User talk:Deckiller/Creatures of Final Fantasy

List looks good!
I think you've already got this narrowed down nicely, Deckiller. My next suggestion for cleanup is to remove the list-within-lists where certain monsters get bulleted points for their appearances - Chimera is the biggest offender here. It adds unnecessary length to the article. Thoughts? -RaCha&#39;ar 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I was doing. I hadn't even finished compressing the article yet, let alone even considered copyediting the prose. I got tired early last night :) &mdash; Deckill e r 00:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * errr... is it OK that I've made a few changes myself? Should I discuss here before I do anything more?  I figure you certainly don't want to do it all yourself but how bold d'you want me to be?  :)  I'll stop with what I changed for the night so it can be reverted back easily.
 * But one thing I am seeing as I'm looking over this is that, similarly to the character class article, anything really specific about a monster's appearance in one specific game is probably not necessary. I don't see a lengthy discourse on how a monster arena creation in FFX being encyclopedic and necessary to this article, but it depends upon how deletionist we want to be, I guess. -RaCha&#39;ar 06:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, yes and no. We want to show the evolution of the creature throughout the series - you know, how its appearence changed and whatnot, using sourced interviews or just the actual game as a source if necessary. Ideally, we wouldn't even have real sections for monsters like Adamantoise and Basilisk, but at least the next version will show some progress. Also, I am offended that this low level of prose was in one of our articles, and we didn't even realise it. I fear that even once we get it all compressed, I'll have too whip out the red pen. &mdash; Deckill e r 12:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * While I definitely agree with showing the evolution of the mob, I do think some of the mentions (such as the aforementioned Jormungand Basilisk monster arena creation) are too detailed to keep the article within a reasonable length. But I'll tell you what - since I'm woefully one of those who's only played FFs 7-present, I'll leave the evolution of the mobs to you, and I'll red-pen the horrible prose.  I'm trying to get a job as a copyeditor so this is good practice.  :) -RaCha&#39;ar 15:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I also wonder about going too much into detail about the derivation of the names of some creatures. Tiamat's origin explanation is two sentences too long, for example.  I'd think an introductory paragraph explaining that most FF creatures are derived from mythology in some way shape or form, then one sentence with a Wikilink to the subject's article in the creature's actual section, would cover this ground nicely.  Too deletionist again?  :) -RaCha&#39;ar 15:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speaking of deletionist, I went through and condensed the rest of the sections' list of appearences, spamming up the history page in the process. --PresN 19:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, if I had my way, this page wouldn't even list individual monsters - it would just provide a history. But since we can't really do that reasonably, we have to stick to a semi-list. The mythological idea is pretty good, although we may need more than one sentence to describe some of the mythological differences or reasons. As for the copyediting, I'm glad to see someone interested in copyediting besides myself; feel free to help work on the page's prose. &mdash; Deckill e r 21:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was looking through, and we're off to a fast start, which is very, very good :) &mdash; Deckill e r 21:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing
I'm worried that sourcing may be a problem; is there an "essensial guide to Final Fantasy beasts" out there, or developers information on monsters? I know the FF12 DVD bonus disk features some comments on monsters as a whole, but not really specifics. &mdash; Deckill e r 21:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't know; it seems like there HAD to have been a source for things like how tall a Behemoth is. If we can't find one there's a lot of stuff that will need to be trimmed until such a source surfaces. -RaCha&#39;ar 00:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Article organization
Here's how I suggest we organize the article (ultimately)


 * Lead Section
 * 1.0 Overview
 * 2.0 Notable creatures
 * (Let's try to narrow it down to the ten most important/popular species, then an "Other creatures" section.
 * 3.0 References
 * 4.0 See also
 * 5.0 External links

&mdash; Deckill e r 00:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That looks good. Right now, I think Gigas and Goblin have an enviable format for their descriptions that the rest should follow:  short and sweet, with mentions of the games they've appeared in nicely concise.  -RaCha&#39;ar 00:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Chimera
Sorry, Dec, I shouldn't've just removed this without talking about it here. That was really rude of me. :/ I don't think the chimera in FF games has much to do with the medical condition of chimeraism (is that a word)? The reference seems a little strange and out of place to me. I see that you added it so I'm curious as to why you had that reference as well as the one to the article about the creature? I'll gladly step out of this one. Sorry again, that was awfully rash of me. >< -RaCha&#39;ar 17:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your feeling, but that is still part of the usage of the word, and we should try to be out of universe as much as possible. &mdash; Deckill e r 17:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough. Sorry again.  The article's looking really good - I sat down to work on it since I finally have time and found it didn't really need much else. For some reason I thought the ref to the chimera medical condition was left over from when it was all still messy and that's why I took it out. -RaCha&#39;ar 18:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was mainly just trying to find a cite for the phrase. This article will probably have 60+ cites when we're done. &mdash; Deckill e r 18:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)