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

WPSE Archive index

See index for full list, including archives of the former WikiProject Final Fantasy. Sep 2006 - May 2007 Jun 2007 - Aug 2007 Sep 2007 - Dec 2008 Jan 2009 - Apr 2009 May 2009 - Aug 2009 Sep 2009 - Jan 2010 Feb 2010 - Oct 2010 Nov 2010 - Mar 2011 Apr 2011 - Sep 2011 Oct 2011 - Feb 2012 Mar 2012 - Sep 2012 Oct 2012 - May 2013 May 2013 - Sep 2013 Oct 2013 - Dec 2014 Jan 2015 - Dec 2015 Jan 2016 - Jun 2016 Jul 2016 - Feb 2017 Mar 2017 - Nov 2017 Jan 2018 - Dec 2018 Jan 2019 - Dec 2019 Jan 2020 - Dec 2020 Feb 2021 - Sep 2021 Jan 2022 - Oct 2022

Effective May 2007, all topics with the

Resolved

template will be archived after three to five days. This keeps the talkpage fresh with current issues. All resolved topics can be viewed in the respective archives to your left. Although they are sorted by month (or in some cases even less), they might not be in perfect chronological order — instead, they are archived in the order they were resolved. The discussion should be archived in the month where the bulk of the discussion took place (if 9/10 of a discussion occurred in June and another 1/10 in July, then it should be in the June archive).

The current month's archive is here.

Please sign your name if you are still with the project.

1. Greg Jones II 00:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
2. PresN (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Argh school.
4. -- Elaich ^talk 01:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
5. — Deckiller 05:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Nanten (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2008
7. Ost (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Here we go! Come and comment to give this a quality review. :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are reading these words, please go and comment on this FAC, I wouldn't want if failed for lack of comment. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Could someone add NA-class to the template so talk pages for categories and templates don't show up in unassessed categories. --Mika1h (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Next one up, it's number 9. I'm posting it to GAC right now, so if anyone has changes they'd like to make, hop to it! --PresN (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see that the project still has some active members! I wish I had the time to dabble back into the project; I may eventually! — Deckiller 17:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I hate asking like this, but can any member of the project take a look at the nomination? I'm not asking you to promote it- I'm sure it has problems that need fixing I didn't see- but it's been there for 9 days and it's holding up the whole vg games GAN line. --PresN (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As the FFXI nomination is going smoothly, I am launching this one after a long gestation. Now, get over there and say what you think! Hate it, love it, anything! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

For information, it's been a week that Judgesurreal777 nominated this and it's still pending. FightingStreet (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

....That's because it's 26th in line on the list at GAN. It's not in VGames, it's in Theatre, film and drama. --PresN (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The FFVIII Featured Topic is now up for removal, as one of the articles- Chocobo World- is not GA+. The removal nom takes 2 weeks to run through, so that's the time limit to get it back to GA. --PresN (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Mystic Quest and Tidus have both been nominated for good article reassessment. Please comment at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Final Fantasy Mystic Quest/1 and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Tidus/1. FightingStreet (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I know we have a lot on the table right now, but this article really needs some help. I cleaned it up months ago, and I, along with a few others, are protecting it from vandalism and poor editing. However, I would welcome a review from more qualified editors, and would like to see it reach GA status. -- Elaich ^talk 01:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It has serious notability problems from what I can see, and merger is probably the best way to go. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy III has been demoted from GA and needs to be re-promoted by June 10, 2008 or the topic can be removed. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Now I don't want to ruffle any feathers, but I really feel, especially now that Final Fantasy XI is featured, we can redirected the following articles to the main FFXI article as they have highly questionable notability now that they are very well covered in the main article;

• List of Final Fantasy XI characters
• Gameplay of Final Fantasy XI
• Vana'diel
• Expansions of Final Fantasy XI

All of this information is covered in the main article, and having researched this topic a ton lately to get this to FA status, there is not the greatest chance that they will be expandable on their own. Anyway, there it is. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The game's plot is barely mentioned at all in the main article, and there's a discussion on the talk page about putting the plot information in Expansions of Final Fantasy XI (I think it could maybe go in Vana'diel also). This game has a very deep and complex story written by Masato Kato, and it's a shame that it's being ignored. If FFXI were an offline RPG game, its story would be considered as good as FFX's. FightingStreet (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You are totally ignoring what I said, which is that these topics do not appear to have enough reliable sources to sustain themselves as individual articles, as in information on creation and reception. Anyone else have a thought? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case the plot information should have been put in the main article and it shouldn't have passed FA without it. FightingStreet (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just don't go there, it passed FA because every objection was met and we did tons of corrections. Perhaps some details could be culled from the vanadiel article and added, but otherwise, everything is well covered in the main article already, there is no need to bloat it with too much detail from the sub articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The article passed FA because it's comprehensive, and it's comprehensive because the things that it doesn't deal with (mainly plot and setting information) are relegated to subarticles. If you remove these subarticles, the main article ceases to be comprehensive. If these subarticles didn't exist during the FA nomination, I would certainly not have voted Support, so probably a few other people wouldn't have either. What would you say if an article like Final Fantasy VII had no Setting and no Story sections? FightingStreet (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

FFXI HAS as setting section, and not one person asked for a story or a characters section for FFXI because its of a different nature than FFVII, meaning its an MMORPG. But as I just said, it would be fine to merge in a paragraph on the story from the Vanadiel article.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well? How about if we add a paragraph each on the story and the characters? Would you support redirection then? Is there any other detail that is a must have to have one compete article on FFXI? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how the fact that FFXI is an MMORPG means that its storyline should be treated in a different way than the other Final Fantasy titles. Even the FF1 article has a plot summary, despite its storyline being very simple and short. FFXI has a very long and complex story, but if someone can summarize its whole backstory and storyline in one paragraph (or more likely several paragraphs), it would be fine I guess. FightingStreet (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As for Gameplay of Final Fantasy XI, it needs to be properly merged, not redirected. The current Gameplay section in the main article is heavily lacking in terms of Job information. I know we shouldn't list them all, but we should still say something about them, like in Final Fantasy V#Job System. FightingStreet (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, lets start this conversation over. :) I assert that these four articles will not be able to stand on their own, meaning grow to GA or FA because they lack sufficient notability through multiple reliable sources. If we create a story section, a jobs section, and perhaps a small characters section, would you support redirecting these articles to the main Final Fantasy XI article? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess. I don't think a character section is needed since there are too many and they're all NPCs, but there should definitely be a jobs section and a story section. The important characters will be mentioned in the story section anyway.

I don't know about the remaining article though, Expansions of Final Fantasy XI. The current Reception section in the main article deals with FFXI as a whole (or even just the original pre-Zilart release in some sentences?). Are you sure there has been no reviews about the distinct expansions? FightingStreet (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the kind of article that looks like it could get filled in, but, as an example, there seem to have been far fewer reviews of the expansions than the original game, and anything that was in an expansion either went in the expansion section in the main article, or was added to the section that it effected, like the gameplay section. Like I said, there is a little, but not nearly enough for its own article, better to have one article full of content than 5-6 articles with so-so content. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay then I agree with redirecting it. As a side note though, I'd like to point out that if someone ever finds enough critical sources about Vana'diel, the Vana'diel article could be recreated. Looking at World of Final Fantasy VIII, these kinds of location articles don't seem to need that much in terms of critical sources (basically a few reviews about the game's graphics should be enough). But for now a merge/redirect is probably best. FightingStreet (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

True, it can be if we find enough references for it, and in some cases like FFVIII it can be found. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

One last question: should the various regional release dates of each expansion be added in the table? FightingStreet (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure...hmmm. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would appreciate a nice story section on FFXI since one doesn't seem to exist anywhere on the Internet. As for the regional release dates, I think it would clutter the table too much, unless it was reorganized. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, merged in Expansions and the gameplay, and created a jobs section, feel free to copyedit, I did a little. As to a story section, does anyone know what the story is, or where the information is to compile a story? Fighting seems to know the story, perhaps he could volunteer to write one :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Merged all the article, created job section and started a story section, feel free to edit it, but now the article is complete, and doesn't have content spread across 5-6 different articles. :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a huge plot summary on this site, but it's told from an in-universe perspective and it tries to ignore the player's presence in the events. The current story section in the article is probably okay though. FightingStreet (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If any of you are available or know of sources that can be used, that would be great. I haven't found any that would help very much, and we need reliable sources on things like the fan translation and perhaps some more reception and development info. If anyone knows Japanese that would probably help. Thanks! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Final_Fantasy_Crystal_Chronicles:_Ring_of_Fates#Anti-piracy_measures_.28Cracked.29. Very unprofessional. Can someone please determine whether such statement is 1. Notable, 2. Verifiable, 3. Copy-editable? — Blue。 12:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue that it's notable because it'd be the first DS game to have such an anti-piracy measure. With some heads of video game companies believing most people are downloading ROMs for the DS instead of buying them, similar anti-piracy measures may end up being implemented. It would be this game that initiated the effort.

As for verifiable and copy-editable, I believe news of the issue has been covered on sites such as Kotaku and gamefaqs has a locked message in their forums on the issue. I can look around for the details, but for now I just put some {{fact}} tags in the section. I also paraphrased much of what was written to remove weasel words and improve clarity.

— Ost (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Esto gaza redirects to Final Fantasy IX#Setting, yet the paragraph itself never mentioned Esto Gaza. However, Esto Gaza is hardly Notable to become a standalone article. Nominate for redirect deletion? — Blue。 11:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that no one, or an insignificent number of people are going to search for it, yeah go ahead. Otherwise, if it has a little notability, perhaps a mention could be added. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. FightingStreet (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's more wise to handle these things differently. But what can I say, this new generation of Wikipedia editors has no sense of the diplomacy, realism, or compromise that is required in collaboration. This is one of many examples. — Deckiller 16:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Handle how? The aim of a featured article review is to improve the article. I don't see what's wrong with doing that.FightingStreet (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If you wanted people to improve it, the best way to go about that is to try to get a group of people here to work with you on improving it. The people here are the most committed to getting final fantasy articles improved. Instead, you just sent it off to FAR with a form letter to the contributors here, leaving them only limited time to fix things before it gets bumped to FARC. Declaring it to not be good enough and putting it through a formal review process is not the same thing as talking to the people involved and who care to get it improved. --PresN (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with Deckiller and PresN. The new generation of Wikipedia editors now are quick to merge and silently delete articles of this variant and if it has a featured status, quick to push it for a review and delist them. I don't see any notion that they wanted to improve the article; they feel it'll be easier if the articles are delisted and merged. I am sad to see the recent "merge" aka silent deletion of the articles, such as World of FFVI and Characters of FFIX that the project spent time to create, on the basis of notability and verifiability. I thought Wikipedia has no due date. The editors doing the review also seems to quickly nominate for delisting, seldom have I seen any comments to improve the article. — Blue。 01:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that this project should be more active, but on the other hand, FFVII has been tagged for cleanup for quite a while, and the two merged articles have shown no notability for much longer. And now that they were merged, I don't see any prospect of someone emerging with a bunch of references that would make them notable, or that such references were maliciously overlooked. I would gladly help build those two articles up if we are mistaken to merge, but I'm equally not afraid to merge them if they don't seem notable. But, as a new member, I would just caution FightingStreet about the FAR review process as anything but a last resort for our own articles, as we are the most active in terms of article repair for our own articles, and you have a better chance of improving them by requesting here than putting it there. :)Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Feh... All I can recommend is move it to the Annex or to FF Wiki and forget about Wikipedia. That would force those drive by taggers to have to actually DO something to improve an article instead of just whining about it. Wouldn't that be something ? Renmiri (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The reception section is really poorly cited. Which edition of Game Informer was it? Who wrote the review? The same goes for quite a few others in the review box out. - hahnchen 14:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)