Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Final Fantasy video games/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:25, 29 April 2010.

List of Final Fantasy video games

 * Nominator(s):  Pres N  16:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

A spin-off of a former featured list, List of Final Fantasy media, I've been working on this video game list for a while now and think that it's ready for FLC. There's no dabs, no images (so no alt text needed), and checklinks is giving me a clean bill of health. -- Pres N  16:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I say it meets the GA status.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ?? This is FLC... -- Pres N  16:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * yeah not so sure if it's feature list yet...i guess it could be too, but i often worry if i over rate it. one thing, that i see is fortress is in ff main series related section, even though it says spin off on the notes.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Changed to say spin-off/sequel- it looks like a spin-off (rather than a direct sequel), but concept art shows characters from FF12 in it. Either way, the terminology is misleading- it's not a spin-off of the series as a whole, as it's directly related to FF12, so it goes in "main series-related". -- Pres N  19:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, lists can't be GAs. -- Pres N  19:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * alright then, i vote for it becoming a featured list. they should make a GL or something thoughBread Ninja (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Tezero (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment; this article has a fair amount of overlinking, particularly tactical role-playing game (the three Tactics games in a row) and consoles such as PlayStation Portable and PlayStation 2. Tezero (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a rule written down somewhere about how often you're supposed to link in lists? 'Cause The Rambling Man up there wanted it to be no more than 1 time per game/cell, whereas you want it to be the same way its done in regular articles. I can go either way, but I'd like to know what it's supposed to be. -- Pres N  14:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I said I wasn't overly bothered. Typically we link once, and once only, unless it's a sortable list.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Per below, I've hit upon a solution- one link per section. This eliminated linking PlayStation 2 in 5 cells in a row, but ensure that you don't have to go hunting for links late in the list. -- Pres N  01:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I believe that I have addressed your concerns. -- Pres N  02:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't scrutinize the article as well as others have or probably will, but the things that I noticed are the potential overlinking and Collections section.


 * I tend to think it is acceptable to once link per cell or per row, rather than expecting readers to find the linked first instance that is somewhere in the list, but I'm not sure if WP:REPEATLINK agrees since the list is not sortable.
 * I've hit upon a solution- one link per section. This eliminated linking PlayStation 2 in 5 cells in a row, but ensure that you don't have to go hunting for links late in the list. -- Pres N  01:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I mainly question the purpose of the Collections section. To me, it seems out of place to me as they are not games themselves.  The information is worthwhile, but I am not sure that this is the correct place to summarize it.  I think that the section at least needs an explanation to mention that the collections are individual products available as a single purchase.
 * I've put in an explanation of what collections are; they may not fit 100% but there isn't another article to put it in. -- Pres N  01:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Another minor gripe would be the term "system release," but I see that that is used in other FLs. To me, it sounds like when the system was released, not when a game was released for it.  "Release dates by systems" seems a more appropriate phrase, but I understand there may be precedent for the term currently in use. —Ost (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Per below, I've gone and changed the template to use your phrasing, as it better exemplifies what the field is used for. -- Pres N  01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why you use piped links instead of redirects? For instance, you use Final Fantasy I & II: Dawn of Souls instead of Final Fantasy I & II: Dawn of Souls, which goes directly there. DabSolver shows other examples. I was able to use WP:CHECKLINKS to replace the instances, but you're welcome to revert if you purposely excluded the redirects. —Ost (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks! I'll go ahead then and cut down the overlinking, since it seems to bother people. How did you use checklinks to fix the pipedlinks? I only use it for external links. -- Pres N  21:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically, it applies its commonfixes after it fixes dead links, so I just ran it and saved it, even though your links were fine. I figured it would be easier for you to revert me than to do it by hand.  DabSolver may have done the same, too, although I've played with that tool much less. —Ost (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, nifty. I suppose that I used piped links due to some OCD-ish quirk, but you're swaying me to just use the redirects as they won't have link-rot issues. -- Pres N  01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I believe that I have addressed all of Ost's concerns. -- Pres N  02:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think it looks good and I can support FL promotion assuming other reviewers don't find major concerns. —Ost (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments. (Note that I am unfamiliar with series.)
 * The lead linking to articles implied by text seems out of consistency with usual wikilinking one would expect. For example "first game" implied FF1, but I almost expected to be taken to first video game or something. I do recognise that changing this may reduce readability. So I support change only if it is of equal or better readability.
 * Why is the whole "fourteenth is forthcoming" linked? Would it be preferred to just link say "fourteenth title is forthcoming" or alike? It is not going to be coming forever.
 * These two seem to be the only examples of this implied linking I could find- they now have more obvious links. -- Pres N  01:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Would ".. has placed it as one of the best-selling video game franchises." rather be clarified as ".. has placed it as the sixth best-selling video game franchise."? Are you worried about the place changing or?
 * I wrote it that way because when I started re-writing the lead it said it was the "third best-selling" and the linked article had it as the sixth. There's no need in my mind to be specific if it's less than the top 3, and it does seem subject to change, yes. -- Pres N  01:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't List of best-selling video games ("best-selling video game franchises") instead link to List of best-selling video game franchises?
 * Yes, fixed. -- Pres N  01:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think all the notes do need the full stops. They looks weird directly followed by refs. Besides, it is syntactically incorrect.
 * Alright. Done. -- Pres N  02:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ost316 suggests redirects instead of pipes. I am not sure why. I prefer piped links myself.
 * It might be a style preference, but I also like redirects because it gives you one central place to edit the section link instead of routing through articles if someone changes a section name. I also read WP:NOTBROKEN as preferring redirects—"With a few limited exceptions, there are no good reasons to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. It is almost never helpful to replace redirect with redirect ."—but that may be my interpretation. —Ost (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * True, this will increase further editing required should the articles be created or sections renamed. I'm just assuming that most of these redirects don't deserve an article and probably never will. Of course, it's case-by-case basis. — Hellknowz ▎talk 23:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, in any case, I think I'll stick with redirects now that they've been changed, as I don't feel strongly about changing them back. -- Pres N  01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. — Hellknowz ▎talk 13:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Microsoft Windows personal computer" looks a bit weird and uses two links one after another. I am uncertain how to improve this though.
 * Same here. No idea about a better link though. -- Pres N  01:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since per above there's now only one such link per section, it should be less of a problem now too. -- Pres N  01:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I also find "system release" slightly confusing. "Release dates by system" indeed sounds like a better option.
 * I agree, I've gone and changed the template to use that wording. -- Pres N  01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not find the systems being overlinked, simply because they are so randomly distributed that it would take additional effort to be bothered by the same links. It may appear a bit on the non-aesthetically "blueish" tone, but I am sure it is because of the loads of referenced.
 * Per above, I'm going to one link per section, which reduces the redundant links without making it unduly hard to find them later in the list. -- Pres N  01:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, it probably cannot be helped any further anyway. — Hellknowz ▎talk 13:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I will support this as a FL given some of mine and couple previous issues are resolved. The referencing must have taken you a while. :P — Hellknowz ▎talk 21:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha, yeah.... -- Pres N  01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I added an optional "multiplereleasedates=yes/no" param to the template. You can use it to display proper "Original release dates:" and "Original release date:" instead of "Original release date(s):". Edit: I added this it to article. — Hellknowz  ▎talk 23:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, lots to do! Comments inline with your suggestions as I get to them, I'll put a summary comment when I finish it all. -- Pres N  01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I believe that I've address all of Hellknowz's concerns. -- Pres N  02:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Given this is FLC I think it deserves a bit more nitpicking :)
 * You missed 3 fulls tops. I fixed them.
 * Thanks! -- Pres N  14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Final Fantasy Legend series. "The three games were reissued by Sunsoft." Rewhat? Do you mean re-released, republished, localized? Is this a term specific to this system/game release?
 * It means republished, but I guess it's not a common term. Changed. -- Pres N  14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Final Fantasy Adventure. "..it has generated its own series, called the Mana series." --> ".. has generated its own game series, called Mana." I think it helps to clarify it was game series not manga or anime or something equally insensitively stereotypical. Also would "Mana" be enough instead of "the Mana series" as series is already mentioned right before.
 * Agreed, changed. -- Pres N  14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Final Fantasy: Unlimited on PC Adventure - Labyrinth. Would Amada Printing be notable enough to be redlinked? I don't think FL or FA actually forbids occasional redlinks.
 * I don't think so, as far as I can tell they're just a defunct publisher that mainly handled small print runs of trading cards or the like. This was the only game they ever did. There's very little reason to think that any English speaker would create an article about them.-- Pres N  14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind them then. — Hellknowz ▎talk 14:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Final Fantasy X/X-2 Ultimate Box. "..with a bonus disc." What bonus disc? Empty/full/with game/with bonus material? Ref is forum in Japanese which helps me not.
 * It had the same video on it as FFX International, added in. -- Pres N  14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Final Fantasy Mobile series. "Final Fantasy i" <-- typo? It looks like something that may not be. Reference is in Japanese.
 * No, that's correct. Weird, but correct. -- Pres N  14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Same place "..were released separately for two mobile phone brands." What brands? It seemed like it talks about something mentioned before but I cannot find any previous mention of phone brands. Add ".. two different mobile.." if you don't want to specify which ones so it is clear you had no intention to.
 * I'm going with "two different" as I can't tell what brands they are just from the logos. -- Pres N  14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ivalice Alliance series. Given you want to keep redirects instead of pipes - Ivalice Alliance (like in Final Fantasy XII notes)
 * Fixed. -- Pres N  14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Final Fantasy VII Snowboarding. Snowboarding video game is redirect to Snowboarding video games.
 * Fixed, also there was another piped link there. -- Pres N  14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I would miss half the links even if I was to look for them specifically. :) — Hellknowz ▎talk 14:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Should E³ be wikilinked at its first mention in Final Fantasy Versus XIII?
 * Yes, also expanded to the full name. -- Pres N  14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Before Crisis: Final Fantasy VII. NTT DoCoMo is redirect to NTT Docomo.
 * Fixed. -- Pres N  14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fortress. "Spin-off/sequel of Final Fantasy XII". Is it interchangable or both? The slash is sort of ambiguous. Can you say "Spin-off sequel of ..." as in it is sequel to canon game but spin-off in terms of story?
 * Yes. It's sort of both; there's not a lot of detail available, but it's not an RPG (spinoff) but seems to involve characters from FF12 after the game (sequel). -- Pres N  14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Finest Fantasy for Advance collection (????, Game Boy Advance)" doesn't include year anywhere (well, at least 3 times). Should it?
 * Probably! Fixed. -- Pres N  14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * — Hellknowz ▎talk 13:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, same deal as before with the inline comments. I think I've addressed them all. -- Pres N  14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support then. I cannot see any more problems or omissions. I'm not an expert on "featured stuff" but it seems to me it satisfies all the FL criteria. I could probably nitpick lack of prose and lack of more solid references than occasional forums but I think this is close to as good as it gets for lists with such obscure info. I'll gaze over it again later to see if I missed anything. Looks like good work to me! — Hellknowz ▎talk 14:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! FYI, there shouldn't be any forum references- the one you referred to above as a forum is actually a listing of games in the Square Enix site. -- Pres N  15:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support; my only concern with this article has been alleviated. Impressive work. Tezero (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.