Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Final Fantasy VIII

Working definition
The working definition for this topic is pretty simple, "all aspects specific to Final Fantasy VIII", including the spin-off game Chocobo World.--Pharos 01:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Vital improvements
This topic does not meet current Featured topic criteria, and will be eligible for removal after 1 January 2008 if this situation is not rectified. In particular, criteria call for at least three featured articles in a topic, while this topic has only two such articles. --Pharos 01:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the criteria say at least three articles, not three featured articles. &mdash; Deckiller 02:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... currently the wording on Featured topic criteria is that "several" articles be FA; and "several" usually means more than two. Perhaps I should raise the issue there.--Pharos 03:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Either way, I would probably object to a three FA minimum, especially with respect to smaller Featured Topics. &mdash; Deckiller 03:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm striking this out, you're right enough – there is no such explicit statement there. Perhaps indeed there was some confusion between the two criteria in my mind.  Anyway, I hope we can work out something more useful than "several" at the criteria page.--Pharos 05:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It can now be removed March 5, three months since the article Chocobo World was demoted. Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 03:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to just remove Chocobo World from the topic, since it's not a major part of Final Fantasy VIII and only slightly related? &mdash; Deckiller 21:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We can't just arbitrarily remove articles from the topic, I don't think there is really a process for it. And besides, it could get ridiculous if we have to keep removing and re-adding articles, it would just be a waste of time. I vote we rally and fix it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's even possible to fix it at this point, which is why I propose removing it from the topic. Doesn't the article needs references that don't exist? &mdash; Deckiller 05:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, I think we should merge it, and then update the topic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Judge. Since the refs most probably can't be provided, it would be a lot better to merge the article into FFVIII. The Prince (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What refs are needed exactly? The article seems like it has improved since 3 months ago. FightingStreet (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Potential improvements
Of course, GA articles should be tried to be improved to FA status. It is vitally important that at least one such additional article is promoted (see above). --Pharos 01:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible additions
I am not aware of any possible additions to this topic.--Pharos 01:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)