread Ninja (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I'll look into that one. Right now, looks like Bread Ninja marked Square Enix Europe as Start as it was already there, and Jonathan Hardin redirected/merged All Star Pro Wrestling 2 and 3 into All Star Pro-Wrestling (I deleted the now-empty category for you). --PresN 19:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh i forgot about that. And i was also wondering what happened to All Star Pro Wrestling. I just checked my contributions to see if i forgot anything. nothing significant other than that. I will however merge some one-sentence paragraphs along with the paragraphs before it. And look for some reception, but most of the stub articles realting to video games seem to be ones that were released exclusively in japan.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Ost316 has added more refs to Final Fantasy IV: The Complete Collection to be start-class.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
(EC)Ended up finding enough to get Code Age Brawls to Start on its own, though good luck getting it higher without finding some Japanese-language sources. Redirected Code Age; there isn't enough information out there on the series itself to justify its own page. That's two more stubs down there. --PresN 22:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Excellent! Not entirely sure that it should be its own page, but I guess we'll wait and see how extensive the new content between the two games is. So far we've improved from 79.5% to 81% - crazy for, what, 19 hours of work? --PresN 22:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
has a new story element. so i would assume so. third birthday is still tricky to get development info...well if Brawl can stand on it's own, then I'll look again for some information. but cell phone games are really hard.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Before we start bringing these up to start quality just because, we should make certain they can meet the WP:GNG.陣内Jinnai 05:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

well whoever participated in Portopia Renzoku Satsujin Jiken might be able to expand Karuizawa Yūkai Annai. I'm particularly interested in it. I'm not so sure it's notable though. if not, then it could be deleted.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
That was User:Kariteh, who hasn't edited in over a year. I'll take a look at it today, see if there's any sources anywhere. --PresN 19:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Right. Ummm... I can't find any sources. Not even an official website- SE took it down years ago. As far as I can tell, it's just one of several dozen cheap adventure games that Enix published in the 80s. It doesn't really meet the GNG, and it would never have an article if it wasn't for the fact that the story was written by Yuji Horii; but unlike Portopia it had absolutely no effect on the industry. Unlike some of his other games it was never ported to a console, and it wouldn't have gotten a cell phone release if it wasn't part of a set of cheap ports of all of his early games. As there's nothing to say on the game other than "it exists" (and I can't even get an RS on that!) I'm going to redirect it to Yuji Horii. Revert if you find anything. --PresN 19:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Start'd Another Mind (video game). --PresN 20:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC) And Takeharu Ishimoto. --PresN 00:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, 48 hours after I proposed the project we're already 12.7% of the way done. At this rate we'll clear them out in a couple of weeks. Good job all who are participating! --PresN 01:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

For some of the remakes there is also WP:VG/GL to consider. FE: if Star Ocean: Second Evolution doesn't also have good development info it should probably be merged.陣内Jinnai 02:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Redirected Alpha and added the very little info to the composers article. I couldn't find anything on it and doubt there is anything. Maybe if someone does a comprehensive history piece of SE on day.陣内Jinnai 02:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah neither could i. oh well, anyways....i think we should find info for Second Evolution before suggesting merge. It has a manga adaptation of the same name.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Haha, I think all three of us tried to find info for Alpha and gave up. Oh well. --PresN 17:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
unfortunately i discovered that Parasite Eve (series) is stub and marked is so, but i also see that Parasite Eve is also a stub. Maybe merge or expansion can be done. i'm sure something can be done about the series article. i'll be reformatting it. But the novel, i'm not so sure what to look up. i found a review at popcultureshock.com but doesn't state who the reviewer is. well those experienced with novels might be able to help out.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yoichi Wada is now C-class! Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, great job! That's the first non-stub corporate person article we've ever had! --PresN 19:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
that's great! I'm working on the Parasite Eve (series) article, added the mangas and the soundtrack to the film. expanded the opening paragraph along with added some refs for the games. And also removed the film infobox since there's not much information to have one. Overall, i still need to add references to verify this information an expand the video game section a lil more, but i don't think it would be too much trouble. I think this might be close to start-class.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Got Naoshi Mizuta to Start, if only just barely. Dude needs to give some more interviews! 16.5% done. --PresN 21:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I reassesed Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Echoes of Time as start-class after looking at it.陣内Jinnai 03:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Wrote a gameplay section and buffed the lead to get Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: My Life as a Darklord to Start. 19% complete. --PresN 23:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Could someone help me out on finding info on the novel and film of Parasite Eve (series)? I know it's something that this wikiproject isn't use to but if you could that would be great. It's great to see alot of things being done, even though i haven't been able to do much lately. I've been busy discussing something and it's getting quite uncivil.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Took me a while, but i finally was able to find info on the film and its soundtrack and cast. kind of last second too. Anyways, i think it barely makes it into start-class for Parasite Eve (series) but I'm not so sure i used the right sources for the film. So, if someone can take a look that would be great. Sorry if i used some bad ones, there's a couple i skeptical of.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Myth: The Xenogears Orchestral Album got released, so I was able to take it to Start. 21.5% done. --PresN 19:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Changed The 3rd Birthday to start-class. I didn't do much, but considering the other articles were also changed to start and compared the two, this one also seemed to be at start-class.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Final Fantasy XIII-2 has been updated to start as it doesn't seem to be in danger of getting Afd or merged.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Got Final Fantasy Legends: Hikari to Yami no Senshi to Start; every Final Fantasy article is now start or higher. --PresN 20:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Noted that Bread Ninja moved Kingdom Hearts 3D: Dream Drop Distance to Start a few days ago. Judgesurreal777 also bumped one to start after looking at it, and fixed two errors in the index where start articles were marked as stubs - no effect on this specific project. We're now at 25.3% complete- over a quarter done! --PresN 06:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Dragon Quest: Monster Battle Road made it to start- mainly by converting from an article on the game to an article on the three-game series. As part of this merged the article on the third game into it, which we didn't have tagged or listed. --PresN 23:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Also moved Dragon Quest X to Start; New Age Retro Hippie just almost tripled it in size and I think it's out fo the stub range now. --PresN 23:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Dragon Quest Monsters: Joker 2 -> Start. --PresN 20:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

So here's the section breakdown of the remaining stubs:

  • Composers - 3
  • Corporate - 5
  • Producers - 5
  • Designers & others - 25
  • Dragon Quest - 3
  • Star Ocean - 3
  • Other Square games - 5
  • Other SQ games - 5

So the games are close to being set, the foes will be the people soon. Do we have any central locations for reliable sources on them? Judgesurreal777 02:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

great work by the way. unfortunately, been busy with things that can't be ignored but i've had my eye on joker 2. glad to see it's at start. I'll be looking at star ocean games but if you think you can help there, that'd be great too.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm just working my way alphabetically down the games in the index, so I'm up in D (Dragon Quest) right now. --PresN 20:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Like Slime MoriMori Dragon Quest: Shōgeki no Shippo Dan, now start. --PresN 20:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, we've obviously slowed down a lot- just got Torneko no Daibōken: Fushigi no Dungeon to Start. --PresN 22:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
True, its going to get a bit tougher from here I think, the non games need a lot more sources, so I ask again, does anyone know any good sources to comb for biography on the people that make these games? Judgesurreal777 00:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
No, unfortunately; I knew some for composers but the three remaining couldn't be found there. On a side note, why doesn't your name link to your user page anymore? --PresN 03:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I have been playing with the preferences lately, think I hit that by accident. That's too bad, I dont really know any Japanese, which has always been a hindrance working on this project, but luckily others always have been able to do the digging for reliable sources from Japan. Oh well, I will do what I always do, hit the google and go page by page :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, working on this project has taught me how to read google-translated Japanese, which still looks like gibberish until you learn the idiosyncrasies. :) --PresN 05:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Here are a few tips:
  • The best sources for video game designers are interviews. Just google "firstname surname" interview in English or in Japanese (interview = インタビュー) and hope you'll find some interesting stuff.
  • http://squarehaven.com/people/ has aggregated a few useful interviews and articles for some of the more well-known designers, but obviously don't cite Square Haven; cite the sources that they themselves used, directly.
  • You can also look at the corresponding ja.wikipedia articles for information about the designers that might be known in Japan but hard or impossible to find in English. The ja.wikipedia articles are generally poorly sourced though, so you'll have to try to retrieve the original sources by googling something like Japanese name + Japanese keyword. For example, I saw on the Yoichi Wada Japanese article that Yoichi Wada worked for the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Warsaw (ワルシャワ). So I googled Yoichi Wada Warsaw in Japanese (和田洋一 ワルシャワ) and found this reliable source (among others), which confirms that he worked there. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, this seems to have petered out- I'll try to kickstart it in a couple of weeks. In the mean time, noting that G-Zay got Yoshinori Kitase to start. (as well as creating 2 new start articles). Current contributions are:

Additionally, several people have been marking articles as start without having to expand them first, and redirecting articles where sources could not be found. Judgesurreal777 has actually made us go backwards a bit with some iOS/Facebook games, as he hasn't been on for a few weeks to expand them, but no other stubs have been created. We've gone from 79 stubs to 55- about a third of the way through! --PresN 19:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

FAC changes

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Final Fantasy XIII has failed FAC, pretty much entirely because it wasn't using the Ultimanias for the game as a source. I'm working on this, but half-machine, half-manual OCRing and translation will take a few weeks. In the meantime, however, a Dragon Quest draws near to take its place at FAC- go comment and vote at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dragon Quest/archive2! --PresN 00:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

NM, it looks you've already mentioned about Dragon Quest.
Also, unless you have a self-imposed deadline for TFA (like me), there is no deadline. If you can add the info in a few weeks, it should be able to pass unless something major and unexpected happens between now and then.陣内Jinnai 03:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Similar to PresN, I could use some more eyes so Dragon Quest doesn't fail simply due to lack of commentary.陣内Jinnai 19:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, I avoid GA and FA because I fear that my understanding of the FA/GA criteria is too limited to be a good judge of quality. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
As someone once told me at WT:FAC, don't be afraid. As I was once told

Don't be worried about being too harsh. This is FAC. If you see something that can be improved, don't be afraid to make a suggestion.Dabomb87 (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

陣内Jinnai 19:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
might consider hiding stuff that's been addressed since the page is getting quite long.陣内Jinnai 04:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
NARH, Since you hid the rest, are you going to "support" or still looking for more stuff?陣内Jinnai 23:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about the wait. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Main page article

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Final Fantasy XII will be featured on the main page on March 16. --PresN 02:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Angeal Hewley

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could someone please say hi to the new and enthusiastic future project members who made this article, invite them to join, and explain why there probably shouldn't be an article about this character? This is the new Wikipedia, where we actually don't bite the newbies like it's military hazing (sorry, flashback to when I joined!). Judgesurreal777 05:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

oh i forgot to invite. But i did redirect the page to where it initially was and explained why it isn't notable.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
all set, I invited the one who wasn't a vet. Judgesurreal777 (talk)

IOS and Facebook:SQ gaming in new frontiers

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

So we dont really cover any of this I have noticed; not that we dont have a lot to cover already, but Square Enix I noticed has even started releasing facebook games and original IOS games. I started Voice Fantasy, but I dont think I can get it from Start to Good Article status due to its limited development section. I am going to start some others, such as Hills and Rivers Remain, but I think after a few are made, we will need to seriously evaluate them, and consider something like a Square Enix games for Facebook page since I dont think many of the IOS or Facebook games will be individually notable, but will have more than a title listing on the list of downloadable Square enix games article. This will also not go against the new "No stubs" drive since I dont plan on leaving any stubs, either start articles or better, or merging them if they cant be improved. Any help with this would be awesome! Judgesurreal777 04:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool, don't forget about Crystal Defenders! --PresN 06:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Voice Fantasy a Final Fantasy game? I don't think it is (unlike Crystal Defenders whose official site explicitly says that it features the jobs "from Final Fantasy Tactics A2"). Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can find, there's nothing Final Fantasy in it, and no indication by SE that it's an FF game other than using the word Fantasy. Some reviews call it a spinoff, some say categorically that it has nothing to do with FF. The official website has no indication that it's related, so I'd say it's totally separate. --PresN 16:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of whether it is or isn't, we do know it is a game by square enix. and yes, it is a game according to reviews and development. if they aren't notable we could at least make a list article for them.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Judge has already gotten enough material to put together a Start, and it's definitely under our scope, that's not the problem. It's just unclear as to whether or not it's an FF spinoff or just a stand-alone game. --PresN 18:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
well if there is enough sources stating it is, then it can be included, but at the same time, not including it might be a safe way to go about this. I'm just saying for other IOS/Facebook games, maybe we could have a separate list for them or include them in the current list of square enix games article.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, it has enough for a start, it is at best "Final Fantasy-esque", it is developed by SQ so its our baby, and may need to be merged, as will some of the others I will be making since they are notable enough to be starts, but maybe not GA's. We'll see! Judgesurreal777 19:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

DQ

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Can someone check the lede for a quick copyedit. I added some development info per a requested comment there. Also ideas on how to resolve the issue with readability v general sources? I will get flak either way at FAC, but which way should I go with sourcing? IMO readability > than tagging non-controversial/non-quote claims. Also there anything I could source for some stuff that's better than the games (i don't have access to all the manuals so someone would have to point me to PDF copies) and defiantly not strategy guides.陣内Jinnai 18:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyedited it, but I'm not sure why you added it. The sentence about the creators is good, but the rest is choppy and has no context; I'd just leave it out of the lead. I have no idea what you mean about "readability v general sources" - can you explain? --PresN 18:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I added it because of a note from the only opposer whose note said basically "more development info here" so I would assume that he wanted more than just who was on the team.
As to the second part, readability v. general sources. The article uses the games as general sources because for many of the statements in common elements and possibly some areas in main games there would have to be 18 sources (due to the way sources would be handled I couldn't just merge them into 1). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs also went one step further and required citations for translations of the classes - something that sets new precedent as we've never had to cite translations except if they are particularly controversial. The end result is I would have to 18+ sources after some sections because I'd have to cite the original Japanese text and then the translation of that text. He's claiming that somehow that saying the same class has had multiple translations in multiple games is somehow "not supportable" through primary sources even though that's how we do it everywhere else. IE he wants everything to have secondary sources from what I can tell.
Part of this is the fact those who code Template:Citation/core has refused to move to update the template to support {{cite video game}} and allow for more detailed citations.陣内Jinnai 23:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

DQ and DQ FACs

Latest comment: 13 years ago33 comments5 people in discussion

So it looks like I'll have to wait the 2 weeks as my request for an exception has fallen on deaf ears. Since I want to get at least one of them done, I would have to have a good idea which one is closer to FA material or get a co-nominator for one of them (although preferably both). I know Dragon Warrior has 6 NFCC images and I plan to address that at the FAC; other than that I'm not sure what to do between Dragon Quest and Dragon Warrior to improve them anymore. I have consolidated multiple refs as much as possible in DQ (was an issue with School Rumble scaring off some noms as item looked too contrviersial if they had 3+ refs after it).陣内Jinnai 02:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I dokn't think the article needs an image of the gameboy color version of Dragon Warrior.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Judging by the text, yes the GBC version picture could be culled, but the others should stay. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
It also might need some copy-editing. but only slightly.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I think that the Game Boy Color, Super Famicom, and comparison images should be replaced with a demonstration of the overworld from the NES version. I just don't think that the differences of the Japanese and US versions of the game are different enough to need comparison, nor is the difference in, say, character sprites, confusing without visual depiction. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The differences in localization however are one of the most discussed items about the game (aside from its legacy). I removed the GBC image, but imo the one with the weakest rationale is the one we usually have: the one of combat since there is very little discussion of that when compared to the remaining images and the box art which consensus allows for qualification under #1.陣内Jinnai 21:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
[9] This review addresses the battle system as iconic and the "butt of old-school gaming jokes." - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
[10] This review describes the NES version's battle backgrounds as "vibrant". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Areas where i think need most copy-edit and clarification are the opening paragraph, plot, and gameplay. Opening should clarify it's the first game in the series among other things. Plot seems to be a lil too hindsight. gameplay described a lil oddly.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Gameplay has been revamped entirely. The plot somewhat. I'm not sure what opening paragraph you are talking about.陣内Jinnai 03:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
literally the "opening" paragraph to the article. the first thing you read in an article.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Also i'm not comfortable with the game being considred as the second game chronologically. seems to much hindsight. the other game can be considered a prequel.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That info is documented by multiple sources and essential info you'd expect to find on an article that has over a number of works a continual storyline. I rephrased it though.陣内Jinnai 21:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
3 of the sources aren't exactly as accessable, and the last one seems to state nothing on its chronology. So word for word is still in question.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
even if source dont think it's necessary to keep it either. instead this could be added in Dragon Quest 2 or 3 as they are follow-up games.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
For the online source, read the 1st 2 paragraphs. The first one mentions its the 3rd game in the trilogy. The second mentions (although not in those words) its a prequel. In fact, I might as well just use that one and one of the offlines for DW2 in hindsight. Since a standard trilogy goes in chronological order, it does need to be mentioned that this is part 2 of a tilogy, not part 1.陣内Jinnai 23:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
We really shouldn't do hindsight in story sections. the two online sources seem to relate closer to Dragon Quest I & II as a whole remake rather than Dragon Quest III. It's better not mentioning other games, such as Dragon Quest III in there, just because it sets before. It's never really done when there's a prequel, and by definition Dragon Quest III is a prequel. Even in trilogies...and there's not much mention of a trilogy.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
That's something you would expect to see. It's done in every other non-standard trilogy I've seen and putting it in a timeframe is what other FAs do. FE Halo: Contact Harvest.陣内Jinnai 21:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
that isn't the first novel, nor the first game. they do it for every game afterward, because description needs to be linear within release, not within story.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
It needs to be with both. It is something you would expect. If you knew nothing about the series and I told you the first three games were a trilogy, you'd assume they'd follow one after the other because that's the standard faire. However, they don't. That RSes mention this and find it important to note and that the lack of such understanding can impare the reader's understanding makes it necessary. We don't have to dwell on it - nor does the article do that - but it needs to be mentioned.陣内Jinnai 04:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Not really. that could be mentioned in Dragon Quest/Warrior III, not the first dragon Quest. The article doesn't exactly introduce show much the relevance of a trilogy. It says "which is a trilogy" instead of saying "It is a trilogy". Still, it's hindsight bias. it doesn't matter if Dragon Quest III was before the original. The article is only about the first Dragon Warrior. However, if this was legacy and mentioned it became a trilogy that gained a sequel and a prequel that would be different. Unless it can't be mentioned as a prequel, then it might aswell be removed. Trust me, you're not going to find another article that states the original as a sequel in the initial release.Bread Ninja (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry you lost me about 1/2 way through that reply.陣内Jinnai 17:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

then you should've gotten the point by now....basically hindsight shouldn't be mentioned in the first game. you're saying it's necessary because it's a trilogy, but at the same time you give articles that aren't trilogy as a key example. i did say it's better to add that piece of information to Dragon Quest III rather than the initial. We're not here to clarify something that isn't related to the main article directly, such as plot of another game despite being part of a trilogy. Or mention Dragon Quest III. Mentioning in the main plot is highly unnecessary. it's the first game,t here fore any other story related to it was inspired or complimented the original. So adding that piece of information of Dragon Warrior plot isn't really necessary for featured article. And in case you didn't understand none of this, i'll give a hypothetical situation. would we put in "Although final fantasy VII was released first, chronologically it the third installment" or "Final fantasy VII is the sequel to Crisis Core"?Bread Ninja (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't been reading this discussion, but I agree with Jinnai; I don't see why the chronology should be omitted. Compare to Star Wars: A New Hope, which mentions its in-universe chronology in the lede. Wikipedia articles don't omit information because it wasn't established or known at the time of release; if the sources support that the plot takes place chronologically second in a trilogy, the only reason I could think of to omit the information is if it is considered WP:TRIVIAL. But even if it is removed from the main text, the legacy should still address that this game spawned a prequel, which is the same information reworded. —Ost (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
the difference would be if it was reworded to say it was a prequel, then it wouldn't be hindsight bias. Star wars was renamed so it probably demands more explanation. but despite that, i don't see anything in that article that gives any chronological order in the plot section. It's slightly trivial, and the main problem it calls the original first game a "sequel". And again, not that strong about the "trilogy".
there's a big difference adding it in the plot section and adding it in the legacy section. It's best suited to be added in Dragon Quest 3 rather than Dragon the original game. Why? because the clarification is most required there due to Dragon Quest 3 being released after the first Dragon Quest. therefore clarifying that Dragon Quest 3 was a prequel. if we were to state it gained a prequel, that would still need to be added in Legacy section NOT plot. Not much talk about it being a trilogy. Inf act from what i've read, it seems to be speculation rather than actually considered a full-blown trilogy.
there seems to be a bit of bias. So lets keep this simple: put in everything related to the game ONLY. everything else that also relates to other games, goes to the legacy section UNLESS the game demands explanation (for example, it was an actual direct sequel, prequel, or interquel (the first dragon quest game cannot be a sequel, due to it being the first game)).Bread Ninja (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I only agree that the first game should not be called a sequel and that speculation should not be used as fact. Other than that, I think that it is editorial discretion as to where in-universe chronology is included. —Ost (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Since it's the first game, it definitely is not needed (in this article).Bread Ninja (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Why not call it "chronological successor"? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
How about we just remove it? it's much more necessary in Dragon Quest III, and it isn't helping this article at all. IF ths was the main series article, MAYBE. But this is just relating to the one video game. so clarifying chronological order is not necessary. Especially if it was the first game of the franchise. Unlesss you can prove they made Dragon Quest with a prequel in mind.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't see why we would have to prove that; all we have to demonstrate is what Dragon Quest III is to Dragon Quest right now. It should be mentioned somewhere in the article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Well we don't have to demonstrate anything at all because theres nothing to demonstrate or prove how necessary it is to keep it in this article. it's a little trivial for Dragon Quest video game. I've already said the legacy section is best. putting it in the plot is unnecessary and makes it hindsight bias.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I thought that you were calling for it to have no mention whatsoever. Yes, Legacy section would be the best place for it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little put off by the SFC remake image; while it discusses how close the two kingdoms are to each other, the fair use rationale only discusses graphical changes. Is either image rationale discussed within the article's body? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about the use of "(now Square Enix)" from Talk:Square Enix

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I started a discussion on Talk:Square Enix which may be better served by attention here--I will quote it below as it seems a more appropriate forum. Feel free to continue the conversation here. - Vague | Rant 14:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Square (now Square Enix)/Enix (now Square Enix) throughout wiki?

At a quick glance, it looks like most, if not all, (separate) Square and Enix releases have been edited to describe them as being developed, published, etc. by "Square (now Square Enix)" or "Enix (now Square Enix)". Is this really necessary or appropriate? It seems somewhat revisionist to be calling attention to events that occurred decades later on articles about NES games and such. Not having done any deep research into this phenomenon, does anyone know if this was actually agreed upon somewhere, or was it just somebody's pet project? Should these changes--which have stood for years in some cases--be reverted, and if so, would it warrant the use of a bot? It does seem to be more prevalent than would be convenient for a human editor to handle, see Google results for site:wikipedia.org "now Square Enix". - Vague | Rant 13:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, other articles are no manual of style, but there seems to be no solid precedent among other games released by companies who later changed their names. Some historic Infogrames games are simply credited to Infogrames (e.g., Alone in the Dark), while others are anachronistically credited to Atari despite being Infogrames-era (e.g. Dragon Ball Z: Budokai, which bears an Infogrames logo right on its cover).
In some cases such as DMA Design/Rockstar North, mentions of the latter name are perhaps justified by just how much better known the later names are--Rockstar North are known for the immensely successful Grand Theft Auto series, which only took off after the third installment, released under the Rockstar North banner. Square and Enix, however, were both major name companies before the acquisition, so the additional clarification is quite unnecessary. - Vague | Rant 13:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
It's only necessary imo on series pages like Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest where they were published under both titles, although this probably should be brought up at WP:SE to get a greater consensus. The only other time it could be argued would be those that were started before and published after the merger and maybe those with remakes.陣内Jinnai 14:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I would agree; we should only say that on series that were published by both Square and Square Enix or games that had remakes published by SE. Articles and games that were only published by Square/Enix and never refer to Square Enix do not need the qualifier, as we don't need to note that Square Enix is the successor to Square if we never mention SE at all. --PresN 16:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Jinnai and PresN. There are some cases in which Square Enix did re-publish Square or Enix games -- basically, several Ultimate Hits and Greatest Hits re-prints (which explicitly have the Square Enix logo on the cover art, see for example: [11]) and most PSN or Virtual Console re-releases. Square Enix should be mentioned for these. But in other cases, Square Enix doesn't have to be mentioned. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
So basically everything that was re-published or re-made that was once formerly published or developed by Square or Enix.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Extrapolating what a designer might currently be working on + interview interpretation

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The discussion at Talk:Hiroyuki Ito#Current work needs more input to prevent an edit war on the article. Thanks for checking! Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Square_Enix/archive/8&oldid=1087828595"