Talk:Characters of the Final Fantasy VII series

note

This article says that jenova disguised herself as Sephiroth and assassinated Shinra. This is NOT true. Sephiroth uses jenova / cells to make it possible to do his bidding from where he really is at the North Crater.

The development team have made it clear that Sephiroth USES Jenova not the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.81.249 (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Bugenhagen

Someone keeps putting in the article that Bugenhagen dies of old age in Final Fantasy VII. This is simply never said to be the case. He is ill, and subsequently disappears leaving a note, but no one says he is dead. Proof needs to be found one way or the other, I have not managed to find any to prove he is either dead or just missing. Morrid1 (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that Bugenhagen dies. Before Red XIII goes to see him, the guy at the gate mentions that "it's really bad" and that Bugenhagen hasn't been well since his return from the Highwind. After they speak, Bugenhagen stops right in the middle of one of his "Ho ho ho's", his raised arm falls limp and he doesn't respond to Red XIII's frantic nudging. When Red XIII goes to talk to Cloud and the others, he says Bugenhagen "zipped off on another journey" which is obviously not true as we last see him laying motionless and unresponsive on a couch and are told he's in poor health moments earlier. Nanaki clearly meant Bugenhagen had gone on a figurative journey to the Lifestream, which Cloud humors him by saying, "Maybe we'll see him again somewhere" to which Nanaki says, "Thanks, Cloud..." obviously thanking him for playing along. There is never any mention of Bugenhagen leaving a note, either. The scene clearly reads (and the visuals show) as the death of Bugenhagen. Additionally, the "Case of Nanaki" story also mentions Bugenhagen as being deceased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.95.2 (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Archived

The talk has been archived again, all discussions appear resolved- or are not active for over several months. Gavin Scott (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Tifa has been merged

Tifa has been merged. Now the only Aerith to go. Gavin Scott (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, why was Tifa merged? There was no discussion about a merge; just about whether she is a "central" or "secondary" character. Both Tifa and Aerith still merit their own articles, even as secondary. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Axem here. Mergers should always be discussed. And you can't merge Aerith, Gavin, as it's currently a GA. The Prince (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

While I certainly agree that the Tifa article is in poor shape and should probably be merged in its current state, I think it might be salvageable. However if it can not then it probably should be merged. Also reiterating what Prince said, the Aerith article certainly established notability with both printed and online sources from GameSpy, IGN, GamePro, GameFAQs, Edge, EGM, and gamesTM. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

We've been merging all the other articles, is Tifa to be allowed her own? I don't feel strongly either way, but my problem is if Tifa is allowed her own article I can see people saying that characters such as Barret, or the Turks etc should have their own article...eventually reversing all we've done. Opinions? Gavin Scott (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel that Tifa is important enough to merit her own article, as one of the primary love interests (per precedent with Rinoa in the Chars of FFVIII article; Rinoa is a similar case). Also, it doesn't feel right leaving out the last corner of the love triangle between Cloud, Tifa, and Aerith (or square, if you count Zack). Axem Titanium (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

She should have her own article just because she's a love interest? That sounds quite in-universe. I think she does merit her own article, but only because there are enough out-of-universe information about her (like how she wasn't in the original script of the game, etc.). Kariteh (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, I didn't say that's the primary reason. I just felt it would be aesthetically pleasing if she had her own article, as part of the triangle. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If the reception section gets expanded, I think she can have her own article. If not, I agree with Gavin. The Prince (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If we build up the article from an out of universe perspective then we should keep it by all means, per WP:Fict. Though, if we merged her I'd like to merge Aerith as well. Regardless, both Aerith and Tifa's entries in this article need to be expanded. Gavin Scott (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC) I just noticed I've done Aerith already- I think Tifa should be expanded upon though, I might have a go later but bit busy this weekend. Gavin Scott (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, the article should not be merged. Tifa is a crucial character to FF7, easily deserving her own article. All other FF7 characters should have their own articles too. We're talking about one of the best games ever made here. Tool-apc (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Tifa's Role

I know we're having trouble working out Tifa's relation to being either the love interest or just one of two...do we think this image perhaps hints that she is the central love interest? [1]Im not saying its a reference or evidence...just an idea. Gavin Scott (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Tifa's role is that of emotional support for Cloud, not to be his love interest or booty call. --87.75.139.36 (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

From the official Square-Enix sight, which I linked to back in January '08 it says the following:

Aeris' page "Her unusual abilities enable her to use magic, but she seems more interested in the deepening love triangle between herself, Cloud and Tifa."

Tifa's page "She and Cloud were childhood friends, and although she has strong feelings for him, she will never admit it."

Significant? Gavin (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Major Character" division

Whoever did this page has obviously never played the game... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.253.69 (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no justifiable reason for Vincent Valentine and Zack Fair to have the distinction of major characters while the rest of the cast (especially important characters such as Aerith Gainsborough) are relegated to a separate status. This is especially true considering that in Final Fantasy VII, Vincent is an optional character and Zack Fair is not playable at all. This IS an article on FFVII characters - please change the article to be consistent with the source material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.26.107 (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Zack and Vincent are playable characters in their own games. Thus, they are more important than characters who do not have their own games. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not the page for characters of those games, it is the page for Final Fantasy VII characters. Also, being a main character does not necessarily mean that you are important or central - the playable character often serves as a lens. At the very least, Aeris(th) should be given the distinction of a central character. She is at least as important to the games as Sephiroth and can easily be seen as the spiritual mascot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.26.107 (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As stated in the intro, this is the article for characters of the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII. Gavin Scott (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it is clearly for all titles in the compilation, noting the sections labeled "Before Crisis characters", "Advent Children characters", "Dirge of Cerberus characters", and "Crisis Core characters". The current criteria for being "central" appears to be being the main playable character in a game and Sephiroth since he's the main villain. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Then the criteria should be subject to re-examination. To disinclude Aeris (the mover) is just preposterous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.26.107 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

State why you think it is preposterous or your opinion won't matter. Kariteh (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I did state why, however briefly.

Aeris is a primary character because she is the mover. While arguments can be made against the idea that she is what drew Cloud to the Shin-ra building and got the ball rolling in the first place, it's fairly indisputable that by the time they got to the Temple of the Ancients, she was giving guidance to their mostly meandering quest. She is also the first to call Cloud's true identity into question.

Aeris is the counterpoint to Sephiroth, the real last ancient, and becomes important enough for him to single out and kill as she is the one with the power to call Holy. Her death becomes one major motivating force for the rest of the team and by the time they know why she died, their goal is to help her save the planet by freeing up whatever is blocking Holy. When Holy does come, it comes with the lifestream, and we see Aeris' face - it is understood that while Cloud killed Sephiroth, Aeris is the one who saved the planet.

Aeris takes a major thematic role throughout the compilation, as well. She guides Cloud again in Advent Children and the source of some of Cloud's inner struggle comes from his inability to resolve the guilt he carries for not being able to protect her. She cleanses Geostigma and by the end is being painted as the force that stands in opposition to Jenova, which is a pretty hefty distinction. By the end credits, it is Aeris and Cloud who we see, rather than all the other characters.

Then, we have the fact that she has an entire work dedicated to her, "The Maiden Who Travels The Planet," I believe it's called.

Is this enough evidence? Frankly, I think it should be obvious from playing the original game that Aeris is of huge importance. If I remembered some of the comments made by the creators to support that, I'd cite them, as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.70.207 (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As she only had a big part in FFVII, and not in the rest of the Compilation, I don't think she's a major character. It's fine the way it is now. PS: Please log in/create an account. The Prince (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

But Zack and Vincent only have big parts in Dirge of Cerberus and Crisis Core, so there goes your argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.70.207 (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Zack and Vincent are the only major characters in their games. Aerith is one of them in FFVII. The Prince (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In their games. In the original, they are both wholly optional. Aeris is more integral to the story than both of them. 99.245.70.207 (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Aeris is one of the three characters (the other two being Cloud and Sephiroth) who appear on the PS1 case to FFVII (or at least the US version, I'm not sure.) Also, discounting the Red XIII ending, she's both the first and last character to appear in the game. She plays a similar "mover" role in Advent Children as in FFVII, being a key source of motivation to Cloud through his visions of her. While I haven't played Crisis Core, it seems most likely that she would be a source of motivation to Zach in that game as well. (Lordparadise (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

If I may suggest an alternative. "Main protagonists / Main antagonists / Other characters" worked well for Characters of Kingdom Hearts. I'm not entirely familiar with the FFVII games, but I believe most of the characters would fall under "Main protagonists / Main antagonists / Minor FFVII characters" along with the specific "Before Crisis characters / Advent Children characters / Dirge of Cerberus characters / Crisis Core characters". Just a thought. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

I think this is an excellent solution, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.70.207 (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My main criticism of the anon IP user's argument is that it's based on a subjective evaluation of Aerith's importance as a character. On Wikipedia, we must avoid such original research-style rankings and go by the cold hard facts. And the fact is that Cloud, Zack, and Vincent are the main characters/"stars" of their own games. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

But Sephiroth is not. So if exceptions are made for important re-occuring characters, why Sephiroth but not Aeris? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.70.207 (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Since I proposed the current set-up I suppose I should defend it. The Main Antagonist/Protagonist etc will not work her because the article deals with multiple games and other media. The main characters in each part of the compilation are as follows.

• Final Fantasy VII: Cloud
• Before Crisis: The Turks- however as there is no central Turk in the game, they don't have a place in the Central Character Section.
• Dirge of Cerberus: Vincent
• Crisis Core: Zack
• Advent Children: Cloud
• Last Order: Cloud

Sephiroth is the central antagonist of the entire series- Cloud is not the central protagonist of all the games/films however. So thats why Sephiroth is in the Main Characters section. I originally put Aerith into the main characters section as I always saw her as a primary mover- however she does not have her own media and thus, is not in the section. It is that simple- if they have their own game, they are a main character. The main villain over all is Sephiroth. Which is why he is there. Axem Titanium knows what he's talking about here, OR and therefore my personal interpretation of Aerith's role doesnt come into it. Gavin Scott (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you are misconstruing these characters as the most integral to the story, and especially int he case of Vincent and Zack, that's just not usually the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.70.207 (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the characters span several titles in multiple mediums, however I believe they still mostly fall into either a protagonist or antagonist role in the overall story. The characters of Kingdom Hearts spanned multiple titles as well. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

I have looked at the kingdom hearts article and the way its split would help not us here, for example- people might want to have Red XIII in the Main Protagonist section- would he fit? No, his role is only major in the original Final Fantasy VII game. This is the same with Barret and Cid. Cait Sith actually gets more airtime in the entire Compilation that Barret, Red or Cid. So does Yuffie- one of those optional characters. Fact is, we have the best solution. Vincent is a far more important character in terms of the overall compilation than anyone other than Cloud- if you consider the large role he plays in Advent Children (His time eclipses Barrets, Cids, Cait Siths, Yuffies, Red XIII's. The fact he has his own game, he is in Before Crisis I believe. Arguably, Rufus has a bigger part to play also. Lets break this down AGAIN.

• Cloud: Original Game ; Before Crisis; Advent Children ; Last Order; Crisis Core
• Tifa: Original Game; Advent Children ;
• Aerith: Original Game; Advent Children;
• Barret: Original Game;
• Cid: Original Game;
• Cait Sith: Original Game; Dirge of Cerberus
• Red XII: Original Game;
• Yuffie: Dirge Of Cerberus;
• Vincent:Before Crisis; Advent Children; Dirge of Cerberus

• Zack: Last Order; Crisis Core
• Sephiroth:Original Game; Advent Children; Last Order; Crisis Core
• Rufus:Original Game; Before Crisis; Advent Children;

If the character plays a major part in one of the games/films then they have that game/film listed next to them in bold, if its a game/film where they are the central character its italic and bold.

So you see why Main protagonist wouldnt solve any problem. As in terms of the entire Compilation the main protagonists are: Cloud, Zack, Vincent...the only main antagonist is Sephiroth...Rufus isn't really a protagonist or antagonist by Advent Children is he...so he couldn't fit into that section...he is simply a major character...more major than Barret, Cid, Red, Cait Sith or Yuffie perhaps...any further opinions? Gavin Scott (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see how the protagonist/antagonist division wouldn't solve any problem. I also don't see why anybody would want to put Red XIII in the antagonist section either, but like I said, I'm not entirely familiar with the entire story. I think we may be looking at the characters in different ways. In my mind I see a clear division of sides among the characters as they relate to the entire story that spans the different FFVII titles. I assume you are looking at them as they relate to each individual game (correct me if I'm wrong).
In cleaning up the KH characters article, we had some characters types that were in between the protagonist and antagonist classification. Riku for example, was an antagonist through out most of the first game, but switched back to being a protagonist. Naminé started out in an antagonist capacity but also switched to being a protagonist. We ended up putting them in the "Main protagonists" because of their overall role. I think Rufus is similar to Riku and Naminé, except he fits into the antagonist role more. But that's just my view point, you obviously have a different one, as I'm sure others here have their own as well. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

Apologies, I meant Red XIII in the main protagonist section, however he wouldnt fit in it. The only characters who would fit into the section of Main Protagonist would be:

Cloud, Vincent Zack. As I have shown above all other main protagonists from the original game are only primary in the realms of the original game. It wouldnt solve the problem- Main Character or Main Protagonist, whatever you want to call it it would contain the exact same people. Gavin Scott (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if that's how you see it, then that's how you see it. Though technically, it's all subjective; both your way and mine. By the reasoning you've stated, the organization used of Characters of Kingdom Hearts doesn't appropriately organize the KH characters. But this article is not of high importance on my personal list of things to do on Wikipedia. So if you feel this is the best method, go for it. Just thought I'd give my two cents. Good luck with it and happy editing. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

Its good to have experienced editors give their opinions! So thanks, sadly im not familiar with the Kingdom Hearts story so I wouldnt know. Thanks very much, you too. Gavin Scott (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree wholeheartedly with the OP on this one - this division stood out glaringly to me. Vincent and Zack, despite each being the primary protagonist of a spin-off game are certainly no more central to the overall mythos of the series than Aeris. She's not just a primary fulcrum of the plot but one of the most noted characters in the entire franchise and in gaming history as a whole. Reading the above comments I have to wonder if this is a mini-generational issue with younger players failing to realize her significance because her role is so much more muted in Compilation games and movies as opposed to the original FFVII. And while it may seem arbitrary to some, I think we do need to give the original game some extra weight here in how we evaluate the centrality of the characters; VII is a main entry in the franchise, the longer game far, the vastly most popular of the subfranchise, the most mainstream and is the "core" story(no pun intended); DOC and CC are both semi-fringe extensions that were tacked on to capitalize on the original game's lingering popularity and I always felt that the importance their primary characters (especially with regard to Vincent in Dirge)were unnecessarily inflated by the respective creative team handling the games in order to try to recapture the scope and sense of urgency of the original game and that in both cases it comes off as forced and ill-fitting to the larger framework. But that's all academic - frankly I think the best solution is to eliminate the central characters / main characters distinction altogether. It's clunky and is at odds with general wikipedia standards regarding the interjection of too much personal opinion. And clearly it leads to too much debate as to who makes it into that highest echelon. I think we can all agree that a main characters/secondary characters/small roles division is essential, but adding yet another level of hierarchy is just plain unclean for our purposes here. That being said, if the central characters listing is to stay, Aeris definitely needs to be moved into it. In fact, I'd argue Tifa needs to be in there too; she's one of the most prominent characters of the first game, she's the female lead in Advent Children and Last Order, is at this point the main love interest of Cloud (unarguably the single most central character), and has just about as much 'screen time' throughout the entire series as any other character. - Snow: 19 October 2009

Yeah, I'm inclinded to agree with Snow. I don't see the purpose of having an awkwrd subdivision into central characters and major characters. The article reads really badly as it exists at the moment. Having Vincent, a secret chatacter in the main game in the series, listed as a major character makes little sense (and yep, I've read all of the above, there's nothing there to explain why the extra subdivision exists.) Personally, I feel it should be changed, remove the extra division, and simply have "main characters" and then list them whatever way suits be it alpahbetical or whatever. 86.42.29.179 (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone??? 86.45.57.137 (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well its to subjective to say aerith is more central than vincent and zack. However maybe we can make the sections to "Playable characters" then the rest are arranged to "introduced in (add video game here)". Thats as best as i could possibly make it work.Lucia Black (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well playable characters in video games would be Cloud, Barret, Tifa, Barret, Red XIII, Yuffie, Cait Sith, Vincent and Cid from FFVII while Sephiroth is supporting Cloud's flashbacks. Crisis Core has only Zack while Before Crisis has the Turks as playable characters.Tintor2 (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "Main characters"? Even though Barret, Tifa, Red, etc. are playable in FFVII, it's undeniable that Cloud is the "main" character of that game. This would also capture Sephiroth, who is only briefly playable, as a "main" antagonist. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well i suppose we could separate main and playable.Lucia Black (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm just passing through here with the intention of doing some tidy up work on Final Fantasy VII related articles. Reagrding this issue, from what I can gather, the problem people have isn't so much the wording, it's the (as the IP user put it) "awkward subdivision". Like several posters above, I just don't see the point of it. Take Characters of Devil May Cry for example. Dante is obviously the main character, but in Devil May Cry 2, Lucia is playable for half the game, and in Devil May Cry 4, Nero is playable for over half the game. But this article doesn't list them in a seperate section to the other major characters. They're all grouped into one section. Which seems to make more sense to me. Bertaut (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

however, this game has games dedicated to other characters. for example: Zack, cloud (the supposed main character) wasn't even playable. Same for Vincent Valentine. difference is technically, the compilation of final fantasy VII focuses mainly on other characters.Lucia Black (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you're saying, and I don't really feel all that passionately about it one way or the other. It just seems that the whole thing is provoking unnecessary debate, that's been going on now for over four years, yet accomplishes very little. I just don't get why there isn't one "main characters" section, and that's it. Simple. Bertaut (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Difficult at the moment. Some were main characters in just one game while never really being that important in the other. The best i can say is arranging this solely on "Introduced in (Enter game here)". The least subjective way i can say works.Lucia Black (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, yeah, that makes sense, as it would remove much of the debate about subjectivity. Bertaut (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. I think that sacrifices readability for the sake of "neutrality". There are characters who are unequivocally more important to the series than others. Reducing them to an alphabetical list, separated by game, buries them amid a host of throwaway characters and robs the reader of understanding their importance. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say alphabetical. I am against that. However, f you have any ideas? That doesn't cause any more conflcit? t would be best to close ths conversatoin and start a new one at the bottom.Lucia Black (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Article Title Change?

Would it be better if the article was called, Characters of the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII? Gavin Scott (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ehhh, it's kind of wordy and it seems to be explained well enough in the intro, although it could be better. Also, the original FFVII isn't part of the Compilation. It's correct enough in its current form and more succinct, to boot. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The current title is correct since "Final Fantasy VII" is pretty much the name of a (sub-)franchise, not just the name of a game. This just has to be made clear in the introduction. The current lead is too much focused on the first game; it only gives a passing mention of its sequels then concludes on how much copies the first game sold... Stating how much the whole FFVII subfranchise sold would be more relevant I think. Kariteh (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should use the lead in Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and as an example. The Prince (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made a wee edit to the intro-thanks for improving it though! So I think thats good for now, might need expanded if we wanted to move this up to GA status...opinions all? Gavin Scott (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cait's sentience

It is plainly obvious from the source. Given the fact that Cait says the word 'see', as well as the advent of the sentence as a whole, determines that the sentence has a pre-requisite --- which is obviously the advent of Cait portraying to the team that he "didn't" have feelings or had any sentience within him, and, the advent of Cait using the word, 'I'. If Cait didn't have to choose to sacrifice himself because Reeve would have made him do it anyway, Cait would have used to word, 'we' --- as in Cait and Reeve together. The concept in question is very obvious and was made in the article before it was merged. Some interpretation is needed as long as it coincides with the reference; meaning, that is why you can't copy and paste from books or web sites. 67.204.195.30 (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for not getting into an edit war. Sadly I can't quite make out your argument. I think your saying Cait Sith appeared to have no sentience then, at the Temple of the Ancients we became aware of it. Clearly in Dirge of Cerberus Cait Sith has at least limited Sentience- we can tell just by the way Reeve interacts with him. So if your arguing Cait Sith was a sentient being- then yes, to some degree he was. Gavin Scott (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I also have a hard time following your argument (your use of the word "advent" is unclear). My position is that his degree of sentience cannot be determined and cited from the game scripts without an unacceptable amount of original synthesis and interpretation of the dialogue. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Axem is correct here, if a game designer or some third party stated that he was indeed sentient then we could include it...sadly, its just our interpretation...which is why we cant use it. Gavin Scott (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. If you can't interpret simple dialogue and use it accroding to the fundamentals of logic in relation to the alphabet/english language, then I guess you can't interpret the fact that Reeve had a "change of heart" because he doesn't actually say it, and the director or programmers didn't say it. Also, when protraying that the fortune Cait reads about Cloud and Aeris isn't exactly 'clear', we shouldn't even apply to this because the narrative doesn't actually say it isn't 'clear', and, since the director or programmers didn't say it wasn't clear. Also, there doesn't seem to be any large allotments of interpretation in respect to this arguement because the narrative obviously states that Cait felt pain ("Owwww"); the narrative also states that he felt in general ("She said 'Be Strong'. I feel so happy"); the narrative also states that Cait refered to himself as a sentient being since he used/narrative the sentence: "Theres plenty of stuffed toys like my body around, but theres only one me". If Reeve was talking, then the concept of "only one me" couldn't apply, and, futhermore, we would have to state that it was in fact Reeve saying theres "only one me" (perhaps a bit of self-rightousness?) since the arguement of sentience is still being processed and no programmers or directors actually said it wasn't Reeve. So, if you can't provide footnotes with the narratives statemets and portrayals, I'm afraid we're going to have to rewrite this whole article which is a requisite to that idea.(InternetHero (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the rest of the article. I haven't gone through it with my OR detector ray yet so I wouldn't know. Anyway, there is a difference between substituting a word in the script with a synonym and drawing such conclusions. Saying "owww" and "I feel so happy" do not, by definition, denote sentience so it is too far a stretch to make that statement. As well, the "only one me" thing could just be for comedic/ironic effect but we can't know since Wikipedia operates on verifiability and not speculation about the writers' intentions. Again, I'm not disagreeing with your assertion, per se. I just don't find the evidence sufficient for a verifiable statement on Wikipedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, maybe the word 'sentience' would be too strong of position towards our interpretation of the narrative. Maybe I'l describe the pertaining narrative in a sentence rather than one word. I actually have read most of the rems of use for Wikipedia. You probably read the paragraph below but missed the second paragraph. [2]

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

"Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event.[3] Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims.[4][5] Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." —Preceding unsigned comment added by InternetHero (talk • contribs)

So, you have proved that you are using Original Synthesis which you accept is against Wiki-policy? Personally, I think that its a stupid rule and believe we should be able to make reasonable interpretations as sensible editors...Of course in a project such as this there have to be constraints. Thus, we can all agree with your view, but as you have stated its Original Research and therefore, invalid. Gavin Scott (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. The games' narrative and the game itself is a primary source. The only negative place-holder here is you guys. (WP:PSTS) allows you to: "make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". InternetHero (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The quotes you provide don't really fit that description though, its a vague sentence where the Cat calls itself me or my...doesn't actually infer sentience. Gavin Scott (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and please, Assume the good faith of the editors who disagree with you.Gavin Scott (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. It is not a vague sentence but rather multiple sentences in multiple contexts. Have you even played the game at all? Cait Sith not only says he "feels" happy seeing that Aerith told him to, 'Be Strong', but he also says, "owww". Not to mention that at the very end hetells everyone to not only forget him but explains that there's "plenty of stuffed toys around like my body, but there's only one me". "* make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". InternetHero (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you feel passionate about this issue and the fact that the sources you provide do not give an adequate description of Cait's sentence must be very stressful. Might I recommend you have a look at the Wikistress article and try to take a few deep breaths. We are all working together here! Gavin Scott (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Cait's Sentence Poll

As you will be aware there is a considerable disagreement between the editors of the page as to whether the Sources provided by Editor InternetHero are enough to provide adequate evidence that Cait sith is indeed a sentient being. This poll is not to say whether you believe Cait is sentient or not but is purely whether you believe the evidence presented by InternetHero is enough.

The Sources he gives is the Primary Source Final Fantasy VII:

Cait Sith: "She told me to 'Be strong'." / Cait Sith: "I feel so happy." Cait Sith: "I can protect the Planet too! I'm kinda embarrassed..." / Cait Sith: There's plenty of stuffed toys like my body around, but there's only one me!"

Is this evidence enough? to satisfy the rules stated in Wiki:PSTS State you Opinion below. A simple yes or no will suffice.

• No, personally I believe that per the PSTS policy the evidence provided by InternetHero only meets one of the two points needed to allow the use of Primary Sources, that is "make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." However, I do not believe that his evidence satisfys the needs to "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." InternetHero's information does allow anyone regardless of their knowledge of the game to suppose that Cait may indeed be a sentient being, it does not however provide the necessary evidence to prove that he is. That requires personal interpretation i.e. Original Synthesis. Gavin Scott (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Statement Is it obvious ("easily verifiable") from the game that Cait is sentient? If so, then it can go in the article. If not, it can't. That's what the primary source policy means. If you and other editors don't think it's obvious, then it can't. If everyone thinks it's obvious, then it can. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My point is that this poll is unnecessary, and indeed improper. I fear there is an unclear understanding of policy here: if there is reasonable disagreement about Cait's sentience, then by definition it is not easily verifiable from the primary source, therefore one cannot use the primary source to support it, and must look instead for secondary sources. Simple as that. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Internethero however believes that he can put the evidence in regardless of the others editors opinions as we are "mistaken". So this little poll is an informal way of showing editorial opinion, essentially you too are saying that in the circumstances we should not include the piece on Cait's sentience. Gavin Scott (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Essentially yes. Btw, if what you said about internethero were true, then he would not be on the talk page talking about policy and seeking consensus. Please try not to take disagreement so personally that you mischaracterize people's positions. Btw 2, I haven't seen a reason from you about why something that talks, expressing emotion and self-consciousness, is possibly not sentient. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe he is, its the fact that the evidence given doesn't prove it, as Axem has shown, also Internethero has made several edits which were rv after..."I didn't know every1 who provides contributions along with references had to get your divine blessing 1st." springs to mind...I would ask you to assume good faith in what I am trying to do here, that is get an effective consensus on this issue. Its easy, fair and I believe effective. We're not debatign his sentience, rather whether the evidence provided proves he is or not.Gavin Scott (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear god, man, that was a week ago! His last edit and he's been on talk since! And you still don't get my point that you have to debate his sentience in order to decide if it is obvious from the primary source, so you have framed your poll incorrectly. (The fact that there would then be some debate rather than "yeah duh" agreement means that the primary source fails as a source for this. btw, have you seen WP:LAME, it's funny! we might be on it soon!) 86.44.6.14 (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think regardless we have shown that there is no concensus on his Sentience and there is no consensus on how best to show there is no consensus...anyway, it is now clear that Cait Sith cannot be labeled as "sentient" in the article based on Internethero's evidence. :) Whats with this animosity anyway...can't we all get along and appreciate that each of us is trying to better the project...at the end of the day we are all a team after all. Gavin Scott (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• NO Is it not possible that Reeve could "feel so happy" or simply refer to his own human body in "there's only one me"? There's too much room for interpretation to make a definitive statement about his sentience from these or any lines in the script. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

He is right about me being a little rude when I 1st started editing. Thanks for clearing up the contexts of Wikipedias' primary sources for me. If its about a consensus we have to wait at least a months time to truly get everybodys' opinion --- or even longer. So far, there has been around 2-3 editors besides me in the discussion but thats hardly enough. I'm going to have to stick with the primary source since the majority of people could still apply the concept of easy verifiability. (InternetHero) 13:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there not a quote that could be taken from Dirge of Cerberus that we could use to show Cait's Sentience, after all Reeve does call him a He and he is shown to work independently and appears to show conscious thought. The case for sentience is certainly made allot strong in DoC than in FFVII Gavin Scott (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but we also know that there are multiple Cait Siths. The technology may have improved in 3 years, allowing him to have some sort of AI which is not present in the original FFVII. At best, I think the question of his sentience isn't notable enough to include anyway. Cait is a rather minor character, despite being playable. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, he gets quite a large amount of coverage as it is. However a sentence on his possible sentience can't do any harm i.e.

"Cait Sith appears to have the traits of a sentient being, displaying what seems to be conscious thought when he considers his role in saving the planet or when he appears to act independently of Reeve and is affectionately referred to as "you know who" by his controller in Dirge of Cerberus. However the actual status of Cait's independence is never made clear nor is the issue of his sentience. It is possible that he is simply a very advanced AI system who appears to be sentient. Since his task is to carry out spying and espionage this is very possible. Cait Sith's sentience or possible lack of it is a continuing debate amongst fans of Final Fantasy VII."

Again, unfortunately this is hardly sourceable. And dances around OR. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The narrative states that Cait refered to himself as a sentient being since he used/narrative the sentence, "Theres plenty of stuffed toys like my body around, but theres only one me". If Reeve was talking, then the concept of "only one me" couldn't apply because he wasn't dying (perhaps a bit of self-rightousness??), and futhermore, we would have to state that it was in fact Reeve saying theres "only one me" since the arguement of sentience is still being processed and no programmers or directors actually said it wasn't Reeve—nor did they say that Reeve had a "stuffed body". So, if you can't provide footnotes with the narratives' statemets and portrayals, I'm afraid we're going to have to rewrite this whole article which is a requisite to that idea.InternetHero (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What does the Ultimania Guide say about it? Gavin Scott (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it alright if I edit the section of the article to repersent Reeve as being a stuffed toy that somehow dies but only says so to recieve pity. Thats seems the only 'logical' conclusion you are leaving me with here. make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.InternetHero (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You may do what you feel is best for the Article and the project...you do not need my permission. Gavin Scott (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Go ahead and make some changes if you want. InternetHero (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There's an essential question as to the 'evidence' of Cait's self-awareness that has not been addressed here - how on earth does his saying anything, no matter how personal, provide empirical evidence that it comes from an independent mind, and not Reeves. The dialogue examples provided thus far are fairly open to broad interpretation. Moreover, I think the nature of the interaction between Reeves and Cait when we finally see them physically together in Dirge strongly suggests a man interacting with a machine which he has personally imbued with complicated behaviors which he knows to be non-sentient but which he also has become accustomed to interacting with as if it were a separate entity. People humanize inanimate tools all the time - how much easier still would it be with something that so outwardly resembles a living thing and which you personally used for a long time as a secret identity through which you sought redemption? Of course Reeves would put on a show any time he has to interact with the machine -- it's become second nature for him to treat Cait as his own person, even if anything Cait does is either directly controlled or pre-programed by him. It's an alter-ego with a psuedo-ventriloquist twist. Remember that Cait is not the only mechanical creation of Reeves that we've seen and notice that no one is trying to make an argument that the full-scale replica he made of himself was sentient, even though it functioned with no more or less apparent autonomy than can be proven for Cait. On the other hand, I will grant that in the Dirge mini-mission where you control Cait his 'personality' and actions do seem to be on auto-pilot. But once again, there's no reason to assume that the appearance of thought actually signifies thought; these actions and chatter could more easily be the result of complex programming on Reeves' part to maintain Cait's priorities and the illusion of his personality respectively. - Snow (19 October 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.114.1 (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hollander

"Angeal's father and former head of Shinra's science division until Hojo took it from him." Is this correct? Didn't Hojo take over from Prof. Ghast? Gavin Scott (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Vincent, Tifa, and Zack merger

Cloud, Sephiroth, and Aerith seem to have enough potential on their own, but these three aren't showing it at this point. While it may not be impossible to improve these, it would be best to merge them until someone shows that it can be done. TTN (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I can feasibly see Vincent asserting adequate notability given that an entire game was dedicated to him, and tied with the other media he's been it, it's possible. Tifa and Zack I'm more ambivalent on, although I can see Zack asserting more notability after Crisis Core comes out in the U.S. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

DoNOTMerge!! Vincet is one of the most important characters in the Final Fantasy VII series!! Here are a few reasons;

• He proves to be of certain importance in understanding small yet significant points in the plot of the game (the whole thing about his relationship to the 'bad' guys, etc... :PXD)
• Two games have been made about him... (This point ALONE is quite enough to stop the merging process...)
• His very small role in Final Fantasy VII - Advent Children proved to be of importance where he saved Cloud and revealed very very very very very important plot points in two scenes (After he saved Cloud and in the aircraft!)

Here are a few 'trivia' points on why shouldn't the articles be merged;

• He's one of the coolest characters in the series even competing with Cloud!
• He's one of the coolest characters of all time! :D

For the love of God, do NOT merge the articles!! Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel that Vincent and Zack definitely have enough to be notable. Tifa I would say not to merge since it would not be an efficient way to convey the information and she has played a major supporting role in many many games. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If they have it, you should be able to provide it or provide possible locations that people can check. I'm definitely not saying that it's impossible, but someone needs to actually show it before it's declared fact. As for Tifa, if she needs a larger section than the other "secondary" main characters, she can have one, but we certainly don't keep articles around just because we find them useful. TTN (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Vincent is notable enough, per Sephiroth BCR. I'm neutral about whether Tifa should be merged or not, but I think Zack's article should be merged because: it has no information about his creation or reception, no sources, the prose is badly written, and I also think that he shouldn't have his own article before Crisis Core is released. The Prince (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, per WP:CRYSTAL, it's alright as long as it is almost certain to take place, which it is, since the release date has been announced and it's not too long from now. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Vincent I believe requires his own article, as does Zack as they both have their own games. Tifa I'm not so sure about. What is the rationale behind her having her own article, is she really notable enough? Gavin Scott (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Tifa is the most important secondary character in several titles so, on some level, I suppose that importance adds up. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Do they though, and is calling her the most important secondary character not really depending on your interpretation. I mean, it is fair to say Aerith is the most important character after Cloud in the original game and attribute her equal importance in Advent Children. It would be a stretch but its possible. Im not saying Tifa shouldn't have her own article I was just wondering what the notability was. Gavin Scott (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, she has a fair bit of out-of-universe info as well. I recall that in development, her character was added so that Aerith could die. That sounds pretty notable. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we're missing the point of notability here. Notability doesn't stem from appearing in games or having a couple of production notes. It comes from having plenty of creation and reception information due to the games and having plenty of creation and reception information to back up those few production notes. Again, I am not saying that it is impossible for these three to be improved, but we should have some actual proof before using superficial standards of notability. TTN (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Or we could improve first before deciding to merge or not. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, improving the article should be our first intention, merging can take place should we fail to find enough out of game information to add to the article. Gavin Scott (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That would fall under my criteria of actual proof. I hope I don't seem like I'm trying to rush things. It's just that people often get too caught up in potential notability, while it's not always that clear. If you have actual information or actually know where to find it, that's a completely different story. It just doesn't seem that way from the above comments. TTN (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So then, are we atleast agreed that Vincent requires his own article, if thats the case will he be removed from the Suggested Merger Box? Majority of opinion seems to favour Tifa maintaining her own article. I believe that it should therefore be kept on the basis that it will be given high priority for a revamp. Gavin Scott (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as only five people in total have really commented on this, it seems a little hasty to remove the tags. I'm certainly not against attempted improvement, but that can be done with the tags still there. I would rather someone just post some sources that set up obvious potential, so they can just be removed anyways. TTN (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought we were all about rushing and haste? Seriously though, are there any specific points in any of these three articles that you think must be improved before they can warrant stand alone status? I mean, as far as I can tell regardless of the state Vincent certainly deserves his own article as he is the main character in his own, and a major character in several hugely successful video games. In fact, other than a lack of sources I don't see what the problem is with Vincent's article. Also, I don't believe a lack of sources means an article should be merged...otherwise I could see a huge amount of articles being deleted. My thoughts turn to a large amount of Historical Figures here on wikipedia whose articles are perhaps very much lacking sources. Anyway, any pointers you think we might need to improve to keep these articles independent? Gavin Scott (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

They need to show the potential to at least reach the level of Aerith. While they have a little bit of relevant information, the current information could easily be worked into this list. Even if Vincent and Zack have their own games, they doesn't need articles without enough real world information to hold them. TTN (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

But they do merit them per the instructions put down in WP:FICT. Regardless of the current content they do have the merit to be individual articles, if research was done they could be expanded further, that research will be done, as editors here have pledged. So surely, it is better for the project and its users that they maintain their individual articles...nothing is gained from merging them here. Gavin Scott (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For characters to have articles per our notability guidelines and WP:WAF, they need to have a significant amount of (potential) real world information that is completely separate from the parent topic. It's not just "We have two sources; that's good." or "We have a potential indicator of potential sources; that's good." In this case, they should show the potential to reach at least the level of Aerith. At this point, the only show a little bit of potential (based on objective criteria, not subjective opinions), and it's nowhere near needing to be split. That can easily change, though. TTN (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect these articles will be up to standard by the time enough people post here to give some sort of consensus or majority of opinion, since its usually the same few who post here anyway. So, I suppose these articles will remain in the mean time. Gavin Scott (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(to TTN) Either way, sources don't appear out of thin air. It requires time and effort to find good sources. If we were to go through all the trouble to find the sources necessary to prove "potential for notability", we might as well just fix them RIGHT NOW. Alas, not everyone can summon that kind of free time on the spot. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not trying to rush this or anything. I'm just trying to keep this away from the dangerous road of complete speculation. There is no rush here, so please do take your time on working with them. TTN (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Will you be joining in the search for sources and article improvement? You've made a few good edits on this article already. Gavin Scott (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Dirge of Cerberus?

Shouldn't we have a small Dirge of Cerberus section on this page? 71.181.76.56 (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Fantasy Leader

Yeah, the article agreed earlier to have one but User:TTN moved it to the DoC page, a small section will be put back however. Gavin Scott (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Vincent a central Character??

This might just be me, but although Vincent is one of the coolest characters of FF7, I strongly disagree that he is one of the central characters. Heck, he's not even an essential part ot the plot or the gameplay because it is just an option to play as him. I don't think he belongs in the same ranking as Cloud or Sephiroth.71.185.242.229 (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Mr. Dude

This page is ranked on both Compilation of FFVII and FFVII importance. Cloud and Sephiroth are both important, being the original protagonist and antagonist. Zack and Vincent are central characters because they get their own games. Zack stars in Crisis Core and Last Order, to an extent. Vincent stars in two games; Dirge of Cerberus and Dirge of Cerberus: Lost Episode. That's why Vincent is ranked that way; he has his own game.WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Crisis Core Descriptions

The descriptions for Crisis Core characters had several mistruths and very little information. I just added some more material taken from the Ultimania guide and the game itself.

I do believe Hojo took over as head of the science department from Gast, not Hollander. Hollander and Hojo were both vying for the recognition and when Gast left, Hojo won out because Jenova Project G was a miserable failure. When he became head of the department he basically relegated Hollander to a nobody.

I'll go double check though before making any changes.71.120.201.39 (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted?

Just wondering what happened to the page. A large sum of it seems to have been removed (four 'central' characters remain). Unless lack of sleep has something to do with it, I cannot see any link to a List of Final Fantasy VII characters page or something similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.181.1 (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was just my computer, but I guess not. I think I know what to do; just a sec.WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright! Fixed!WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Vincent is NOT a central character

You can play the entire game through without him, thus, he is not an essential part of the game. Please move him to other major characters. In addition, Aerith has a supremely major part in the story line and should be moved to central.

= Sam-man-zhi

In realtion to the entire Compilation of Final Fantasy VII he is a central character as he is the central character of his own game-that is the qualification for entry to that section. Gavin Scott (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe this was discussed earlier on this talk page, but basically what Gavin Scott said. "Characters of the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII" would be too much of a mouthful to use as the title, but it's pretty much stated what the list is in relation to. The Central characters are the characters with their own game/a movie centered around them; Vincent had Dirge of Cerberus and DoC Lost Episode. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger of Zack Fair here

He barely has any information as it is, so all of his information could sit here, build up this article and eliminate an article stub without losing any information in the process. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it was talked about earlier (very briefly in another section) but decided that because he is a fairly new main character, it could stay. I'm sure there is some reception and concept/creation information out there, but I've been a little busy with some merges and no one else has really stepped up. It seems to be in about the same shape as Vincent Valentine; though the latter has more information, it's nearly all unsourced anyway. I wouldn't mind improving the article, but I don't think I have the time and patience to tackle it alone right now. I'll stay undetermined unless a reliable editor decides to help with it. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I did most the mergers back in the early days! I've taken a break from all the hastle you get from doing that! haha, excellant work though! Oh, and a big shout out to Kariteh who did allot of it too. :) Anyway, yes the consensus was that Zack should have his own article as he has his own computer game and the information needed to improve the article exists. Gavin Scott (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Vincent Valentine

Hey, I noticed that the bit on Vincent didn't say he's optional in the original game. I know, by canon you get both him and Yuffie, but you don't have to get him to complete the game, so I put that note in there. Hope that's okay. --69.11.210.100 (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Yeah, I'd say it is. He IS after all optional, and isn't actually needed, but he's a cool character to have, with good attacks and Limits.

FACT: Vincent Valentine is an Optional Character in in the Fictional Game of Final Fantasy VII. He is not actually needed to complete the game, although he makes several appearences in Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children and plays the Main Role of Dirge of Cerberus: Final Fantasy VII.

--SytherD (talk) 08:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Crisiscoreartwork.PNG

The image File:Crisiscoreartwork.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --19:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Move and removal of character lists

First of all, about the move: I'm not exactly sure if it should have been done. While I can see why it is useful, I think it needs consensus. Either way, it's not something of a big deal.

However, removing the character lists is. It totally defeats the purpose of having a list of FFVII characters in the series if those characters are not explained. Some game pages have characters missing, others are filled with OR and no out-of-universe information, and many of the characters are considered important to the Compilation. While that's considered an in-universe statement, what isn't is that there is information on them. Many will appear again, sometimes with larger roles; more information will be available. To reduce the list should be talked about before-hand, which is why I'm reverting it until consensus can be reached. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I support this new title: I think it does encompass the whole series and solves the oft-quoted "this article is for the game" problem that some people bring up when making edits. However, what I don't understand is why change the title to Series of... when your going to delete all mention of the characters who are not in the original game? Doing that makes the title redundant. Gavin (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on the title change; because FFVII isn't part of the Compilation, the title would have to be "Characters of Final Fantasy VII and the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII", which is of course too long. This current titiles encompasses it nicely. But, as you said, removing the character lists defeats the purpose of it anyway. Characters listed in their appropriate titles usually don't have a section (such as nearly all BC characters, Luxiere, Kunsel, etc) unless they are important and have enough information, with the exceptions being characters such as Grimoire and Gillian. The rest play rather large roles, which may end up increasing with the next comilation titles. Game articles don't usually look too good with character sections that overflow with information (especially regarding other appearances), either. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You can argue to include character lists that are already covered on the game articles when it doesn't cause the Character list to 115kb, far above the kb size an article should be. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

But doing that would ipso facto make the title redundent...it would only be characters of Final Fantasy VII. Also, is that standard a rule? Gavin (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What, the size limit? Yes, it is. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you link it? Gavin (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

[3]. As it is a guideline, it needs not to be enforced under special circumstances, but in this case, these lists are totally extraneous - they're already covered in their respective articles, so there's no rationale to include them in this article when it increases its size by 30kb. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could come up with a shorter description of each character in the new games- a few sentences each or even just a one liner... That is, if we really do need to reduce the size. I recall the consensus was to merge all character articles into this one article... Gavin (talk) 05:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is irrelevant if it hurts the article. The act of deleting all of the extraneous information entirely only lowers it by 30kb to 85kb, which is still too large. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is vital in this "collaborative project", you are wrong. WP:IGNORE Gavin (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus vs. Common Sense = Common Sense. Are you suggesting that the right thing to do is to repeat content three times? I think you need to hold off on "throwing that policy around to get around guidelines and policies." WP:IGNORE is not a free pass to disregard any rule that you disagree with in a certain case. Poor reasoning and a single consensus to merge does not erase the fact that the article is bloated with lists that are adequately covered in multiple articles. WP:IGNORE doesn't let a majority group of people say "doing this completely unnecessary, extraneous edit for no reason whatsoever is necessary to improve this article, and we can ignore any rule that we don't like". The article is much larger than an article should with the bare minimum level of content, and you want to ADD MORE? Well, I guess we have differences stances - I prefer improving articles, and you prefer making them bigger.

Oh, and just curious, but did you forget to mention any single guideline that supports redundant lists that make an article extremely large on purpose, or was it an accident? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sir, please maintain your calm and composure- I have suggested ways to make this article shorter but still include characters from both the original game and the extended compilation. You insisted on making the changes without discussion- you claim that the actions which other editors oppose is based in common sense, ergo you suggest we lack the common sense available to you, that is insulting and a breach of WP:CIVIL. This article has multiple issues that need to be addressed, one user blitzkrieging in forcing radical changes with no care for other editors opinions or ideas are not the part of the wiki-ideology and will not help us address those problems. Now, as for the policy/guideline I am sure that there are issues with those also- however you cannot game the system by throwing policies at people- it isn't fair or what wiki is about. Now we welcome dialogue here, I tried to instigate it before but you continued to impliment your vision for the article. You don't seem interested in discussion- essentially calling it irrelevant because policy and rules are on your side (which they are not). So sir, please, by all means edit here, make suggestions and contribute- but please in the process...don't be arrogant about it. Gavin (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You suggest you're fixing it, but you also have completely failed to explain why we need to list every Compilation of FFVII character twice on Wikipedia. And excuse me, but I'm not the one who asserted his right to ignore all rules without explaining why it is necessary to do so in this case. My number one suggestion is "don't list things twice". The characters are listed on their respective pages already, and no matter the consensus to include them redundantly, you won't explain to me why it improves the article when the information is available elsewhere. A large article an extremely, extremely significant problem on Wikipedia. When it exceeds 115kb and can be reduced by more than 30kb by deleting content already covered in linked articles, then there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever to keep this extraneous content in. In this case, extraneous content is not acceptable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please find in my statements where I said we should list things twice. Please find in my statements where I said I totally opposed keeping this article for the Characters of Final Fantasy VII only. Really...please do. My only opposition has been to your unilateral large scale edits, telling me I have no common sense and various other insults. Might I recommend a fresh start, so we can try and begin talking about this sensibly instead of running around policy and guidelines? Gavin (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it, we still have a few options. First, there is the option of renaming the article Characters of Final Fantasy VII and removing any mention of Compilation characters. We can create another list, Characters of the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII, which would require a different format, but would list characters unique to the other titles. But we could also do what List of recurring characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games) does; list only characters that appeared in 2+ games/movies. I could move the information present in the list to replace characters in the game, and this would rid of many characters with larger profiles (such as Angeal). Currently, the game articles do not have all of the information on the list, and some contain OR. If we remove all mentioned of other characters, replacing it with a basically blank space, then the article couldn't reach a GA, correct? We still have some room to spare; List of Naruto characters is bordering on 90kb, and it's a FL (really, it should probably be a GA instead, but it's just the way it was nominated). Other than that, I could also remove some OR information, not to mention stuff that's been repeated multiple times within the same section (Cid, for example).WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I checked to see what it would bring the article length to. It's 83kb. That's less than if we totally got rid of the other lists, minor characters with 3 sentences worth of information would be gone, and characters that actually appear in the series, instead of just one game, would be listed. Also, characters who appear multiple times won't have large sections in each game section. I know it's more than 80, but it's less than the Naruto list, and even with the right referencing probably won't even get that far. Not to mention I haven't edited out meaningless stuff. So, how about that? Characters that only appear once are kept in their respective articles, while characters that appear more than once are kept in the list? WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If I am honest, I don't think the article is too long- it is a list after all. People are not expected to read the entire thing, chances are they will be on this article looking for info on a specific character. Gavin (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The size of the article detriments the whole article, making it slower to load. The fact of the matter is that the lists exist outside of this list, so there's no reason at all to make the article so much bigger. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I do realize that problem as well; I've talked to people who have trouble loading websites of too much size. Which is why I'm suggesting that all characters who appear only once within the Compilation (counting the original game) be removed. It would make the article even smaller than if we removed all of the characters from anything other than the original game, and still wouldn't be overdoing it. Like I said, we still have some room to work with if the list is over 80kb. Right now, I do agree, it is large and this should be fixed, but it's not like it is a major problem. And, still, characters like Dio and Dyne and others have no real importance within the entire series. But what about Genesis, who has been set up as an important character from the ending of DoC? The popularity of those characters will bring in the reviews, which gives us third-party and out-of-universe information, while still maintaining that this lists characters important to the series. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to TPS, as I didn't bother to read most of the text in this post, but Final Fantasy VII had four, maybe five games to this day, all containing the name Final Fantasy VII. It rightfully deserves to be called Characters of the Final Fantasy VII series due to the fact that these different games were released over a period of a whole decade, and the characters do, subtlety, but do change throughout the course of the games. 最後の最初のチップを提供する (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Lucrecia?

i just noticed that Lucrecia crescent isn't in here at all. shouldn't we add her description anywhere in this? she played a role if you chose to have vincent as an optional character. and she played an even greater role in Dirge of cerberus guiding vincent to his past. Also in crisis core she was part of "project G" so i think we should include her in this.

what do you think?Haseo445 (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

She is in the list. Check under Major characters. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, the reason why i posted this was because whenever i looked her up on wikipedia, it wouldnt direct me to her.Haseo445 (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)\

Kadaj's group

Why is it that, whenever I put Kadaj, Loz, and Yazoo in, they get removed? Nintendoman01 talk, 9:44, 16 March 2009

They are already described in the Advent Children article. Due to issues with article size (the article should be 80 to 90K long), characters that appeared less than once within the series were removed. The article is already over 80K, and it's without proper referencing. If the group appears more than once within the series, then they can be added. This article follows the same format as List of recurring characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games). WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

AVALANCHE capitalization

"AVALANCHE" is no longer the official rendering of the group's name, as is evident in at least official printed materials (instruction booklets (DoC's specifically in mind), THE NOVEL (with the Limited Edition Collector's Set of AC), if not in-game (I haven't personally played CC). Since Wikipedia uses the most recent official English names for most things (barring outdated/substandard translations, articles/sections specific to a release, quotes), this "Avalanche" is the rendering that should be used, with a brief mention at most to the old form (again, outside direct quotes from the English script). T.J. Fuller, Jr. (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Having played CRISIS CORE long enough to encounter it, "AVALANCHE" was used in-game, so please ignore my insistance here. T.J. Fuller, Jr. (talk) 07:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Vincent

The article hasn't readily improved much over the years, and boiled down could fit well in here unless more reception turns up. I know he's a main character in his own game, but overall he doesn't seem to carry the same real-world importance as other series characters do. Thoughts?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I can give it a try and improve it. Now that I have the Reunion Files, out-of-universe and concept/creation information has been easier to find. The Ultimanias probably have information on him, too. Reception is probably going to be the easiest. This may take a bit, as I am going to be pretty busy, but I'll see what I can do. If no information can be found and I can't improve it, then I support the merge. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, do a bit more exploring, but if there isn't anything else, merge. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to sustain notability now, so no need to merge.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Character format

the character format seems to look pretty bad at the moment....or it's filled, maybe we can change it, to Protagonist-Antagonist-other? or maybe make this a list of characters only introduced in the first video game and any other can be moved to their respected article sections.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

COUPLES OF FF7 AND OTHER FF7 GAMES

OK so basically as the creators wanted it. it would be:

cloud and tifa zack and aeris (aerith) cid and shera reno and elena (i do not know but it is a possibility) vincent and lucrecia

WHO CAN THINK OF OTHERS I AM DOING A PERSONAL PROJECT ON THIS AND I NEED HELP!!!

P.S I WONDER WHO NANAKI GOT TOGETHER WITH (THEY DID HAVE KIDS) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punksk8r99 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a forum; it's not a place for these discussions. (Also...Why Reno and Elena? Elena apparently had a crush on Tseng, though we never learn if it is reciprocated or not.) As for Red, just read up on Before Crisis. There is a female of his species, called Denneh, Dinna, etc (something along those lines). They are set to be perform a sacred ritual, and in the end, Red saves Denneh by giving himself up to Hojo and Shinra. Denneh decides to complete the ritual in its entirety on her own and wait for Red's return. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Stil we need to format the characters better. i dont know why we have a central character, those are only the ones that had their own game (except sephiroth). I suggest we change it to MAin characters, Supporting characters. main characters being the characters that appeared in most ff7 media (basically cloud's party) and others. supporting would be those that appear in merely a few media such as before crisis, and other.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

But then we get into the tricky territory of categorizing characters that appear frequently but aren't primarily in the main game. The series as whole features more Zack than Yuffie. Not to mention Reno, Rude, Rufus and Tseng appearing in almost every Compilation title (again, Reno and Rude have more screentime than Yuffie). We don't seem to consider the Turks in general main characters because Before Crisis never made it over, but they do play a rather large part in the series. As this list represents the series as a whole, the "central" characters are the ones who have their own game (plus the main antagonist who plays a role in every single series' title). WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm true...yuffie in general has made the least amount of appearance. But then again, i also suggested making a Turks article if possible. Turks have made a lot of appearances, and have a game dedicated to them. I still suggest a better format, right now the list is way too long. How about this, we put Main characters, (characters that appeared and featured more than one piece of media). I also suggest we put an antagonist section, such as professor Hojo, Genesis, Weiss, Nero, and Sephiroth could be in. i realize the reason why it isn't created is possibly due to the Turks being antagonists in the first film. but since they were seen most commonly as protagonists in overall series, i don't think it would be a problem. Here's my setup Protagonists, Antagonists.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sephiroth's Supernova

Does fact that original and international version are different can be put in article?

Here is the original

Compare it with the international.

MarcowyGnom (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No. It's a synthesis. Removed links due to copyright issues.Tintor2 (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Lucrecia's Death

The last time I played the game was perhaps in 04' but doesn't Lucrecia commit suicide off-screen after you find her frozen in FFVII? I remember if you go back into the hidden cave she's not there, implied dead, and Vincent takes her gun [his 'Ultimate Weapon'] 122.149.138.105 (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It is never confirmed.Tintor2 (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

List re-organization

Hi gents, so as you can see, I've made a few changes to the pages. First and foremost, I gave it an aesthetic tidy up, fixed up some grammatical and punctuation problems, fixed some poor phraseology, removed some irrelevant info, added some info (mainly concerning On the Way to a Smile) etc etc etc. The three biggest changes I've made concern the order. Firstly, I've added the Remnants to the Advent Children section. I know there was a note asking people not to, but I've added one small section for all three, as opposed to one section for each of them, so issues of the article becoming bulky aren't really relevant. And in any case, it said that only characters who appear twice in the Compilation are mentioned on this page. Well, Kadaj does appear twice, he's a major character in Lateral Biography, which, to the best of my knowledge, is canon. Secondly, I've made a "Final VII characters" list to go with the other individual games lists. Having Johnny (for example) listed as a "major character" in the Compilation was pretty ridiculous, so I moved him, Bungenhagen, Heideigger and Scarlet to their own section, as they only make minor appearances outside the original game. Everyone else I left in the "Major characters" section. The biggest change I've made conerns the much disputed first section. Basically, I moved Sephiroth out of it and renamed it "Major playable characters". This serves a number of functions. It removes all questions of subjectivity, and clearly marks the list out as featuring only the protagonists of the four games. By moving Sephiroth, you remove any arguments that Aerith should be included. So it's clear at a glance what the section pertains to. As it existed prior to this, it was very much a case of "how do they work out that these are the central characters?" Sephiroth is still the first character in the "Major characters" section, so it's not like I've relegated him to the bowels of the article. So there you go, if you guys don't like it, just change it back, but I think its definitely an improvement on the "Central characters" label we had before. I wasn't planning on adding this page to my watchlist, so if you want me for anything, just email me or give me a shout on my talk page. All the best. Bertaut (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Still thinking about it. Im not sure but it doesnt look consistent.Lucia Black (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Article for Cid Highwind

I propose we start an article for the Cid character considering his popularity among fans. IGN even listed him as a character needing his own spinoff. Let's not forget that he also played an important role in the main game, too.137.99.146.92 (talk) 06:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213015210/http://www.mania.com/final-fantasy-7-advent-children_article_78554.html to http://www.mania.com/final-fantasy-7-advent-children_article_78554.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

How to accommodate FFVII Remake character changes/expansions?

There have been significant expansions to some characters' backstory - for example Biggs, Wedge and Jessie, new antagonists and the fate of certain characters changes. I can already see that voice actor information has been added for certain characters from the remake. I can see this article becoming quite messy/confused as the new info is added and also giving a false impression of the character info from the original. Does it make sense to simply specify whether the information is from the original FFVII (+associated games) plot/info or if it comes from the ammended plot/info from the remake? Or should there be a separate article altogether for the Remake characters?  𝌅 Nealbo 𝌅^💬 13:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Nomination?

I don’t think anyone has ever tried to get this to GA status. I would be willing, if this articles maintainers are amenable to it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I barely know anything about final fantasy but I wonder if there is still a possibility that this could become a GA since I have seen that every notable FF7 character are good articles and this could form a good topic. Okmrman (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: apparently. I remember he editing the article Before Crisis and how its cast were added to this article. Still, I guess the creation section at least could borrow information from the Remake article.Tintor2 (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks good for a GA, and remake stuff should certainly be added from the main article. But I'm not really feeling like touching character articles. I've just finished work on Characters of Final Fantasy XV, which was an absolute nightmare in terms of continuity and characters, so I'm burnt out on characters. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I’ll give it a try! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)