This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The scripts used in the English language SNES and Playstation releases are, in fact, different. The Playstation version seems to have more text; I would assume that the SNES game had to have its script shortened because of memory limitations. Anyone else know anything about this? CronoDAS
The Japanese versions of the character names are incorrect. The Japanese language cannot be correctly transliterated to the names you have given.
Since I cannot transliterate Japanese myself I had to rely on second-hand information such as the FAQ mentioned in the article. I used official sources such as the FF VI Grand Finale [1] and the FF VI OSV [2] tracklists in order to confirm that the information was in fact (or at least partially; all tracks are not named after characters) correct.
Please be careful when using internet sources for information. It is very easy for someone to claim a fact on the internet, when in reality they know nothing of which they speak.
http://www.ffmusic.info/ff6.html seems to have the correct Japanese names. I have reinserted your table with some modifications, though I'm not sure that Locke, Kefka, and to a lesser extent, Gestahl should be present.
Do you think we could get a standard format for all the characters? I see that half are formatted one way, and the other half are formatted the other. The only thing that seems to stay constant is the Info Box. user:Grevlek
Magicite summoning description in Game Mechanics.
The current description on the summoning of magicite is incorrect. Although a lot of the game's summons are damage based ones, a lot are not. For example, summoning Fenrir (Moon Dance) endowes your party with blink status, and summoning starlet cures some hp of your party. I'm not sure quite how to word it at the moment to make it more correct, so if someone could change that part, that'd be good.
Bah, I just changed it myself. That's more accurate now. :Krakhan
NPCs and locations
The pages for the NPCs other than Kefka are quite short and unlikely to grow any longer. The same goes for the various locations in the story (Tzen, etc.) It's a bit excessive to have a page on _every_ minor city in the game. I'm tempted to merge them into the main article -- thoughts? jdb ❋ (talk) 04:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That would make the page even longer. It is already huge, like most of the pages on Japanese games or animes. I'd leave it as it is.Harp Heaven 07:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In that case, maybe we have too much information on the game. (This is a tendancy with WP articles on games---I'm often tempted to keep adding more until it starts to resemble an FAQ rather than an encyclopedia article.) jdb ❋ (talk) 07:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, I've started removing the stubbish articles and contracting the rest (e.g., removing the key combinations needed to get Sabin's blitzes, which is not encyclopediadic.) jdb ❋ (talk) 05:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The problem with the WP articles on games and anime is that there are a lot of internet-savvy people who want to contribute to the article but not necessarily have anything to contribute with. That's why you see a lot of POV fanboyisms and unnecessarily long descriptions of minor characters and locations. There is very little information on them that you couldn't get from just playing the game. What would be interesting would be the story behind Final Fantasy VI's production, sales figures, stuff like that. Seeing as this requires some actual research on the part of the Wikipedia contributors, I doubt we will be seeing them any time soon. I like your changes so far, but I'd recommend making an article called "Locations of Final Fantasy VI" and a similar one for the NPCs. Harp Heaven 09:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
An artical "Locations of Final Fantasy VI." That sounds a lot better then what there is now. I think that method should be used. ZeWrestler 14:31 Mar 17, 2005(UTC)
I understand why NPC are being removed, but why are playable characters like strago and cyan being removed from articals list? ZeWrestler 13:00 Mar 18, 2005(UTC)
Primarily because I thought they weren't particularly encyclopedia-worthy. They were entirely game-FAQ material. I think there's a fine line between fancruft and a legitimate article on a video game character (clearly super-well-known characters like Crash Bandicoot and Cloud Strife merit articles, not in the least because of their enormous following and repeated appearances), but I'm not convinced that Cyan and Strago do. My test was: is there anything we can say about this character that was not in the game or manual? (Do they show up in other games? Do they have a significant fan following? In both cases, I thought the answer was no.) If you disagree, rv them -- I thought that if they remained there, they'd just be a magnet for more and more faq-cruft (Sabin's blitzes, a history of Cyan's interactions with the party, etc.). jdb ❋ (talk) 05:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hm, User:Trypa has rv'd the redirect of Leo to the FFVI page. Barring objection, I'm going to change it back, because it's just FAQ-like information. jdb ❋ (talk) 23:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I object. The General Leo article contains storyline and character information that isn't present in the main article, and would simply expand the article further than it ought to be... as another user suggested above. It is not stub-like, as you've stated; there is enough information present to warrant a seperate article entirely. General Leo, despite being an NPC, has just as much backstory as some playable characters. Besides, it's not detracting from anything to keep the article - the inclusion of a character background page for a somewhat major NPC with a perfectly legitimate story cannot be related to something "FAQ-cruft", as you put it, such as Sabin's blitzes (another legitimate addition, in my opinion, but that's not the issue at hand). --Trypa 05:38, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, that is very much the issue at hand. Please see Harp Heaven's comments above on game-articles' inevitable slide into "POV fanboyisms and unnecessarily long descriptions of minor characters and locations." I would like to prevent that from happening here. jdb ❋ (talk) 01:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Also note that he is talking about mainly minor characters and locations. General Leo is not exactly minor. Further, I don't see any "POV fanboyisms" or "unnecessarily long descriptions" in play here- just some extra background information on the character (not found in the game or manual, mind you) that is too large to include in the already-huge FFVI page. Remember, it's not detracting from anything to keep a seperate page for this one character. Let the issue die already. --TrypaParty 02:59, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Trypa, you're proposing the policy contrary to consensus, so the burden is on you to demonstrate why we should keep material more appropriate for a walkthrough/faq. If you look at the history of the FF Tactics article, you'll find similar edits by myself and PiccoloNamek, trying to keep the fancruft to a reasonable level. This is an encyclopedia, not a comprehensive guide to every character and location in every video game. Now, as to my opinion: I'm not going to address the Leo=minor character issue, which is better left to gamer forums; I'm merely going to assert that no FFVI character, minor or not, really deserves its own page, unless it is significant in some way outside of the game (huge fan following, presence in other games, etc.) A "List of Characters in FFVI" might be acceptable, but a page on every character is excessive. jdb ❋ (talk) 04:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Since when is character background information more appropriate for a walkthrough/faq than an encyclopedia? This isn't a Mortal Kombat movelist we're talking about here, it's seperate background information for a character, that isn't found by simply playing the game or reading the manual. You're fighting for removing information. From an encyclopedia. Think of the contradiction here. --TrypaParty 18:25, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
how about we create a page to put information of NPC in and minor characters. With that, redirect all of the topics, for example a link to a page on Bannon to the NPC artical list. We could call it something like "Non-playable characters of Final Fantasy VI" How does that sound? that way, the information stays and we don't have individual articals for each small NPC. -- ZeWrestler 19:00 March 21, 2005 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable; it worked for Atlas Shrugged. It doesn't resolve the deeper issue of how much information on the plot/characters of a game/movie/anime/novel is appropriate for a WP article, but that's really a policy question. jdb ❋ (talk) 23:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Fantastic Wave – Final Fantasy Sound Fair – promotion CD
20020220 Music From Final Fantasy – music from a concert held in Tokyo on 20 February 2002
POTION – Relaxin' with Final Fantasy
Best of Final Fantasy 1994-1999 A Musical Tribute
Project Majestic Mix Gold Edition
Project Majestic Mix Silver Edition
I snipped this section because it's extremely obscure -- it might be better off on a Music of Final Fantasy article, if we have such a thing. Otherwise, I'd guess that most people who want any information this specific will go to an FAQ. (Which would probably have a more up-to-date list, anyway.) jdb ❋ (talk) 04:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Featured Article
What are the odds of getting this made into a feature article?-- ZeWrestler 00:51 March 15, 2005 (UTC)
I remember an option in the game that allowed users to divide control of party members between two users. Would that classify as a multiplayer mode for the game? --ZeWrestler 2:05 16 March, 2005
no, if you go to configure i think, you can divide the control of party members. --ZeWrestler 14:28 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
ZeWrestler is right. There is an option (under "Single/Multi" on the Config screen, IIRC) that allows you to divide control of your party members among 2 players. It's pretty awkward, but it's there. -- Ultra Megatron 03:07, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
I was going to add a description of this to the article, and saw this mention here so I figured I'd reference it. It's under the config screen, and you're able to assign each character to the first or second controller. You can also use this to engage in fights with your own party with two people since you can target your own members, or just give a second person a chance to play along while you're going through the game.--BigCow 01:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Relm's age
Relm is ten years old, not 14. It says so in-game.
Relm: What's up there lover boy?
Edgar: Wait... HOW old are you?
Relm: Ten, why?
Edgar: Now that's just criminal.
(or something like that)
Sega Fantasy
A recent flash animation: Sega Fantasy is making the rounds. The animation retells the final battle (and ending) using videogame consoles instead of characters from the game. Coming in at over thirty minutes, it reflects a lot of work.
Ok, I don't really think it'll belong in the artical though. --ZeWrestler 00:48 11 Apr 2005(UTC)
If we can find more works akin to the Sega Fantasy flash, there might be grounds for a "Final Fantasy VI in internet culture" section, so it could just one day be relevent. It certainly doesn't seem relevent to mention it on the page yet, though. Silvercloud 11:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Light of Judgement
Take a look at the Light of Judgement artical. I personally think that artical is not needed, and if anything should probally be merged with the Kefka artical or the artical about Tzen. What do you guys think? --ZeWrestler 21:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
PC Version
I had read rumors that Eidos Interactive had originally planned to release FFVI (and FFV) on PC sometime around 1996. Has anyone else read about this?
I found a site actually talking about this, featuring a screenshot for Final Fantasy VI Windows 95 version, but the site was awfully badly written and looked too much amateurish + the screenshot looked the same as the SNES version so it's hard to tell. We'd need real info from a good website. – DarkEvil 22:29, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Here's an interview associated with a cancelled Windows version of FFV: (1)Hibana 23:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
I've read the interview and it seems fair to me. It certainly is not the most professional of websites, but then again, we can't find this on any professional website. It'd make sense that they'd think of doing a port to PC before Final Fantasy VII and Final Fantasy VI was just good enough for that. Unless someone determines it's an hoax, it may have it's place in the article. – DarkEvil 01:11, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, the PC version of FF5, at least, definitely existed. I played a (very beta) review copy years ago. But this was all going down at around the same time as, perhaps even shortly after, the release of Final Fantasy VII for the PC. Certainly not as early as 1996: I think the last I heard of it was around fall 1998, and I'm not sure Eidos' name was ever definitively attached: they wouldn't have handled the port, in any case, which would likely have been done either by Square or a small third-party studio like Top Dog (the FFV interview seems to confirm that, if Eidos was involved at all, it was at the very end of the development process). The thing is, while I am inclined to take WarMech's interview at face value, it's about Final Fantasy V, not Final Fantasy VI, and the information regarding the latter title is extremely sparse. It might be valid to drop a sentence in indicating that a Windows version was rumored to be under development at one point, but that nothing concrete ever came of it. Beyond that, I think, would be little more than speculation at this stage (unless someone has some other information I've missed). – Seancdaug 01:53, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
I've actually contacted the author of the website to know if he could confirm all of this is true, but following what Seancdaug said, it's clear that it must be true. I got a reply and he confirmed it was true. He said we could use information from the website as long as we give him credit for what comes from it. I'll try to ask if he got any more info regarding this subject and particularly on Final Fantasy VI PC. – DarkEvil 23:27, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This is also from Warmech's site in his Awards section, apparently a screenshot of the Windows version of FFVI. This is, however, the only thing I could find:
Is that even from the PC version? It could just as easily be a poor quality screenshot of the SNES version, and the caption at the top gives me pause to wonder if that is, in fact, what it is. Certainly, it looks enough different from the PC version of FF5 to make me wonder (no border, for example). – Seancdaug 02:35, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I blew the image up too much. At 250px, it's like the copy I uploaded. ~ Hibana 02:43, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
No it's not. Click on it to see its "real" size, in Firefox right-click, view image, and see that it's 240 pixels wide. Nifboy 05:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
This is the e-mail he sent to me on July 28, 2005 10:17:57 PM Hi,
Here's the information I know about Final Fantasy VI PC, the game was not a hoax or April Fool's joke. It was not developed by Square, Eidos or Top Dog Software. They hired another development house to port the game, I do not know the name. The development team that was involved with the FF5 PC port was not connected to the FF6 PC port team. My source for this information is legit.
The interview with the three people involved in the Final Fantasy V PC port on my site is real. I took the interview myself and those pictures on my site of the Windows 95 version are from the actual PC version. You can find plenty of information by reading that interview.
I hope this information helps you with your project.
Please credit myself as Marcelo X and the site as WarMECH's Domain (with MECH in all caps)
Oh, definitely. My question is whether or not the above image is from the PC port, as there's really nothing to distinguish it from the SNES (or PlayStation) version. – Seancdaug 17:50, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Well, if I'm not mistaken, that Tiamat monster, sprite and all, isn't even a part of the game's beastiary. ~ Hibana 18:08, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
I don't mean to sound rude, but I and many others could doctor that screenshot with the help of Photoshop and ZSNES in about one minute, so that's absolutely no proof of the exintence of a PC port, even on beta stage. --Sn0wflake 19:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Marcelo X claims that they are indeed from the PC version, I can't help much more for that, but I can provide more information on certain point. Yes it's true that image editing is very easy with Photoshop and a SNES emulator and Hibana said that Tiamat is not part of the game's bestiary and that is semi-false. He probably doesn't know this, but Tiamat was intended to be in the game but that was later abandoned, the thing is, they left the sprite in the game. A hack was made to change the code and switch a certain boss' sprite to the sprite of Tiamat. So, anyone could go and obtain that hack, take the screenshot and claim that this is the PC version since not a lot of people know about Tiamat in Final Fantasy VI. – DarkEvil 23:26, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but then there's the fact that that's the exact same sprite as the Tiamat from the FF1 remake. --Dalkaen 17:58, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Even though they bear no resemblance, I mixed Tiamat with Csar Dragon, which is supposedly a monster who didn't not make it in the game, but with FF3SE and the Final Fantasy VI rom you can see its sprite as well as some other unused sprites. Tiamat does not seem to have its sprite in the game, my error. About the Final Fantasy I remake sprite, which remake are you talking about because there were more than 1 remake, but if you're talking about Final Fantasy Origins, the Tiamat sprite is this one File:Tiamat FFO-I.png. I also found a variation of the Final Fantasy VI Tiamat screenshot on the same site exactly here. They don't talk about this being the PC version. The PC version is starting to look more and more bogus as well as the Tiamat screenshot in general as this is only a rumour and they clearly say that you can't see it unless you play a modified version. – DarkEvil 19:20, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, but I know that I recognize it from something. I believe it's a dragon from Bahamut Lagoon.. Yep, here it is. It's the Twinhead Grand DragonFile:Dragon-Twinhead-GrandDragon-TLS.gif --Dalkaen 00:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
That's it, I declare the Final Fantasy VI PC version image totally bogus unless someone is against it. – DarkEvil 00:37, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Marcelo X from WarMECH's Domain. The FF6 PC picture is not real, there are no screenshots released for FF6 PC. That picture was taken from the awards section of my site and since every award had a picture, I put one in for FF6 PC. I wrote on top part of the picture "Actual Screenshots Unreleased" so people wouldn't think this was a real screen shot. I found that hacked screenshot on the web a few years ago, it looked interesting so I kept it. Also, when I mentioned that the screenshots were from the actual Windows 95 version, I was talking about the FF5 PC pictures, not the FF6 PC picture. Sorry for all this confusion, but I've never found/seen any FF6 PC screenshots. - Marcelo X / August 15, 2005
Ah the infamous Tiamat hoax pic, you can find the rumours about it and others hereDerktar 04:31, August 27, 2005 (UTC).
Kefka screenshot
I moved "Image:Final Fantasy VI JAP Final Kefka.png" to Kefka Palazzo.
The problem with the picture was that it's a screenshot of the very last boss of the game. While I agree in principle that Spoiler Warning should be enough, I think pictures are kind of pushing it. Especially if you can't really edit the caption of the image to make it a bit less incriminating.
I don't see why we'd need to put specifically the last form of Kefka here; any screenie of Kefka would do! (I'll put the other screenie from Kefka article here instead, maybe it's less annoying.)
There's a huge-o-nomous discussion about this in Talk:Final Fantasy VII (regarding Safer Sephiroth pic in Final Fantasy VII article). I hope there's some sort of consensus about posting final boss pics in the articles. In the meantime...?
What ever happened to the table that showed the differances between US and Japanese versions of the game? --ZeWrestlerTalk 12:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
It was removed. I think the name changes are explained better in the paragraph following the bullet list anyway. Nifboy 20:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Advertisement
I'm looking at the advertisement that Igordebraga uploaded. Should that belong in this article? --ZeWrestlerTalk 19:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether or not it belongs, but it doesn't exactly make the article pretty. They do mention that ad in the Mog article though, so maybe it can be moved there. ~ Hibana 20:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Its been moved--ZeWrestlerTalk 21:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually, these are images I uploaded 2 weeks ago, I think and they were already used in the Mog article, as a wiki link and they still are, maybe it would be better if I removed the wiki link and just let the images appear on the page. – DarkEvil 23:32, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Do what you have to in order to make it presentable. --ZeWrestlerTalk 01:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Final Fantasy's Japanese name
What's the official spelling of the Japanese Rōmaji of Final Fantasy. On the Final Fantasy article, it's Fainaru Fantajii while on the Internet Movie Database it's Fainaru Fantajî, a slight difference, maybe the two are good but I really don't know Japanese. Also maybe we should include the Japanese name next to the english name at the top of the Final Fantasy VI article but not before knowing which one is the real one. – DarkEvil 14:34, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
62.252.32.13Fainaru Fantaji- VII
http://www.square-enix.com/jp/index_f.html
Square-Enix use this spelling for the Final Fantasy VII, so I guess it's the same for Final Fantasy VI. Japan has an alphabet for foreign words. So the Final Fantasy title is in English, but in Japanese writing style. The extra I came from romanization of the Japanese characters. The most accurate way to spell it is Fainaru Fantaji-, because that's an exact romanised version of the way Square-Enix spell it. 62.252.32.13 11:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)LukeAcidwalker
O.K. so Fainaru Fantaji VI and so on should be the correct translation, good, thank you. so the accent on the î like this is not really good or can it be both? This is the minor point I still want to know about before changing, but I'll maybe ask a Japanese user I know now, once again, thanks for the help. – DarkEvil 15:17, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
I spoke to User:Lockeownzj00 who can contribute with a level 2 Japanese. He told me some facts about the romanization of the name Final Fantasy and it seems both Fainaru Fantajii or Fainaru Fantajî would be good. So, there is no need to change that. – DarkEvil 17:18, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Censorship
I've uploaded a censored version and an uncensored version of the Chadnoook boss from screenshots from the SNES and PSX release. I have censored and uncensored versions of all enemies to which this applies. I didn't put the image in the section talking about censorship because there have been the title screen graphics in the past which were eventually removed and I've thought maybe images were not wanted there, but I think they could help more than words to illustrate what is meant by censorship. The images are below, censored American release right, Japanese release also used on PSX left. See uncensoredSee censored
– DarkEvil 01:35, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
I have been told in the past I wasn't bold enough and already read the being bold article, but I think I just recently started to understand what it is really. I still haven't managed to find a way to put all the censored and uncensored images without making the page look ugly or overflooded with images next to the text. Anyway, this one does point out a fact that is evident enough. – DarkEvil 00:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
I really think the title screens shouldn't be in the "graphic censorship" table, since they are changed for other reasons. They should be included, but somewhere else, unless I'm missing something. Don't call something censorship that isn't. --grm_wnrEsc 09:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the section is Localization and censorship, it may not be censorship but it is certainly localization. Maybe just a change to the sub-heading would do the trick? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:47, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
I changed the Graphic censorship section to Graphic differences. Other choice could have been graphic changes, or Localization and censorship in graphics. If someone can come up with a better name, he can make the change any time he like as long as it doesn't come back to censorship as grm wnr mentioned the section didn't cover well the title screen graphics. – DarkEvil 15:08, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
The images are great, and they're the first new thing I've seen about FFVI in a long time. I would like to see them all linked from the censored version to the uncensored version in the image description so users can see the changes between the two images without hitting back and going through an intermediate page. It looks like some of them were, but this has been removed. I think it would be NPOV to just say this image was modified for the North American Release. The modified version can be found here: That way you don't end up calling it censorship. -- Norvy(talk) 16:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Is it POV to call it censorship? I thought that Sqaure were quite forward about the fact it was self-censored. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:28, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Then I guess it wouldn't be. I just assumed that was why the links to the other versions were removed. -- Norvy(talk) 16:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Square really mentions this as censorship as far as I know but I will put back the links to the other version on images, that was better, I changed it, but now that I see it, it was better. – DarkEvil 17:20, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
That's it, I put all the links back on each image. – DarkEvil 17:50, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
FFVI Cast Cameo in Secret of Evermore
I just read an edit someone made to the Secret of Evermore article about the FFVI cast having a cameo. I remember this and tracked it down. I figured we could mention it in the individual characters articles as "other appearances" like they have for other FF characters. If not, still see if you can figure out who these people are. =) ~ Hibana 21:07, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
see image
recent story edit
i edited the paragraph to be coherent as is, but as another editor pointed out, we jumped from the first hour to about halfway through the game in a second. we need to change it all or add some of the filler details. Lockeownzj00 19:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
good corrections to the paragraph. --ZeWrestlerTalk 19:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry... in the PR, it was requested to go farther in the "Story" since it covered only the beginning. Well, I thought the only "relevant fact" to put(since meeting other guys and all the side quests were going to get a loooooooong text) was the WOB-WOR change. igordebraga≠ 23:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I just added a lot to the story, but I tried to condense it as much as possible. I made it using the game script on gamefaqs as a reference. Someone with a more recent memory of the game should probably go over it and give it a little tlc to make sure I'm not misrepresenting anything. -- Norvy(talk) 22:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
It looked correct when i read it over. by the way, did you cite the script as a source?--ZeWrestlerTalk 05:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I didn't cite the script mainly because it isn't of much help to people who haven't played the game. The script doesn't contain any actions, just dialog, none of which was used in the summary here. -- Norvy(talk) 06:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I am just thinking it wouldn't be a bad idea. You used it as a source, you don't have to create a referance note, just list it in the referances section. --ZeWrestlerTalk 15:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
FFVI template
template:FFVI was removed. I personally think it should stay in the article. But i want to hear what others have to say. --ZeWrestlerTalk 15:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I removed it because it looked out of place. People looking to find the character pages will look to the characters section rather than the bottom of the page. I think it's a good template to include in the character articles for navigation, but not here. (Isn't this really a discussion for the article's talk page, though?) -- Norvy(talk) 18:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
To be fair, we don't need it. I vote we keep it removed. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:44, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I agree with ZeWrestler, the template does add easy access to the characters but I don't think it's removal really detracts from the article. Derktar 04:25, August 27, 2005 (UTC).
Tim Rogers Quotation and Link
I'm removing the Wikipedia link for Tim Rogers as it seems that the insert credit Tim Rogers does not have a Wikipedia page. The Tim Rogers that was linked before is about some Australian band's founder. If anyone feels like giving ic Tim Rogers a page feel free to change the link back so that it is correct. --FDIS 06:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Infobox picture
How would people feel about removing the infobox picture entirely? Any image we put there is already at the bottom of the page in the gallery. I'm not sure an image is needed, and it would keep the infobox from trickling down into the next heading. -- Norvy(talk) 22:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
The info box needs some sort of picture. After reading over the discussion that Seancdaug provided, i say leave it in. We can finish debating it later if need be. For now, lets focus on the other complaints. --ZeWrestlerTalk 23:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Trimming down graphical censorship
If we decide to trim down the graphical censorship section, let's discuss what to keep and what to drop. I like the following, mainly because you don't have to squint to see the differences:
Chadnook
Misty - shows that it wasn't only nudity
Goddess
Siren
The title screen and the pub are described in the text, so let's drop 'em. I think four is a would be a reasonable sampling. Thoughts? -- Norvy(talk) 22:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Agree that the four above are probably the "best" pics to use. Nifboy 23:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree to those four and in addition i recommend the title screen to stay as well. Just because being able to see what the article mentioned did help me understand it a bit better. --ZeWrestlerTalk 23:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I've condensed the table, and dropped Goddess to make room for the title screen. -- Norvy(talk) 01:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Musical scores and graphics section
well, I would really hate to remove the pictures from both sections, so can anyone else think of some information that should be added into those sections. BrianSmithson had some ideas in the peer review to include information about the mixes of the game. --ZeWrestlerTalk 00:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Maybe search some game-music sites (not just OverClocked or VGMix, but also the ones that sell game CDs) and see if they have online reviews (preferably from members of the site staff and not fans). Other sites who I know have professionally arranged Uematsu's work are Project Majestic Mix and OneUp Studios. Discussing those might be a start. That said, it would be much better if you could give some sense of the critical reaction to the CDs in Japan. Is there anyone who knows Japanese watching the page? BrianSmithson 00:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Does that mean you're changing your vote to support for FA now? Fieari 20:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Infobox split
I liked it better the old way. Having both makes them go down too far. -- Norvy(talk) 03:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Its different. I have to look at it a bit more. You followed the guidelines that were given to you to the letter. Used "English Box". The guidelines never said which box to use. --ZeWrestlerTalk 04:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, specifically I used every officially released example of box art for the standalone game. Which means I didn't include things like the Final Fantasy Anthology or Final Fantasy Collection artwork. And I am of two minds about the whole thing: I like have a seperate box for the PSX release, because it makes things seem cleaner somehow. But, and especially with the artwork, it does make the whole thing a little too tall, as Norvy said. – Seancdaug 04:09, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Just use the English boxart... this is the English Wiki, and it's more well-known than any other boxart in English-speaking countries. - A Link to the Past(talk) 04:31, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
The problem is, the North American (not English) box art is extremely misleading: the original North American released was issued under a different title, which has since been disavowed in subsequent releases, and arguably isn't even the best known to English speaking readers (IIRC, the North American release of Final Fantasy Anthology, which included the game with its original title, outsold the North American release of Final Fantasy III for the SNES). At the very least, it gives a poor, if not misleading, impression of the game. Which is why it wasn't there to begin with, FWIW. – Seancdaug 05:11, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
To me, the issue with the boxart is that it should illustrate that the user is at the correct page. Having a Final Fantasy III graphic on a page titled Final Fantasy VI may confuse some. Because of the special situation with the differently numbered release, using something with the VI in it makes sense. I don't see a problem with using the European release, which was mainly intended for the UK. The discussion mentioned by Seancdaug contains no mention of mandating American, English, or Japanese versions, it's just a discussion between screenshots and box art. -- Norvy(talk) 05:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I think the argument for using the European box art is fairly weak, actually, given the nature of the European release (a remake issued late in the life of the PSX console). If we absolutely insist on having box art in there, which I still think is more trouble than its worth in this situation, I think the original Japanese SFC art is probably the most reasonable. But the beauty of the logo was that avoided the issue while still serving the basic purpose of illustrating and identifying the game itself. – Seancdaug 05:11, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Using the North American version of the box is very misleading. I honestly eurge that we use the logos for this game and mark it as a special case. --ZeWrestlerTalk 12:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I've restored the old infobox, as there wasn't much positive reception to the new one, including from people who didn't like the old one. -- Norvy(talk) 14:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Multiplayer
The infobox lists single- and multiplayer modes. But the multiplayer mode of FF6 is not very important at all, and isn't even mentioned in the article. So I propose to either remove the multiplayer mode from the infobox, or add a short paragraph on it in the gameplay section. I'd do it myself, but I'm not quite sure exactly how the multiplayer mode works, I never used it and don't have the game at hand right now. --grm_wnrEsc 14:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
See multi-player mode heading above. [3] Basically, you can assign different characters to different controllers in battle only. It seemed like a last minute hack to let them market it as a multi-player game, and I doubt many people played it as such. I'd support removing the mode section from the infobox entirely. -- Norvy(talk) 15:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I added a small sentance to the game play section. --ZeWrestlerTalk 15:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Copyediting and infoboxes
The more I look at the original infobox, the less I like it. Specifically, I really don't like the number of linebreaks in the release dates and publisher section. I've modified the two box approach, and hope that by moving the box art to a seperate section (while keeping the original Japanese box art in the first box) we can eliminate the length problem others have noted: on my display, at least, the new arrangement actually takes less height than the old combined 'box.
Ah, that looks pretty good. Still, I hope we can convince enough people that the logo makes sense for the infobox in this case.... – Seancdaug 16:42, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Also, I made a number of copyedits to the graphics, music, and censorship section. My biggest concern is that a lot of NPOV editorializing is already starting to creep back into the censorship section. In particular, the comment about "adult themes" in the game was pretty baldly NPOV, kind of irrelevant, and unsubstantiated (FF6 was not even among the first games to deal with the concept of genocide or suicide, and really wasn't even the first game in the series to do so, and calling "teen pregnancy" a major issue in the game is a bit excessive, given the circumstances in which it is presented). – Seancdaug 15:50, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Do what you have to in order to reduce the problem. --ZeWrestlerTalk 17:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
added thought, can the packaging artwork be centered on the page??--ZeWrestlerTalk 17:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
shrugs I suppose there's no reason it couldn't be, I just didn't see a lot of point to it. On my (admittedly unusually large) 1920x1200 monitor, it looks a little weird centered. But I'm not deeply fussed over it. – Seancdaug 17:50, September 2, 2005
(UTC)
Why not make an article was what was censored?--Dangerous-Boy 06:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Release dates
Just a comment, guys, as this seems to have been a source of some confusion: it is no accident that the release date for Final Fantasy Anthology (the North American version) is not listed in the infobox. This article is about Final Fantasy VI, and there was no PlayStation game released under that title in North America. There is an article about FF Anthology, and it includes the relevant release information. There's no reason to duplicate that information, and it's likely to confuse the uninitiated, anyway. – Seancdaug 21:05, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
More edits
I've just posted some fairly major changes as per the discussion over at the featured article vote. I've put the Japanese box art in the infobox because a number of people were still grousing over that. It's not my preferred solution, but I think it's acceptable, and it should make some of the naysayers happy. Other than that, I've substantially rewritten the story section, chopping it down even further, and the character section. I'm not sure about the character section, actually: I'm not sure it holds together well as a paragraph, but I hope it's a little better than the old list. I've also added a section specifically on the PlayStation remake. Can someone take a look to make sure the prose all hangs together well? – Seancdaug 15:45, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
I like what you've done, Sean. I'll try to give it a thorough look after work today. BrianSmithson 15:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay, read through it. I agree; the characters section needs to be broken into more paragraphs. I'd suggest breaking it down by major/minor characters or by "fighters"/"magic users"/"rogues". Just some ideas. Bottom line is that there needs to be some sort of break in the paragraph. BrianSmithson 00:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree, but I'm not really sure how to tackle the problem. The game really doesn't have any solid boundaries between, say, "fighters" and "mages": Sabin might start off as a physical fighter, but because of Espers he can just as easily be an effective mage. And splitting by major/minor characters is problematic as well, as I can't think of a way to do it effectively and have it be NPOV. I dunno. I does need to be done, but I need to think about how best to do it. If anyone has any strong ideas, feel free to jump in. – Seancdaug 02:43, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
IMO, the character section is kind of hard to digest now. I think the plot looks better. What's the precedent on taking the much longer summary that used to be there off into a separate article and linking to it as main article: plot of FFVI? As for another point raised by someone at FAC, I researched play time a while back, and got a broad range of 40-60 hours (although that speed run link that is now removed claimed it could be done in under 6). Any suggestions as to arrive at a "definitive" number, or should we just claim a range, i.e. 40-60 hours, depending on the player? -- Norvy(talk) 16:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
It's not unprecedented to spin the story section into it's own article, but it's probably not going to do anything but annoy the people who said that the section was too long to begin with, and I would personally warn against it. I'm not sure we really do need much more than a basic outline of the plot, as provided here. 40-60 sounds like a reasonable "average" range, although I'd personally go with 15-25 or something for a minimum time (the six hour run being a bit of an extreme exception). – Seancdaug 16:27, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Use Team Rocket as an example; I've edited the list of Jessie's Pokémon to be three paragraphs, and I don't combine a certain group of characters, I just put them in order of when they were captured. Just put them in order of appearance. - A Link to the Past(talk) 03:16, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
That's easier said then done, because there's a good degree of flexibility in appearance (or even if they show up at all in a given game) based on the player's action. That being said, I've gone ahead and stuck in paragraph breaks wherever they seemed to fit (and didn't interrupt the flow of the prose). I hope this looks a little better, at least. – Seancdaug 03:29, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Ok, I thank I'm beginning to understand you want. It's kind of half character expansion, and half expansion of the plot, as it applies to each character's background? I think it was handled pretty well in the team rocket article, but here, I think we're going to run into problems because people have expressed concerns about the amount of plot that's included. The other problem with applying an edit of your style here, is that I can read it, but I'm left with no idea what a "Lickitung" is. I think this article should have a brief contrasting of the character's abilities as a general snapshot, and if someone wants to read more specifically about Edgar's tools, for example, they can click on his page. -- Norvy(talk) 03:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Logo -> Boxart
I noticed that the logo in the info-box has been changed to boxart. I understand that this is correct in terms with wikiproject video games, but it really makes more sence to use the logos for the Final Fantasy series (and probably other series of video games.) What are other editors thoughts on this? Would anyone be intrested in polling wikiproject video games to loosen that guidline? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:37, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I personally prefer the logo. I would definetly be interested in polling CVG project. --ZeWrestlerTalk 17:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I also prefer the logo, and think polling the Final Fantasy project might be a good idea as well. FAC #4 says that an article must Comply with ... relevant WikiProjects I think that the FF project would trump the CVG one. Frankly, though, I think that the logo issue is the least of our worries, and if the rest is up to snuff, it wouldn't stop it from being featured. -- Norvy(talk) 20:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
In an ideal world, I would prefer the logo, and have said as much on previous occassions. However, I think we do need to realize our position here: the FF WikiProject does not "trump" anything, and it is a daughter of the CVG project. This has been a major concern amongst a number of commentators on the FAC, and at least one has stated that his only reason for opposing the nomination is because of failure to comply with CVG standards. I have, and will continue, to argue against strict controls over what image should be placed in the infobox. That being said, I do not feel that the Final Fantasy WikiProject can afford to break with the CVG WikiProject on the matter. We need to accomodate and reach consensus with them, and, at this point, I think that means we need to use the box art. I'm all for bringing up the issue again, but until that point I think we need to prove that we're "team players," if you will. Certainly, I'm not in favor of schisming with the CVG project over so minor an issue. – Seancdaug 22:55, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't realise that making such a request would cause a "schism". I certainly don't think it is worth seperating WikiProject FF from WikiProject CVG just over a infobox issue. But it is clearly more useful to use the logo in this case. Will it seriously be that hard to ask for such a minor change? I mean, I know Wikipedia is full of bureaucracy, but c'mon! --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:56, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
The thing is, it is obviously a fairly major sticking point with a lot of CVG participants, to witness the discussion it has entailed. I'm all for bringing it up for discussion again over at the CVG project talk page (though I'm skeptical it will be any more successful in bringing about change than the last time it was tried). I'm more than willing to participate and support such an endeavor. My major concerns are of talk of the FF project "trumping" the CVG project should we be unable to reach consensus, which I cannot support. Sorry to be unclear. – Seancdaug 18:09, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Okay. I understand you now. Thanks for clearing that up. I am a fairly new editor to WP. (I've been an editor for a few months.) What is the procedure to request such a change? I used to be fairly sharp at debates and I'd like to pen the proposal. On a related note, now that this article has failed to become featured, can we switch the logo back? I realise that technically we shouldn't. But do we do have a pretty good consensus that it is the best thing for the article. After all rules were made to be bent. ;) --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:26, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
There's no "procedure," as such: start a new category on the CVG talk page and present your case. The key, though, is to be willing to abide by consensus, even if the consensus reached isn't what you want it to be. There's no way people are going to be inclined to support our case if we refuse to play well with others. For that reason, I would strongly suggest we keep the box art in the infobox until (and unless) we can reach some other consensus. Even though this article may not be featured, it's still a part of the CVG project, and we should abide by their rules. If we switch back to the logo now, it gives a very bad impression of our willingness to cooperate, and that's going to hurt any attempt to convince others to listen to our concerns, both regarding the infobox in general, and any future FACs for this article in particular. That's my opinion, anyway. – Seancdaug 18:58, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
To-do list
Per the FAC I've started this to-do list of items mentioned during the FAC that need to be done to this article.
The infobox problem. Either convince the CVG project to losen their consenus, or try and convince them to create a special exception for an consensus we have.
The character list. Prose or table? What would look better and be more efficient.
An improvement list/outline. Tony suggested somesort of way saying how the game has improved since the last.
If anyone else has more suggestions, add them here and we'll work on them. --ZeWrestlerTalk 17:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I've found something...
(this "to-do list", I thought about doing like in,e.g. Talk:Mars, but the beginning has too many stuff!:)
I've read in the IMDb that Square made "a N64 test demo" featuring FFVI characters[4], and recently, I've found a link to images of those trailers [5]. Can this have any place on the article? igordebraga≠ 00:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
P.S.:too bad we lost the FA.
An article already exists, and it's not technically an N64 demo: it's a SGI workstation demo. At the time a lot of people assumed it was a demo of what a FF game would look like on the N64, since the N64 used similar hardware to the new SGI workstations purchased by Square, but that's pretty much unverified fan rumor, and it's equally likely that it was a demo for the sort of rendering used for the full motion video of FF7 and later. – Seancdaug 02:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Isn't the information on the speedrun fan-cruft? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Probably. I just fixed it up in case it isn't. Remove it if you think it is. ~ Hibana 19:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Warrants a short mention, though I'm not sure if this article is the place for it. Someone ought to ramble about that in the speedrun article, simply because few people have the patience to make (or watch) RPG speedruns. (I mean, I watched through the FF6 speedrun, and my God, was that ever boring, not quite as thrilling as sub-10-minute Metroid runs!) --Wwwwolf 20:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Final Fantasy VI character pages up for deletion
Final Fantasy VI's character pages are up for deletion by user A Link to the Past. His justification is that they "only appears in one game." I'm wondering if anyone has the authority to simply take the AfD down. Otherwise, everyone vote. ~ Hibana 00:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
...Um, you DO realize that what you're doing is against guidelines. - A Link to the Past(talk) 00:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
No, actually, it's not. Please don't remove this or similar notices in the future. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, you can ask an admin to close the AFDs as speedy keep if you feel that the AFDs are in bad faith, but I'm convinced of LttP's good faith. I'm not sure this is the best way to begin this discussion, but I do feel that the FFVI character articles could stand to be merged somewhere. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I never told anyone to "Vote Keep," LttP. I just wondered if the AfD was justified and told everyone to "Vote." ~ Hibana 03:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Like Piccolo, I was assuming bad faith, which is frowned upon in circumstances such as these, and I apologize for assuming such. - A Link to the Past(talk) 03:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Can we merge all the votes into one VFD page. its annoying to mass vote. --ZeWrestlerTalk 04:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Moving to another Wiki, such as Wikibooks. - A Link to the Past(talk) 05:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
There are two pages describing FF6 characters: List_of_Final_Fantasy_VI_characters and List_of_Final_Fantasy_characters, the latter of which is linked to by this page under the See Also heading. To be consistent, I think it should link to the FF6 specific characters, but this seems to be a point of debate, so I'm asking before doing. Don
The proper article is List of Final Fantasy VI characters. List of Final Fantasy characters is a lingering catch-all that was created a long time ago and has basically stuck around while we finish creating lists for each individual game. Eventually, it will be retooled into a list of characters from the original Final Fantasy, and information regarding all other games will be removed. This actually came up recently over at the WikiProject talk page, if you'd like to swing by and see for yourself. – Seancdaug 13:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
ATB Information Incorrect?
I believe the information on ATB battles is incorrect.
"Compared to previous titles featuring the Active Time Battle, the player is able to pick any character who has a filled action bar and has not yet received any commands, instead of forcing the player to issue commands to whatever character had their action bar filled first."
If I remember correctly, you could wait for another characters bar to fill, then press X I believe and you could input commands for the other character. I think this sentance should therefore be removed.
-Raum
Are you talking about the older games in which you could press X or this one? If you're talking about this one, that's what is meant by "the player is able to pick any character who has a filled action bar and has not yet received any commands".--DarkEvil 18:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
You are correct; this is the first atb FF to allow you to defer a character's turn. Perhaps the prose in the article could be cleared up a bit? 132.162.213.109 22:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? It's been a while since I played Final Fantasy V, but I remember this being the case in that game, as well.... – Seancdaug 23:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Yep; just double checked against the fan translate of FFV SNES; no can do. Perhaps it was added in the PSX remake? 132.162.213.109 21:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
