Talk:Final Fantasy XIII/Archive 4

Tangent on Community Behavior

 * (section moved from previous thread to segregate topics of discussion.) --&mdash; Δαίδαλος Σ  15:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"When the company itself DOES NOT say this, there is no reason to turn to a second-hand source." If this is taken into account, then maybe we shouldn't have quoted from the French Sony Executive? Just a thought. &mdash; Bluerで す. 04:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering he's not an executive for Square-Enix, and nothing was announced by Square-Enix, then yeah maybe we should'nt include his comment. Don't quote me to try and defeat me, you'll fail. Here's another thought, why don't you actually contribute to the assessment I'm trying to make instead of being a smart-ass.72.49.194.145 05:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Josh
 * What bad faith attitude. As regrettably expected from an IP. You misinterpreted my query as some sort of a wisecrack remark? Don't be reckless. And why do you need to push your point up to disapprove FFXIII exclusivity? Will it help improve the article? &mdash; Bluerで す. 07:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not just an IP, you have a name, USE IT. My name is Josh, it isn't some codename either like yours Bluerfn. Don't try and redeem yourself, it was intended to be a wisecrack and that's exactly what it is. The only bad faith is your lack of contribution to the assessment I was trying to make. Your quite meddlesome, so much so that I really don't want your input at all. So if you happen across another topic I start in another article, don't bother responding to it. Nice little welcome from a so called member that thinks hes above IP's, even though you clearly have my name. If you want, I'll give you more than a name, I'll give you my own myspace url and my vampirefreaks url, hell, I'll give you my cell phone # if you'd like to chat. I admit, I won't have anything nice to say.72.49.194.145 18:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Josh
 * This is a reminder, editors. What we aim to create here is not a rumor-mongering, speculative gaming forum, but a verifiable and reliable encyclopedia. We do not inform readers beyond what is the told by our sources, because it is not Wikipedia's nature to do so. As for the said case, FFXIII may or may not be an exclusive title, but it is not for us to decide. We do not theorize, make claims and create assumptions based on our sources. If only the PS3 logo is shown in the trailer, then say it's for the PS3, but don't create a statement saying it is a PS3 exclusive if the primary source -Square Enix- says nothing about it. It is pointless to continue the exclusivity discussion if we are lacking reliable sources, so until it is confirmed by Square Enix, please end this talk immediately. &mdash; Bluerで す. 18:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * One minute you resort to personal attacks against me, the very next you want to end the topic I began. Real smooth Bluerfn or whatever your name is. 72.49.194.145 18:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Josh
 * You call what I'm doing "rumor-mongering"?? I cannot believe you said that or call me that. If that's the case, then I guess the Sony exec in France and 1UP.com are also rumor-mongering. I suppose then, the latest trailer is also a rumor-mongering source too.72.49.194.145 18:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Josh
 * Wow, just wow. Please calm down, remember WP:CIVIL.  No one is attacking you, there is no need to get defensive.  --&mdash; Δαίδαλος  Σ  18:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ Nicholai D. Bluerfn has been attacking me. All editors please note that I HAVE NOT changed, edited, revised, vandalized, or even touched the main article at all. I never intended to. Only to start a reasonable topic to get editors thinking about 1UP.com's recent statement, aswell as to get some viable opinions. So while Bluerfn is throwing a fit about a topic I created, the article itself, I haven't touched at all.72.49.194.145 18:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Josh
 * My first remark was only a thought. An idea of sorts. My opinion, if you may. I never started an attack, but you thought I was being a "smart-ass". Doesn't that borders towards bad faith? That attitude made me thought that IPs tend to act this way. Why shouldn't I? After all, here I am giving my humble opinion, which I dare say would be ignored, and you thought I am bashing you. It's clearly a case of misunderstanding on your part. I'm done here. &mdash; Bluerで す. 18:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh? How has he attacked you?  He started by asking an honest question based on an observation he made, and you responded by calling him a smart-ass.  You have accused him of many things, including thinking he is above IP's, calling him meddlesom, and numerous offensive insinuations.  From the way I see it, you are throwing a fit, he is not.  He is merely trying to diffuse an otherwise volatile discussion that was made volatile in the first place by your reactions.


 * Now we can banter back and forth all day about who said what, and who did what, but it isn't going to accomplish anything. When concerns and side comments turn into arguments, it is best to take this sort of thing to User Talk pages, that's what they're there for.  This page should be limited to only discussion about improving the article, not he-said she-said squabbles.  So here's my advice: calm down, don't get overly-defensive, and let it drop.  If you truly have a beef with Bluer, then take it to his talk page.  If you have nothing more to say about improving the article, then don't post here.  I'm done here as well.  --&mdash; Δαίδαλος  Σ  18:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It figures that you would side with Bluerfn. Thanks alot guys.72.49.194.145 19:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Josh


 * I did not say he thought he was above IP's, he stated that by saying "What bad faith attitude. As regrettably expected from an IP." Apparently he can't make observations or input without attacking me.72.49.194.145 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Josh


 * A few final remarks. Technically, he is above IP's, for at least two reasons, IP's are NOT members and they can be totally anonymous. I should remind you Bluerfn, members also can act in bad faith and excert the same attitudes. Also, I didn't ignore your opinion Bluerfn, I didn't like how you couldn't give your opinion without attacking me. Technically you are also right in your line of thinking with the opinion you gave. But please remember, the President of Sony France has much greater weight and authority than 1UP.com does, I would believe the former over the latter in regards to what is going on in the Sony world anyday of the week.72.49.194.145 20:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Josh
 * To be fair to Josh I think he has a point. The choice of words that Bluerfn has used are regrettable. There seems to be a trend on this article where a couple of editors are attempting to WP:OWN this article and it’s obvious which ones they are. As far as I can see Bluerfn and Josh have been guilty of violating the guidelines around WP:CIVL. Let remember this is a console game and Wiki is supposed to be an open, collaborative project, not a battle ground or an area to flex ones muscles. 163.156.240.17 13:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * <--- reset indent

Now I'm confused. Aside from Bluer's singular statement "As regrettably expected from an IP" (which by the way happened after Josh began using personal attacks), how has he violated WP:CIVIL? And how does that compare to Josh's many WP:CIVIL violations? It's also interesting to note that as of my time stamp Josh has attempted to completely delete this discussion three times. This isn't necessarily an uncivil action, but it does demonstrate Josh's ignorance of WP standard practice.

And what's more, who is WP:OWNing the article and how? I see a lot lot of WP:CIVIL violations, I haven't seen any WP:OWN violations. --&mdash; Δαίδαλος Σ  15:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You editors are astoundingly stupid hypocrits. Stop talking about me, just stop. As for Bluerfn and the other guy, one look at their profiles and you'll see they are Final Fantasy Fanboys. bye bye. 72.49.194.69 21:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Josh


 * You have confirmed only that you either cannot or will not support your accusations. Please avoid personal attacks.  If you have a specific issue with one of the editors, then you should be direct and clear about it.  Vague insults and general asides do nothing to explain what your concern is.  --&mdash; Δαίδαλος  Σ  06:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he has a valid point, the way that Bluerfn seems to jump on some of the new editors is rather OTT in my opinion. However this could have been communicated without the fanboy comments.90.192.2.128 09:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I notice that this discussion is actually talking about a contributor, and not the article. Please refrain from doing so, the comments may be deleted as per talk page guidelines. Additionally, much comments on the contributor are made by IPs, it's understandable, but IPs are encouraged to refer to the talk page guidelines, and follow them as necessary. Thank you for your time. &mdash; Bluerで す. 10:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Bluerfn, I am sooooooo sick of you. Stop posting in this thread, and don't ever respond to any discussion I start, not ever again. You can take WP Civil and SHOVE IT.72.49.194.69 16:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Josh
 * It's amazing how stubbornly unCIVIL you can be, Josh. You need to drop it and let it go.  Perhaps taking a break from WP and relieving some Wikistress will help you to get a fresh perspective and a calmer head.  You can post whatever you want to get the last word in, but I won't respond any more to this particular subject matter concerning Bluer and your attitude.


 * To 90.192:  I'm not sure what you mean by OTT, the only OTT I know is Wikiproject:Ottawa (WP:OTT), and I'm pretty sure you're not referring to that.  Remember WP:WOTTA: not everyone knows what your acronyms mean, it helps to provide links at all times.  I also don't see how Bluer has "jumped on some of the new editors".  As I tried to say before, vague assertions aren't doing anything except spreading negativity.  Please be specific about what problems you are seeing.  What specifically has Bluer done to anyone?  I have seen one quote that is questionable, and I've already acknowledged that.  If there is anything else, then say so and be specific so that we can correct whatever negative behavior there may be.  If you either can't or won't say anything specific, then perhaps you should follow Bluer's advice in his last post and refrain from commenting.  I segregated this thread so that we could settle this matter in discussion and improve the editing community, not so we could bash one editor without saying anything substantial.  If I truly am the only editor who wishes resolution as opposed to continued unbacked accusations, then perhaps this thread should be deleted as unproductive to article improvement.  --&mdash; Δαίδαλος  Σ  17:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I believe it has come to thread deletion. &mdash; Bluerで す. 17:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is an example, there was a suggestion a few months back from an editor regarding the multi platform drama and how this could be dealt with by giving it its own section and I remember the rather instantly dismissive and condescending attitude that Bluerfn appeared to take and looking at it objectively it seemed that this was counter productive and I felt this made the situation worse. There was no attempt to gain consensus only an instant dismissal of the suggestion. Subsequent to this it became apparent that several members supported this suggestion. This isn't a personal attack upon Bluerfn it's just some feedback that I think may be useful for lubricating future interactions on Wiki. I'm also rather puzzled by this rather counter productive "IP contributers" are second class contributors. I think it's counter productive to the ethos of an open collaborative Wiki and their could be a million and one perfectly good reasons why some members don't register and instead choose to contribute using an IP only account. Frankly the comment by Bluerfn feels a bit divisive particularly when taken in context of this discussion. For your clarity when I used OTT I meant "over the top" which I gather is a rather common abbreviation, however I apologise if some people felt alienated by the use of this common abbreviation as you were. I hope we can move this along and I really hope that Bluerfn will take this feedback in manner in which it is intended and not as a personal attack. 90.195.154.99 23:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand how well meaning this message is. However, you must realize that all I did was based on Wikipedia policy. WP:Verifiability: An argument on the game going to Xbox360 started, and basicaly edit wars occur. WP:Civil: When a response was made on my statements, the response I get are hostile: read up Josh's comment on me being a smart-ass, and subsequent comments and Daedalus' responses above. Even if a person acts like something you must always have good faith that they're not. If you have read Josh's comments, you'll see how he acts impolitely. I have made a bias statement, I admit, but it was triggered only by Josh's hostile response. If he had been polite, this discussion would have gone a better way than at present. 90.195-, I have nothing against IPs, but do not blame me if I regard IPs as second-class due to Josh's response. And again, 90.105-, the talk page isn't an arena to give feedback on editor behavior, this is the article's improvement arena. I hope you and those wishing to give more responses to take my feedback in the manner I intended. &mdash; Bluerで す. 04:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It’s rather interesting that your response to the feedback appears to contain sarcastic responses "I hope you and those wishing to give more responses to take my feedback in the manner I intended." which appears like you are mimicking 90.105 and you haven't really understood the example that 90.105 raised. Also you have risen about the importance of staying civil when communicating with other editors even when it appears that they are not and you go ahead and do the opposite anyway? 163.156.240.17 12:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the actual source of this -> Josh. The way everyone's been acting, it's as if Bluerfn is the one at fault. But, there's always two sides of the story. The discussion actually started at a previous thread, now archived, I think you should be reading the previous thread. Bluerfn's being uncivil only once, but Josh is being uncivil and unprofessional in many occasions, calling people smart-ass, disruptive. And the way I see it, you only join the discussion without even knowing the situation. You find Bluerfn reply sarcastic, because you don't think well for other people. That's what Josh and many other respondents lack. Ferrick 12:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Josh said he started the thread "Only to start a reasonable topic to get editors thinking about 1UP.com's recent statement, aswell as to get some viable opinions." Bluerfn isnt wrong about giving his reply. But Josh made the false step when he called Bluerfn a smartass. That's not very clever of him. 218.208.115.25 12:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Copied from below as it is relevant) Josh was only trying to add to the contribution and at the same time when Bluerfn jumped on him Josh shouldn't have responded in the way he did. Bluerfn however does have a history of being a bit sarcastic and jumping on the newer editors and I can understand if people get a little miffed by this. 163.156.240.17 13:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you should stop being so emotional about this. Especially Josh. You start a discussion, but when people give response you dont want to see, you say this -> Don't quote me to try and defeat me, you'll fail. Here's another thought, why dont you actually contribute to the assessment I'm trying to make instead of being a smart-ass <-. Even I dont like people respond to me that way. If anything, its Joshs fault, I agree with Bluerfn he should not be rude to peoples comments. I think Bluerfn was OTT when he said -> As regrettably expected from an IP. <-, if I were him/her I would not say that, but maybe he had some bad experience with IP contributors you see a lot of them are vandals and do bad edits. Again, if only Josh acted in acceptable manner it would all be fine. milady 04:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Finally, some sense and postively phrased feedback from this discussion, it is long overdue. To 90.195, thank you for clarifying.  It may very well be a common abbreviation, I would just seem to represent the minority that doesn't recognize it at first glance.  Thank you for being understanding.  --&mdash; Δαίδαλος  Σ  07:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I only see people bullying Bluerfn in this thread, and nothing talking about FFXIII. 218.208.115.25 12:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No on is bullying anyone and having just looked over the debate Bluerfn doesn't come off very well, Josh was only trying to add to the contribution and at the same time when Bluerfn jumped on him Josh shouldn't have responded in the way he did. Bluerfn however does have a history of being a bit sarcastic and jumping on the newer editors and I can understand if people get a little miffed by this.163.156.240.17 13:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To recap: Josh's responses have been outright unacceptable. Bluer's single negative comment was innappropriate, but also it was merely "over the top" and pales in comparison to Josh's many personal attacks and uncivil comments. No one has yet to identify any other violations that Bluer has committed. There have been vague accusations about some editors WP:OWNing this article, yet nothing has been proffered to support this or to identify who exactly is owning. There have been vague accusations of Bluer "jumping" on Josh, though I still don't quite understand how this could be the case when it was Josh whom started this whole mess.

Now that everything is laid out on the table, what is further discussion going to accomplish? All the fingers have been pointed, all the accusations have been made, all the namecalling has been done. This is not a judging panel, there is no punishment that will occur. Bluer has already been warned more than sufficiently that his comment was a little innappropriate. Josh has been warned many times that incivility is unacceptable and that he can be blocked if he continues. What further change could this discussion possibly effect? My suggestion: Let's move on to other things. We are beating a dead horse. --&mdash; Δαίδαλος Σ  19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree however it's not true that Bluerfn has only done this the once, I have given a separate example of an occasion where he did something similar to another editor and you are right this is a horse that I think is well and truly beaten. I think it is time we moved on to actually working on the article. 90.195.154.6 22:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation of exclusivity
An IGN article of a interview from a SE executive has revealed that they have no projects in the FF line for the 360. This confirms the exclusivity of this game, as well as the other one (Versus XIII). Somebody should add this information. Here's the source : http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/794/794164p1.html Pachogamez 22:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Square Enix quickly backpedaled on that statement. Please update the main page. http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31084&page=1&pp=40 --Ferrarimanf355 22:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ya, All the new Final Fantasy games are going to be for PS3 cause ps3 has sold more in japan then Xbox 360s. They want to stay with their japanese market cause they sell more games there.Xboxes only sold what 11,000 there? 2 million ps3s sold there. most of them are Final Fantasy fans.So if they released it for 360 they will lose all their fanbase and 360s haven't sold well in europe and they also love the series. 360s only sold what 200,000?Most people of play 360s aren't Final fantasy fans. So they made a smart decision.--72.195.190.127 22:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It will be exclusive because the main fanbase for FF is Japan and even if they did relesase a 36 version everyone in Japan likes the Ps3 better so they would just buy it for the PS3 only, therefore it is pointless to release a 360 version. Starwarsrulez 03:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

How to add Pictures to the wiki?
I have a picture for the ATB battle scene. Anyone knows how to add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitamaru (talk • contribs) 19:09, 18 June 2007
 * There's a link to "Upload File" on this left hand side. Please follow the instructions given. &mdash; Bluerで す. 22:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I did that Blue can you resize this image and add this to the topic"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ATB_System.jpg", thanks ^^--Hitamaru 23:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

FF-13.Com as an External Link
Can http://www.ff-13.com/ be an external link for the Final Fantasy XIII section? It's got all the info as well as the scans and media. Atlanteay 01:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. Current WP:FF policy state that official websites are allowed as external links. If you own this site, then it's a no-no since Wikipedia discourages links to websites maintained by editors. &mdash; Bluerで す. 02:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

But look at the kingdom hearts 2 external links. Kingdom Hearts Ultimania isn't an official site either. Atlanteay 02:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:FF's policy only encompass Final Fantasy-related articles. And yes, that site is also not appropriate as an external link in Wikipedia, but nothing is being done yet. BTW, a good alternative to external links is to instead provide information from the said website, and put in a reference tag pointing to the website to ensure it is verifiable. That is allowable and is quite a reasonable alternative. &mdash; Bluerで す. 03:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Atlanteay, I am not sure you really are aware of the Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is maintained by unpaid humans, so maybe you have seen some unnotable links which haven't been removed yet because nobody noticed them or care about them yet. In any case, please understand that inclusion of one spam link is not a reason to include another. Just because someone does something bad there doesn't mean you can suddenly do something equally bad here. Many times users can be confused by the removal of spam links because other links that could be construed as spam have been added to the article (and not yet removed). The inclusion of a spam link should not be construed as an endorsement of the spam link, nor should it be taken as a reason or excuse to include another. Kariteh 07:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree and if you spot an external spam link on another page it might be a good idea to check if it is a spam link and then remove it.IMOMovellon 00:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

is it possible to remove this article/post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlanteay (talk • contribs) 21:37, 24 June 2007
 * Sorry, no. All discussions will be archived. &mdash; Bluerで す. 12:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Official Links Only Allowed
There you have it. Only official links pertaining to Final Fantasy XIII will only be allowed. Any fansite regarding downloadable material and such will be deleted. Sites like ff-13.com are considered to be of those fansites that are not allowed. - Zeta26 10:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You're actually helping to advertise by posting the name of the fansite. Just say general fansites instead of saying a specific one. Atlanteay 05:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's just a minor side-effect, but it's not a problem. Kariteh 07:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Any fansite can and will be removed as spam. I will put this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy. Greg Jones II 21:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, WP:FF's policy clearly states that official sites are used as external links (i.e. FF Wikia and Square Enix's official sites). Greg Jones II 21:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also see WikiProject Final Fantasy/Manual_of_style. Thanks. Greg Jones II 21:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Other than those, you can cite reliable sources i.e. FinalFantasyXIII.net. Some fansites are even not reliable after all. Greg Jones II 21:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

E3 2007
Was nothing released about this game at the latest E3? I know they scaled E3 down this year to make it less insane, but I still expected something. Maybe there was but no one's updated this page with it yet, but I can't find it.

Does anyone else know of any E3 information on FFXIII this year?Simondrake 23:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No information about FFXIII was released by Square this E3. In an interview with the North American and European CEO of Square he said that any major announcements about FFXIII will be at this years TGS. I did add another part of the interview into the article about the possibility of a simultaneous release off FFXIII a couple of days ago. Kitmitsu 23:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

GA fail
Although I think this is a pretty good article so far, I'm going to fail it's GA nomination for a couple of pretty simple reasons:
 * The 5th criteria of a Good Article is that it is stable. There is no logical way one can assess an article about an upcoming game as stable, since inevitably and without fail, once the game IS released, the article will change significantly.
 * Somewhat related to the above point, the 3rd criteria of a Good Article is that it is it is broad in it's coverage. How can an article on a video game cover all the necessary bases if it hasn't been released yet?  Afterall, any good videogame article should include topics like "Critical reception," "Sales," "Plot," etc.  Take a look at the Metal Gear Solid article for a good example.

For another similar example of an upcoming video game article, take a look at the Grand Theft Auto IV article. There is more content and more references than this article, but it isn't a GA nominee. So, my recommendation would be to hold on the GA nomination until at least after the game is released. If you have any questions or want to discuss the matter further, feel free to ask any questions or make any comments here (preferably) or on my Talk Page. Drewcifer3000 11:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

FF Wiki
I was considering adding a Final Fantasy Wiki link to FFXIII. Most articles have this site as its external links. Greg Jones II 13:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think that the FF Wiki is necessary because as per WP:FF's policy on external links, wiki sites are allowed. Greg Jones II 17:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I do not understand. The EL section allows for Official Site links and a wiki already covering much of the game's mechanics, so general fansites (i.e. regarding downloadable material, and so on) are unacceptable. If more game mechanics come in to the FF Wiki, you can add it in. Any comments or objections? Greg Jones II 17:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the WP:FF EL policy. It says open wikis must be stable, active and comprehensive. If this article is much more comprehensive, then why bother adding an open wiki which is not? In my understanding, policies aside, fansites aren't allowed because they act as spam. &mdash; Blue. 18:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the helpful information, Bluerfn. I fully understand the WP:FF policies. Greg Jones II 18:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I will put the FF Wiki link addition on hold until it is more comprehensive (i.e. including comprehensive game mechanics). Greg Jones II 18:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)