Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy/archive/24

Roll call: June
Please sign your name below.
 * 1) &mdash; Judgesurreal777 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash; Anomie 20:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash; Bluerで す.  20:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) &mdash; ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) &mdash; --&mdash; Δαίδαλος  Σ  21:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) &mdash; Sjones23 23:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) &mdash; PresN 00:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) &mdash; Teggles 01:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) &mdash; Deckiller 01:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) &mdash; Shadowfyre 08:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) &mdash; Axem Titanium 16:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) &mdash; ShiraShira 19:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) &mdash; --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Slow, but probably getting better.
 * 14) &mdash; Renmiri Still around, slow but here 01:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) &mdash; Gavin Scott 19:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) &mdash; KrytenKoro 06:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent mergers
Randomly wandered by this page again for the first time in awhile, and I see that quite a few articles have been proposed for basically quiet deletion via turning them into redirects and not merging the content. Now, normally I wouldn't comment, but the FF project has been an excellent benchmark of "how it should be done" in the past, and hopefully it will be in the future as well. (I know I cheerfully ripped off the old FF8-related articles' format elsewhere.) I think that the current merge trend may be approaching "too much of a good thing," however.

Just to be clear, I fully support efforts to bring more real-world perspective into articles, and am quite impressed at the work this WikiProject has done on this. And as an organizational matter, merged articles are often a clearer and more concise portrayal of information, especially now that redirects can have anchors; they also have the not inconsiderable benefit of making it easier to trim OR-y edits. However, in-universe information on its own is not inherently "bad" somehow (or "unencyclopedic" to use the favored phrase); I'm not sure I understand the reasons above about hacking down the Spira article, for example. Moreover, the usage of a new article can sometimes be for utilitarian and "deletionist" reasons related to Summary Style (I'm sure most of you have heard this one before). If a notable topic covers items A, B, C, and D, but item B is unduly long, it should be reduced for concision's sake. Certainly, sometimes the solution is simply to excise a lot of the text in B... but is that always the solution? I think not. Yes, B spun off into a child article on its own will have trouble ever reaching GA (which I realize this project has set as one of its goals), but simply deleting the information strikes me as the easy way out. (This seems to be the case with Chocobo in the "Common Themes" article, as the Chocobo section there is quite long. I suspect that there's real-world context for Chocobos anyway aside from article flow concerns.)

So. I don't want to make this just a polemic, so as for suggestions... I would be in favor of "unmerging" some of the articles above (characters of FF3 & 5, Chocobo, perhaps Airship (Final Fantasy)). Those articles that reasonably might be improved to GA with the addition of real-world context can be tagged with requests (Wikipedia is not on a deadline, after all); those that likely cannot can be moved back to "List of..." titles to emphasize that these are appendices of information related to a main topic and not exactly "articles" on their own. There's no shame in having a list of information related to a topic. SnowFire 05:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally agree, but the first step is a demonstration that such an article could exist and become a Good Article. I have yet to see anyone demonstrate that any of the merged articles have enough out of universe information to make a GA. I sincerely hope that many of these merged articles come back, but we also need to recognize that many don't have the material. I believe the mergers are realistic for now, and for our project goals, and perhaps over time many will come back. But please, post it here if it exists, and we'll make it together :) Judgesurreal777 06:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The only merged articles I think can stand on their own are Chocobo and the various character lists. I'm betting they're notable, but sometimes they work better as a concise part of other articles. --Teggles 07:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it is crucial that we hold fast to the concept of getting ALL articles that are not un-released games to Good Article Status. And as such, articles should only come back if they can achieve this level of quality and notability. And I agree, some are better as significent sections of other articles if they do not hold their own. Judgesurreal777 07:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's been taking a little too fast lately (but not necessarily unwarrented). I'm also concerned that when you people are merging and removing information in the process, you aren't seeing if that information is not on the Final Fantasy Wikia; if it isn't, you have to transwiki it. As for articles that can stand on their own, I think Characters of FF3, Characters of FF5, and maybe Chocobo can. I wouldn't mind an unmerging of those three, because those three have a good chance of reaching GA status. Basically, what we are trying to do is start from scratch with these merges. Get these articles to GA status, and then branch out as more sources and time are available and notability is still warrented. This will allow the "non-game article" aspects of the project to grow in a more encclopedic and controlled manner. &mdash; Deckiller 14:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the FF Wikia have a policy against copy-pasting articles from Wikipedia or something? Kariteh 14:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was reading something about that on an ex-user's talkpage. That's ridiculous. I posted a comment in the mailing list, and they suggested talking about it with Wikia. I don't think something like that is allowed, nor should it be, because if the material ends up leaving here, they "wouldn't look like thieves". &mdash; Deckiller 14:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * After doing a little research, they don't "discourage" it per se; they want users to clean it up by removing wikilinks, adding categories, etc. &mdash; Deckiller 14:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on the fact that it's going to fast, here's what I suggest for the next moves:
 * Put merging on hold. De-merge Characters of FF3, FF5, and Chocobo.
 * Start working on the main game articles again (FF5, FF9, FF11)
 * Go from there, and just take a break from merging.
 * When someone has a great idea and a working model, usually the best thing to do is imitate it for everything else; however, if it's taken too fast, sometimes it's done rather quickly. I'm guilty of that with Final Fantasy items, although I've been going back and looking to see what can be transwikied to the Final Fantasy Wikia, which is how it should be done and I've always stressed it be done. I'm a little upset that not everyone is following that, but hopefully everyone will get the picture now. &mdash; Deckiller 14:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to put the airships article and the weapon article over at FFwiki, and the airships one was removed since they had a similar list (though I think ours is a bit more detailed) and the other was reverted since they said they had individual articles on the Ultima weapons, FYI.

If the desire is to slow the mergers, and perhaps unmerge a few that will be actively improved to GA status, great. I'm working on two other FF articles for GA status now. The characters articles and Chocobo could probably stand on their own. But I would ask if people do not roll back the good mergers that have been done and get us back to 300 stubby article, which this project had not long ago. Judgesurreal777 19:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to slow the mergers, it's going fine and the result is desirable. Maybe we should just be a bit more careful about what to merge, I didn't know why it was done to the character lists.   --Teggles 01:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Unlike some articles such as the Characters ones, the Chocobo merger has been thoroughly discussed here and here. It should not be de-merged. There is consensus for its merging. Kariteh 07:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I have a question, then, since this part of my suggestion seems to have been glossed over. Do you/this project believe that appendices/lists of information just from the primary source are acceptable? Remember, lists fall outside the normal GA/FA ranking.

For sure, the best possibility would be to make those topics into actual articles that can have real-world context added. However, I don't believe it to be the case that expansions of primary sources are always worthy of redirection, especially lists. My understanding was that the whole point of the merging character articles to "List of" articles drive from a year or so ago was precisely to emphasize this fact. If real-world context is not found (whether this be a temporary issue or a permanent issue), would there be an objection with just moving it back to a title like List of (characters of FF5, etc.)? Perhaps the mass moving away from "List of" titles was not entirely a good thing; some of the entries really were just lists.

Obviously, since I'm suggesting this, I think that there are rather clear policy grounds that such appendices of information are generally okay, but I'd be interested in seeing what others say. SnowFire 22:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that people are using the list format to bypass encyclopedic coverage, which is why I'm redrafting WP:FICT in my sandbox. Jimbo even said it himself that the Wikias are great for moving all these details found in list articles; he said he liked the idea that Wikias provide more detail for the topics on Wikipedia. By turning List of FF8 locations into World of Final Fantasy VIII and List of FF8 characters into Characters of Final Fantasy VIII (a GA and FA respectively), we've hopefully shown that it can be done, but for those where it's impossible, then transwiki and redirect. I have to go (I'm in class), but I'll finish my response later. &mdash; Deckiller 23:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To continue, I generally agree with the merges; I do disagree with the pacing, but understand the reasoning, because a lot of newcomers don't really understand our purpose in detail because they haven't been involved long enough. More when I get home. &mdash; Deckiller 01:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Lastly, this isn't a quest to ruin people's work. I gave an example below (FF items), and I'll give another one: the Xenosaga subpages. I probably wrote half of what was in that (on an IP or as early Deckiller). I was the one who merged all the articles into the "list of..." pages. And I was the one who proposed a mass transwiki to the Xenosaga Wikia, and redirect the articles. It's really a matter of being able to look beyond that and realize that there are outlets for this amazing and respectable level of detail. I used to transwiki things to the FF Wiki when there were no articles on the subject, but now the FF Wikia covers every topic we have in much more detail. Plus, they discourage transwiki because their style is different. It is just plain redundant to maintain weapons lists here when they are available at a Wikia devoted to the in-universe aspects of the Final Fantasy series; we just cover the major aspects here and provide wikilinks to there. &mdash; Deckiller 02:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * However, I'd like to be clear on one thing. I am AGAINST deleting all these articles; redirects are the way to go. First, it's meant to preserve merged articles and their edit histories per the GFDL, but second, this was a major part of Wikipedia's history and a lot of people made detailed contributions to these things; contribs represent time and effort and devotion, and keeping the edit history intact honors that. AfD should really only be used as a last resort or if there's a disagreement, such as with FFItems. &mdash; Deckiller 02:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And you people want FA articles to reach "Good Article" status why? "Good Article" status is simply something people came up with because they have nothing better to do. From what I've seen, "Good Articles" are a lame excuse to delete notable information regarding video games. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * Please do not resort to Personal Attacks, and remember to Assume Good Faith. If there is anything specific that is bothering you, perhaps you should explain it instead of making negative generalizations about our common procedures.  --&mdash; Δαίδαλος  Σ  00:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Plus, FA is higher than GA, which means that GA is the minimum goal. Non-GAs are usually plagued with unsourced information and/or material that can't be given a full encyclopedic coverage. Our merges are weeding out material that can't be improved with sourcing and whatnot. But we are keeping the parts of those articles that can be part of encyclopedic coverage. It's not about a quest to "ruin people's hard work"; such a claim is ridiculous and insulting. I just supported a redirect or delete to an article I created (hell, I created 3+ of the pages that were merged into the article at AfD as well!) Wikipedia is about putting things into perspective with respect to what our goal is. We are a unique encyclopedia, but we are also not unique enough to have 50,000 articles on each subject. As Jimbo said, the details can go to the Wikias, while Wikipedia provides a semi-detailed overview. &mdash; Deckiller 01:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * All that is well and good Deck but I too am starting to get weary of all this merging and this obsession with GAs. To me, priority should be given to make the whole body of work for a game comprehensive and adequate. The Spira page and the Mythology page were GA on their day if now they are too in Universe for the current trend in editing, does that mean they stopped being good ? Not in my book. And I used to be a mergist so you know I'm not just wanting articles kept for the heck of it. Renmiri 02:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is going to be long :) I actually agree for the most part. I am trying to make the Final Fantasy VIII featured topic the working model for all RPG topics on Wikipedia. The character list merges in FF3 and whatnot are a different story, and I don't really have an opinion on those merges. The thing about the GAs, at least in my opinion, is that the Good Article criteria measures the basic standard for quality on Wikipedia. All articles in practice should be able to meet that level; otherwise, they are missing something required on Wikipedia these days (ever since Jimbo shifed the emphasis from quantity to encyclopedic quality; please note the word encyclopedic before quality, because I'm not saying our work on those subarticles last year was poor, because it wasn't). Hell, I've heard another movement rising that hates even detailed plot summaries on the main page, which is actually one of the reasons we've been scrambling here. If we can set the pace for the entire project, we can show that the formula works, and that will silence most of the people who want to overcompensate. I'm sick of hearing the word "cruft", and I wish for a day where it is purged from the Wikivocabulariy and considered archaic. I am sad hearing all these people leaving. I hear that Blue is leaving now, and he's been one of the strongest members in the last six months. I don't get it, to be honest, but I won't get into that.
 * Another thing I've been tearing my hair out is that specific thread on the Final Fantasy Wikia. Some of them get the impression that we have certain games in the series, and that our love for a game is directly proportionate to the amount of articles on it. On the contrary. We do not hate Final Fantasy. All of us are PASSIONATE about the subject, but we are also passionate about Wikipedia. We have to strike that balance between overview and detail, and I think we've made that balance with the FF8 topic. FF8 is also my favorite in the series. I've been wanting to help you guys out at the Final Fantasy Wikia, but there's only so much time in the day. But I think I'm going to get involved in that discussion to tell the other side.
 * As for newbies, I always thought I treated them well. I know others do too. Is it someone else within the project causing all this biting? I did post a comment a while back asking people to remain civil, but I got zero responses.
 * Spira and Mythology are great articles, but they unfortunately go into a little bit too much detail. I think the combined article is really close to a balance, and with a bit more tweaking will certainly be at "today's" standards. I'm not sure if it's a trend, because our treatment of fiction on Wikipedia has always been narrowing to more of an overview. That's why we're taking the initiate to provide a working formula. A compromise, if you will. The larger picture.
 * Although, speaking of larger picture, we have been getting a lot of vandalism lately from generally the same user and numerous accounts (usually two words combined to make a username). But Wikipedia can't be held hostage by threats of vandalism if we compress, transwiki, or merge excessive details (for Wikipedia, that is). &mdash; Deckiller 02:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I know you want the best Deck. And I've seen how other editors view gaming. I don't know if you know this but the FF Articles we did are not only good sources for other RPG articles. They have been the gaming community's source for the last year or so. It wasn't this way when I got here. I remember reading an FFX2 article so outrageous that I just HAD to register to fix it. And being told around the forums that Wikipedia FF info was atrocious. And in many instances it was. There have been lots of hours of work here by all involved to turn this around. I hate to see all that work be merged into oblivion. You say quality, and I agree, the WPFF churns out damn good articles. Shouldn't this record count to get the game haters at Wikipedia off our backs ?!? Renmiri 02:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, I formally protest taking Ryu out of the list of members. A guy who drove 6 FA's can't be forgotten just because he hasn't edited in the last two months Renmiri 02:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I sat there for 10 minutes with that decision. But what it came down to was that he hadn't been active for 8 months, and the member list should've been who people could contact or those currently editing. &mdash; Deckiller 03:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we need a WP:FF Hall of Fame to put near the Achievements. It is simply a shame to forget people like Ryu and YOU that contributed to over 7 FA articles. I don't need or want my name on a hall of fame but something like the template below gotta be there on our project history for people with say.. over 5 FAs on their belt. Renmiri 23:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is... not reassuringly. I disagree about "lists bypassing encyclopedic coverage." If by "encyclopedic" you mean "by current guidelines," I actually like the current guideline of WP:FICT to which I recall a lot of resistance to from the "in-universe info all the time is great" crowd. It's hard to judge your new guideline since it doesn't seem to be up yet, but I take it you want to remove point 2 from WP:FICT? I can't comment too extensively, of course, but I would disagree with such a stance (and apologies if you didn't intend that, though then I'd be curious as to by what guidelines you're defending some of the other merges). If you mean something else by "encyclopedic," then you'll have to clarify, as that's one of the twistiest words on Wikipedia.
 * Yeah, that's a good idea. Although we'd have to be fair and include everyone. &mdash; Deckiller 00:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the game haters have been generally off our backs. What I meant to say was what we'd set the example for other projects and topics to follow. That will, in turn, will let them also work out this formula that balances detail and overview, enough so that both sides are happy. &mdash; Deckiller 03:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As for sourced material, I'm certainly behind the idea of sourcing material. The question I'm raising is about the cases where all the material can easily be sourced, but it's all related to the primary source, like some of the lesser "Characters" and "Locations" articles. It seems that the standard generally being applied is "criticism by others" and "creation." These two things can and are vastly interesting so adding them is good... but there are plenty of topics for which these are sparse yet are clearly "notable." Say, Polynesian mythology is not extensively studied in English (or certainly not as studied as Greco-Roman), and stories behind the creation of such mythology are likely total guesswork, but they're obviously notable and in fact probably not covered nearly deeply enough (including minor tales that have no outside commentary). Sports might be a closer example; your average soccer/football player is only notable for their contributions to their sport and nothing outside that main topic (with the usual of exceptions of Michael Jordan, Moe Berg, etc.). Yet an article's lack of "commentary" on that player probably is not grounds for deletion, because people play and watch sports, and their main claim to fame alone is "notable."

Also, of course Jimbo would be thrilled if more stuff moved to Wikia. However, I and I'm sure many others have no intention of contributing to the for-profit Wikia. Plus, while Final Fantasy may have enough interest to support its own Wikia, that isn't true for a vast pile of other articles on many other subjects. (Not talking about just video games here, either.)

Also, re "ruining people's hard work..." obviously that has no bearing on guidelines ideally, but it sure has an effect pragmatically on morale. I for one spent three or so weekends merging a ton of minor character articles into three or four coherent wholes because I enjoyed the topic enough to not want to see them quietly deleted, and wanting to corral them into a better form. I did this under the understanding that my work would have some meaning since the new articles would be allowed under the policy. I'd be pissed if they got deleted due to a bait & switch on the policy, and not exactly eager to contribute again; I'm not a student with unlimited barrels of time to throw at these things. Again, ideally this shouldn't matter... but there you have it. SnowFire 03:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well put Snowfire. RyuKaze, one of the great driving forces behind so many well written articles and FAs was not a student and that is why he can't be here anymore. Same for me. Same for a lot of people that worked very hard to get to the point we are today. Seeing it all merged and branched off gives very little motivation to do it all over again. They want quality ? We have quality and have worked our fingers to the bone getting it Renmiri 03:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit: I'd posted that before seeing the above thread, and the software automagically stuck it at the bottom. Decikiller, you mentioned "all RPG topics on Wikipedia."  I think this may be a little narrow in scope.  The reason I'm posting here at all isn't so much Final Fantasy (though I do enjoy that series) as is the possible effect elsewhere.  RPGs in games happen to have a lot of plot...  so longer articles and more content on them are to be expected, even if the amount of "critical commentary" is exactly the same as for a platformer.  That's nothing special about RPGs; List of Metal Gear Solid characters is a Featured List for one, since there's enough plot there to justify it.  Moreover, I think articles on folklore, mythology, plays of Shakespeare's contemporaries, etc. should be just as complete as some of our more recent topics, going into detail, offering different versions of legends, and so on even if only one professor somewhere wrote a "Deconstructing Little Blue Rolling Hat, sister of Red" paper.  Whether that paper can be found or not shouldn't really influence the coverage.  SnowFire 03:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the FF8 approach can apply to most of fiction? If so, I agree, because it balances plot and out of universe information well; nothing is cruft, but no major point is ignored as well. I just said "all RPG topics" because my fingers were getting tired :) Also, I too have spent hours upon hours merging Star Wars-cruft into lists. And here I am, the one now dissing lists in the long run. Probably because I discovered transwiki all those months ago.
 * As for lists geared entirely in primary sources, I'm not sure. We have to take that out of universe perspective, so there have to be some sections about criticism and whatnot. But Wikipedia isn't working toward a deadline, so as long as there is that potential, then there is no need to further merge or delete. I think that's the key word: potential. If the list has potential to flourish, then it needs to be given that time. With Final Fantasy items, I think it was clear that it would be impossible to get a full encyclopedic coverage, and that the information was better off in other places (such as common themes and the future Gameplay of Final Fantasy article) I think with most of the FF merges, people felt that the articles had no real chance to turn into encyclopedic articles, or needed to be organized in a different fashion. By encyclopedic I mean adhering to policies and guidelines in general. My draft of WP:FICT will have a section on "what to do about articles that do not feature encyclopedic coverage?" or something along those lines. But I'm rambling.


 * The ultimate plan is to have a Gameplay of Final Fantasy article as well, which will incorporate the information from the weapons/items page(s), Limit break, etc. The character class and monsters pages will amost certainly never be merged; I would strongly protest such merging, especially since they're near GA and can easily reach that goal. I would've prefered some of these merges to wait, but I'm only one person out of the group, and everyone has their own ideas. &mdash; Deckiller 03:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Merges
I think I need to clarify: the merging is more or less done, and it has been for several days now. As far as I can see, everything that needs or should be merged has been, and even some that probably shouldn't have been (a couple of the character articles, maybe chocobo, etc.). There will be no "merging into oblivion", I can assure you. The character class page, monster page, and all that are here to stay, because they can provide that encyclopedic overview. If the standards increase in the future, then it will be a time where it's gone too far even for me. But I think the standards are reaching the ceiling, so we'll be fine. &mdash; Deckiller 03:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Further edit: Since most of my concerns revolve around the possible revision of WP:FICT, just want to emphasize that there's no need for hurry on a response. Feel free to take your time and write your draft before we argue over it, Deckiller. ;-) SnowFire 03:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we don't have to argue over it. We can work out a compromise. Here's an outline of my ideas for the rewrite:


 * Notability criterion:
 * Articles about a fictional work should have their own articles if they comply with the usual policies (not nonsense, hoax, etc).
 * Topics about certain aspects of a fictional work (characters, concepts, etc) should be covered within that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic coverage (including out of universe information AND the basics of understanding the plot) make the article too long, then subarticles are needed. This can continue branching out if encyclopedic treatment is possible. However, editors are free to keep those articles from branching out until encyclopedic treatment is established, if there is a consensus among the project.
 * If a topic has high amounts of in-universe (or other anti-policy or guideline) detail that has no possibility of having an encylopedic treatment, then the material should be transwikied to Wikia or somewhere similar. The page will become a redirect; the edit history (and documentation of editors' hard work with the merges and whatnot) will thus be preserved with the redirect, and the transwiki will be well documented.
 * I'm with you that I don't want to see hard work wasted by delete when a redirect will preserve the history and credit the users. That's why I always stress that I'm against "ruining people's work" (or at least documentation of that work). &mdash; Deckiller 03:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

To Renmiri
It really does hurt to be perhaps the only one left out of the original group actually advocating a partial destruction or move of our hard work. It's come to the point for me where I've been putting the encyclopedia's goals over my (and our) contributions, and it is necessary but sick. The immunity from this has worn off due to today's discussions, and I feel pretty shitty (but not the point where I'm going on a revert spree). I just got into a huge war with an IP/multi sock user who was complaining about a transwiki and redirect of the Xenosaga lists. Hell, I started those lists (and the numerous articles that proceeded them) back in mid-2005, and here I am defending their shipping to the Xenosaga Wikia and redirect to the main page. That's like building a house and getting assaulted when you decide to tear it down, because others liked the house while it stood. I guess it's good that I have this attitude (in some ways), but it can also be taken a little extreme. In the case of the Spira articles, where I felt like a traitor when I agreed to a combination of both articles. Ultimately, is has to be done, but the problem is that I (or we, rather) didn't put as much effort into it as I (or we) could, especially because it's the least we could do as a tribute to last year's group. IRL issues and the sheer amount of merge propositions (and many of us are at fault for that) caused the rush.

Which leads me to this point: it all boils down to taking things too fast. Really. That's the problem with the merges. Given time and effort, they would've all gone through without issue, but they were hastily rushed through the line. I might be partially responsible for that, and if I am, I'm sorry. I am seriously considering reverting a few of the merges that may have gone through too quickly. Let's ignore it and put it behind us for the time being and focus on the main articles. We can come back to it later. Sorry if I seem like a traitor, Renmiri; that's not my intention, and perhaps I forgot that this isn't a business.

Sorry if this is incoherent. It's been a day of multitasking, that's for sure. &mdash; Deckiller 05:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Deck, there was never a moment in my mind where I doubted your intentions. But I just had to say something before I saw our work - mainly yours and Ryu's work - being merged into oblivion. This is what I fear with this policy about GA or death for our articles: It makes us way to vulnerable to groupthink and current editing fads at Wikipedia at large. So you fear AfDs so much you delete stuff yourself ? Why not cross that bridge when we have to ? We have a damn good project, with a very good track record, lets leverage it. Anyone comes to delete it we point at our recent achievements and tell them to go AfD some other stuff that really needs to be deleted.

As far Wikia, I have little say in there but I can't help but agree with the folks when they resent being a dumping ground for articles. The editing policies and goals there are much different from here, because they HAVE TO be. If they were a clone, the articles being dumped there would belong in Wikipedia, right ? So just dumping stuff from here in there is not a good service for us or for them. It either belongs here unchanged or it belongs there expanded and properly tailored for a wiki fully dedicated to Final Fantasy.

We still need a dumping ground for stuff from here, to keep things that are getting increasingly frowned upon. But not just for Final Fantasy as Snowfire so aptly pointed out. May I suggest you create a Wikipedia Annex on wikia ? It would be a place for "extended coverage" on fiction, whose sole objective would be to house good material that didn't fit on Wikipedia. Someone with admin priviledges could even run Special:Import to get hundreds of pages at a go. And set up bots to convert all the links to transwiki to here (a common nightmare for us who copy an wikipedia article elsewhere: all those red links the link to other wiki articles)

There, said my piece. Peace Deck.

Ren

Renmiri 14:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

From another former WPFFer
I have a lot to say (sorry in advance...) and am not sure where to fit this, so I started a new sub-section. I want to come in here and go on the record and not on another user's talk page about my concerns. First of all I want to say how happy I am to see some discussion going on about putting on the brakes to the merge steamroller. And how sorry I am that instead of coming in and trying to start discussion here I engaged in backbiting on user talk pages. I will explain why, forthcoming... I was really upset with how I was treated when I protested the merge without discussion of List of jobs in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, which I created and put a lot of time into to get rid of all of the individual job class pages that had been scattered around Wikipedia. I felt that I was completely dismissed and treated poorly. And I was even less happy when someone else tried to fix up the page to meet standards, when it had apparently already been decided that the article could never meet those standards, because the page was re-merged without anyone approving or disapproving vocally of the changes. Snowfire and Renmiri were absolutely right above - it is terrible for morale. I do completely understand that things need to be removed in the name of "cruft" (I'm with you Deck, not a great word!) and that people's feelings shouldn't be hurt over it. But when said people are longtime contributors to the project and not a random anon IP/redname user coming in and writing essays about one episode of their favorite obscure anime, it really stung to have been accorded so little respect, and to have my work shunted aside. Prior to this I had growing concerns about the mergist philosophy emerging from the project, but once I personally was affected, I took a backseat in the project, too hurt to continue (I took an official wikibreak at this point). During this time, I saw several editors who were not members of the project protesting on other FF articles' pages about content being deleted. I think User:Eric_Herboso's comments at Talk:Characters of Final Fantasy VI are an excellent example of this. The response to this user's protest appeared to be a volume of project editors descending upon the page and, essentially, telling him that he was wrong because he disagreed with the project. From my perspective, I saw a real groupthink mentality and nobody at all inclined to discuss the issue or to consider that someone outside of the project might have a valid point. There seems to be some confusion and consternation with people's frustration with the project, so I'm going to explain it from my point of view. No accusations or personal attacks intended - this is just my POV. That caveat aside... The WPFF does have consensus for how to write these articles, because you have a central gathering point from which to attack them. That does not mean that the individual voices raised on separate articles should be ignored because of "consensus." Taken as a whole, those people outnumber the members of the project. I have been increasingly upset as I've watched members of the project steamroll over those who are not in the project, claiming "consensus" all the while. Up until these very recent discussions, I have not seen any indication of actual collaboration going on with people outside of the project who work on Final Fantasy-related articles. I have not seen much effort to explain to those people, either, the goals and rationale of the project, nor even an attempt to direct them to the project to see the ongoing discussions in the first place. Granted, I have not been watching every Final Fantasy article, so it is entirely possible that I've missed something along the way. But from what I have seen, I have been upset, disappointed, and frustrated with the behavior of the members of the Wikiproject. This does not excuse skulking around on userpages and badmouthing the project, for which I apologize. I know your intentions are good. That's one of the reasons I didn't start discussion here - I wasn't sure if I could do it in such a way that I didn't seem as if I was attacking people here. (Since I have received a WP:NPA warning, I suppose I was right to worry about that.) The other was that, between my own treatment at List of jobs in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance and what I have seen happening to others that raise a voice of dissent, I did not feel that any attempt at discussion would have been treated fairly. It felt as if it would be so much wasted breath. That is heartbreaking to feel about a project that I dedicated so much time to and whose goals I do agree with. I am heartened to see the discussion going on here. I know the intentions were good and I agreed with most of them - it seems as if the mergist train got going and got out of our control, and we're left with this discussion and lots of former members leaving. I am glad to see that there's some acknowledgement that the merges were happening too quickly and an indication of putting on the brakes. I'd like to bury the hatchet and re-join the project (I've done a significant chunk of the work on Final Fantasy XI, after all, and I want to be here when it gets FA!) if you'll have me, if we can all shake hands and declare a truce. I just wanted to publicly explain why I left and why I was seen being unnecessarily snotty on a user talk page. Now I will shut up, having taken up entirely too much space. -RaCha&#39;ar 16:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Responses
I was extremely tired last night, so my opinions and whatnot were rather incoherent. I'll try to make a digest version, while replying.


 * I believe most the merges were correct and done in good faith. However, the method and the timing was off, and in some cases, the lack of information kept was off. And perhaps I'm partially to blame for that (although I think the final fantasy items merge to Common themes of final fantasy and, in the future, Gameplay of final fantasy, is spot-on). However, all of us who participated in the merges got caught up in it. I try to merge things with respect to the original contributor if at all possible (I pasted most of the information from the individual FF6 character articles, but I saw that some people didn't complete their specific merges, which is probably why so many people are upset. When I transwiki, it's a full copy and paste.). That's how merging has to be done; priority must come on keeping the details of the article being merged. Not just a simple redirect, except in some cases.
 * With the Final Fantasy 8 featured topic, there is a formula that, like we did with the main article formula, will hopefully become a template for fiction: a main article, a character article for the entire cast except perhaps the main hero and heroine (or other characters that have appeared in multiple works), a music page (which I think was a great idea, merging all the soundtrack stubs into articles about the music as a whole), and a "world of" page that is like what we did with Spira except more succinct.
 * But like I said, we did things too fast. We saw how much had to be done, and we rushed. Consequently, we are, as a group, feeling the consequences right now. Getting every article to GA is a tangible goal, but we have to do it patiently. Which is why I think ignoring those articles and focusing on the rest of the main articles will give us some strategic distance, so we can go back and do things appropriately (not as a "steamroller" as mentioned above.)
 * Ren, it's not so much that I was afraid of AfD; it's that I have come to respect Wikipedia's policy and attitude toward fiction to the point where I'm willing to sacrifice my own work or move it elsewhere to attain that goal. As for moving stuff to Wikia, it has to be done with all the fictional details, and Seraphimblade and myself were advocating more projects using transwiki, but other issues presented themselves and it was put on hold. The Xenosaga Wikia was created for the Xenosaga "cruft", and I've been advertising the Final Fantasy Wikia.
 * On that topic, it is the place for articles like Final Fantasy items and the old Locations in Spira, which have become too detailed for Wikipedia. However, certain Wikias (such as the FF Wikia) dislike transwiki, so the mutually beneficial relationship between Wikia and Wikipedia is being shot to hell. That leads to less transwiki and more people getting pissed, even from those exact Wikia that we are trying to transwiki to. It's a tight situation, because this information needs to go somewhere else and be trimmed/integrated here, but Wikias either already have it (sometimes better) or don't want it. Feelings are bound to get hurt, and there's nothing we can really do about it in the hasty way it was being treated.
 * That's why (1) they have to be taken slowly and (2) it's time to put that on hold and focus on articles that will always be around for certain (those main game articles, "characters of..." articles). While I was watching the mergefest, even I thought it was going too fast, and it was all stuff I know had to be done. The methods were just off, and a lot of people got hurt in the process. In a business setting that's common, but this is a volunteer site.
 * RaCha'ar, I've tried to act nice toward people throughout all this, because I agree that it's information that doesn't really belong here, but I don't want to insult people in the process. I'm sure you saw my two warnings to members about civility and attacks (that got NO responses, much to my disgust). To the rest of WP:FF, you need to think about the other people as well. Even if the merges were still done at the rate they were done, I bet half the problems would've been nonexistent if it had been a bit more civil. RaCha'ar, if I was one of the ones who insulted you, please leave a message on my talkpage. Same with anyone else. Name names; it's the only way people will know what they're doing wrong with respect to the methods.
 * I'm working on a new draft for WP:FICT that will hopefully reflect the position of established editors so that the guidelines come more in line with practice. It will also make it more clear to newbies or older editors returning to the site, who see that, in the current guidelines, it says lists of items and stuff are fine (when they get deleted constantly).
 * This didn't really turn into a "digest" form. &mdash; Deckiller 17:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Further comments
I don't want to drag you back in too much Decikiller, since as others have noted, it's obvious you're acting in good faith and have improved the real-world context of these articles greatly, and a break would be good. Nevertheless, I fundamentally disagree with your (current) position and agree with the Deckiller from 6 months ago before he discovered transwiking. We're not disagreeing with the speed of the recent mergers, we're disagreeing with the mergers. Transwiking is a mild balm at best. For sure, there are certainly some topics plain inappropriate for Wikipedia (I think there's pretty much universal consensus that most strategy and statisticsy-stuff should be transwikied); I generally draw that line based on WP:Verifiability grounds. Long unsourced digressions on character X being awesome? No good. The Locations in Spira article (randomly picked example, many others would work)? That's all sourceable, albeit from in-game. I would not start such an article nor perhaps be overly inclined to look at it, but it seems basically compliant with WP policies, even if it's of niche interest. I believe in brevity. A line that's not helping should be cut. I think that allowing such articles helps rather than hinders that goal, since boring listy information can be tossed to the side, and the real article (Spira) can continue forward as normal. The one line with "See also: Locations in Spira" is an eminently payable price. I'm not even defending all locations articles, but for something covering two popular games, it may well be reasonable, just as most streets are not worthy of articles, but Grand Street (Manhattan) may squeak it out due to being on one of the most densely populated islands in the world.

Your draft of WP:FICT basically hinges around "what does encyclopedic coverage mean?" I will just restate my belief above that (merged?) lists of well-written, sourceable information on a topic fit my idea of "appropriate for an online encyclopedia." This goes for fiction, non-fiction, whatever. If someone writes an appendix with all the known sourced information on muskrat fur, more power to them, no matter how obscure. SnowFire 23:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of that "what does encyclopedic coverage mean?" is going away by the time I actually have the draft set up. Most of that are just basic outlined points or stream-of-conciousness thoughts that I'll organize and integrate later on, so it will become clear. &mdash; Deckiller 00:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "That's all sourceable, albeit from in-game" says to me "It isn't sourceable except for performing your own original research by playing the game and drawing conclusions from it."


 * The point is to reduce the amount of content that is derived from playing the game and deriving conclusions from it, and one of the best ways is to eliminate titles that imply an in-universe perspective. "Locations in Spira", for example, is unlikely to contain any info on the real world, and instead include lots of trivial information on a fictional universe, often treating that fictional universe as real. That's not part of the business of Wikipedia.


 * Boring listy information sourced only to personal observation of the games can be cast to the side very easily, if a bit distressingly to its authors, with the delete key. Preventing the distress of the authors, while admirable, isn't the point of this project. We're trying to make an encyclopedia, and junkyards for unencyclopedic info don't serve that goal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Wikipedia isn't a place for in game primary source information on its own. It isn't Deckiller's fault that he is following wikipedia policy and eliminating non-notable articles for which no out of universe information is likely to become available. Judgesurreal777 23:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As stated, Primary gaming/plot information belongs as part of a larger scope. A lot of people feel that having in-universe subarticles is a solution to this, and it was our solution last year, but the problem is that such articles are often duplicated by editors who think it's okay for all situations, and many of them are popped up (and they are not even merged superarticles; they are forged from the bottom up). And many of them are only so-so written (most of ours have been great though!), so that just adds to the problems. Some of these are very well written, but it misses the spirit of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Since we're not paper, we can cover more topics and even go into a little bit of depth (the FF8 topic still does so), but there still has to be that line. And A Man in Black is right too; we have to balance the personal integrity of the authors with the goal. We should observe such contributions well by redircting instead of deleting whenever possible, recognizing contributions (I like that hall of fame idea, Ren!), and performing proper transwiki and merges. &mdash; Deckiller 00:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I for one don't want to get dragged in either, but AMiB has his own infuriating style of writing that goads responses out of people so as to clear up the claimed statements he says they're making. It's not a good idea to take the bait, but I suppose I will anyway: read what I wrote. I said outright that the feelings of editors ideally don't matter, because obviously they don't make something right or wrong. As for calling information directly from a game/book/medical journal "original research..." well, I suppose we'll have to debate on that later, but that's not a winning argument in my mind. SnowFire 01:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Game/book/medical journal? A game is dissimilar from a medical journal. It can be similar to a book, but only if that book is a novel (or some other sort of linear fiction). A game is a story, not a history.
 * Precisely. AMIB has just singlehandedly banned all fiction from Wikipedia as any infor ever written about a fictional work requires people to have read / played that body of work. In reality, fiction is still welcomed in Wikipedia and that is why WP:FICT exists. Sourcing in game information from a game script written by someone who published it at GAMEFAQ or from a Ultimania book by SE is no different than writing about Hamlet from someone who published a book about it. Renmiri 14:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is for summarizing the knowledge of humanity, not every single story ever told. Going into explicit detail with factual claims is good (to a point; at some point specialized references take over, but this is neither here nor there). Going into explicit detail with story is bad. It isn't the typical business of an encyclopedia, it can often be copyright violation, and it is easily interpretive or subjective.


 * You compare Grand Street to Spira; in the end it boils down to the fact that Grand Street is the subject of much commentary in reliable sources (and the same may be true of muskrat fur, I don't know), but the various minor locations in Spira aren't. It's not because Grand Street is populous or famous or whatever. There is much to say about Grand Street that is factual, but there is little to say about the various locations in Spira that is factual (barring the typical conception and critical reception, which tend to be scarce or non-existent for such granular topics).


 * Notable isn't the same as important or famous; it's the quality of having been the subject of commentary, and fictional works aren't commentary on either themselves or the fictional places they depict. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * the knowledge of humanity doesn't stop at real touchable things. WP:FICT is still not included in WP:NOT and until then not being factual will not be basis for exclusion of articles from Wikipedia for me Renmiri 14:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I just found WP:EFFORT. Sad, but generally true; at least redirects preserve that effort in history form. &mdash; Deckiller 02:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Mm, not really. The issue may be one of semantics; I'm not sure.  Can factual information on Grand Street be found?  Certainly, and from a variety of sources.  There's surely information on famous businesses there, riots in the area, etc.  But is there commentary on Grand Street?  Eh, maybe?  By commentary I mean editorials from city planners on Lower Manhattan's layout from the Dutch, or perhaps the quality of life on Grand Street (as opposed to the Lower East Side in general).  There may be something in obscure New York Times editorials as well.  However, these aren't really required to make a keepable article, though they may be important for a featured article.  It's the same with everything you ever wanted to know about muskrats - information on reactions in the biology community may be verging on OR, but sourced and cited muskrat fur developments may well have a place even if it's only "factual" stuff, because it's assumed people are interested in things that are true.  In a sense, fiction is easy because there tends to be one authoritative source that many people have access to, so factual items can be verified much easier.  I'm sure everyone here agrees that "pop" culture is relevant if for no other reason than people consume it, just as Grand Street may be relevant due to the people who've lived and interacted with it.


 * Now, does this run into the risk of colliding with WP:NOT? Absolutely, and I agree that  fictional articles that wallow in trivia should be deleted.  It's just that I don't consider things like character lists, or (more weakly) location lists to be trivia, but rather a reasonable supplemental information guide.  Considering the beyond granular level Wikipedia tackles many "real" subjects (witness the really really non-notable people biography mini-controversy that's apparently sprung up for this gone entirely too far), similar standards should apply in fiction.  (I should add that I don't reference the super-granular level of Wikipedia elsewhere in an attempt to use the "other stuff exists" argument.  It was a design decision of Wikipedia to toss the gates open to pretty much anything, and it seems to have worked out well for it.  There are solid arguments for a smaller and tighter encyclopedia, but that wouldn't be (what became) Wikipedia; it'd be a different project, like Citizendium.)  SnowFire 04:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't have any particular guidelines on granularity, save for the level the reliable sources will bear. We don't have muskrat fur because insufficient sources exist to write that article, but we do have a Grand Street articlebecause the sources can support that. We don't have Locations in Spira any more because the sources don't support that article.


 * There may be other considerations preventing an article with potential sources from being made. But, if there aren't sources, there definitely isn't an article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 *  We don't have Locations in Spira any more because the sources don't support that article. A very bad decision in my view. There are at least 10 publications with info in it and hundreds of online sources on several sites. Again, sourcing in game information from a game script written by someone who published it at GAMEFAQ or from a Ultimania book by SE is no different than writing about Hamlet from someone who published a book about it. Renmiri 14:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Races of FF
One thing that hasn't been brought up yet is the way the Races of FF article was split between the numbered FF articles. The information has been integrated rather poorly IMHO. See for instance Final Fantasy V where a paragraph about Kelb has been added "as is", even though it doesn't flow well with what is said above in the subsection. There's also Final Fantasy IV, where the information has been dumped into a lone Races subsection that shouldn't exist according to the manual of style, all this while elsewhere we're reverting people who attempt to put some other subsections in similar Plot and setting sections. I suspect the reason these stuff haven't been fixed correctly is because these numbered FF articles are Featured Articles (not FFV, but most of the rest) and focus is elsewhere. To be honest, I get the impression that once an article becomes FA, nobody cares about it much anymore (List of Final Fantasy titles is an example of that too). I'm not accusing anyone or anything but, you know, just noting something that could/should be fixed. Kariteh 18:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, cleanup is most certainly required. But I think that getting articles to GA/FA takes precedence over this.  Once all the articles are at a very clean state, then going back to fix individual issues can be done freely.  I think this is the reason it has been left alone so far: not because editors don't care about articles after they reach GA/FA, but rather that other articles have more serious issues to worry about.  --&mdash; Δαίδαλος  Σ  19:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning
Everyone should be prepared for a continuation of flak over our methods and adherence to policy. I've already seen it at the Final Fantasy Wikia, we've seen it with ex-members, and even a few of the newer, drive-by editors have criticized. The key is to persevere; it takes a while, but when we become the first project in the history of Wikipedia to elevate all articles to at least GA status, it'll be worth it. Besides, at that point, we can expand certain topics if needed, because we know we have that standard already met. I think the best way to describe these merges is a "reboot" of certain parts of the project. &mdash; Deckiller 14:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * WRRRROOOONNNNGGGG! *hits gas pedal*
 * In all seriousness, merging is the way to go, I like merging a lot. Keep it up. hbdragon88 00:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It also beats AfD. I think some people forget to realize that unsourced material can be easily AfD'ed at anytime. We use merges and redirects to soften the blow and strengthen whatever encyclopedic material there is. Some of these I don't agree with, but they can be handled once everything is up to that GA standard. We're not assholes; sorry if someone has had their contribs compressed and/or moved to another location, but nothing has been flat-out deleted. I've lost a lot of my contribs as well (some have been merged and/or redirected by myself), but that's not what we're about.
 * One thing I think is upsetting a few people is that way some are merging. When merging articles, the text on the merged article takes priority: paste that into the article and trim from there; don't just redirect, because the page being merged may have good and/or sourced information. &mdash; Deckiller 01:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Anytime I think that we're moving too fast I think about RuneScape. On the 29th of June last year their template looked like this:, two months later it was down to this:, and today the template is down to 7 articles  and their wikiproject got deleted for not having a wide enough scope.  It's a bit of an extreme example, but at the same time RuneScape has been in the top 10 edited articles of the month many times in the past year, it's certainly popular too.  A few dozen GA and FAs are much preferable to a multitude of redlinks and emotional AfDs.  --PresN 00:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Precicely. I think the issue at hand is down to that self contribution to Wikipedia. Some dislike seeing their contribs altered and/or removed or relocated due to their attachment. But alas, it's part of being on Wikipedia; it has to be understood by everyone. &mdash; Deckiller 00:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well. I think that this "flak" from other users is in good faith and is surely at least worthy of consideration (as your project page says, avoiding groupthink is a goal, and outside voices can help in that). Now, public opinion doesn't trump policy, obviously, and I'm a fan of mergers too... but I believe that y'all are approaching the point all the merges policy requires have already been made, and any further ones should be due to editorial concerns. And editorial concerns can and should be argued over, not blanket overruled.

Also, not sure that Runescape is a good comparison. That's one game that apparently had a vast number of articles made that couldn't be supported by the topic. Final Fantasy is a series of 15+ games, two spinoff television series, etc., so a certain amount of latitude is reasonable. SnowFire 22:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I believe further merges are genearlly unnecessary WRT policy (even some of the "Characters of..." articles can be split again). But I think it will serve the project best to leave the subarticle situations for now and focus on improving the quality of the main game articles. That's something we can all do in the spirit of Wikipedia, where wikiphilosophy, policy interpretation, and all that can be put on hold. &mdash; Deckiller 02:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine. I suppose I'll be back when your new draft of WP:FICT is proposed.  Until then... back to editing articles.  SnowFire 03:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned template
Template:FF4npcbox, delete? Axem Titanium 22:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's used in the Characters of FFV page that people wants to de-merge. Kariteh 09:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Characters of Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles
Needs cleanup. Kariteh 08:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like those characters need a page of their own. --Teggles 09:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merged back as it was before. Judgesurreal777 18:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Vagrant Story
I'm quite aware that Vagrant Story had small connections with Final Fantasy. But I've recently nominated the game's article for FA. Feedbacks from this WikiProject is very much appreciated. &mdash; Bluerです. なにか? 10:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Quick link to FAC here, for anyone who is interested. I'll take a look at the article when this week is over (my teachers decided to make it hell for no apparent reason). Axem Titanium 14:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Chronicles
This article is really close to Good Article. The only thing left is to create a story paragraph, and finish off the gameplay paragraph - maybe they can be combined? I really don't know what to write for these, so if anyone can give me some ideas or help out, it'd be great. One last thing: I need someone to resize the "Final Fantasy Fan Day" image. When I do it, there appears to be a quality loss. Thanks. Once all of that is done, I'll put it up for GAC. --Teggles 03:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like sneaky User:Judgesurreal777 put it up for GAC minutes after I finished the gameplay section. I was going to add a story section before I put it up for GAC, but oh well. --Teggles 09:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Figured might as well get in line now :) Judgesurreal777 14:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I love that. For now on, we should call GAC "Wikipedia:Waiting in line". &mdash; Deckiller 04:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Final Fantasy items
An article that you have been involved in editing, Final Fantasy items, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Final Fantasy items. Thank you. This case will hopefully make our policy official for all the similar cases of merge/de-merge. Kariteh 20:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Genesis Rhapsodos
Genesis Rhapsodos needs clean-up. Kariteh 06:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It also belongs in Characters of Final Fantasy VII &mdash; a merge (yes), but an obvious one. &mdash; Deckiller 14:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Chronicles
This article has some potential. Main points in the lead just needs to be integrated into the article, details on the changes should be provided, and the reception section needs a rewrite. That's pretty much it; it's already fairly close to GA-level. I think it would be a quickie. &mdash; Deckiller 01:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes! I was hoping for some help with this one, its very close...Judgesurreal777 01:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm about to expand the development section with release/promotion information. --Teggles 23:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've just rewritten the development section, created a promotion section, created a merchandise section, and rewrote the first half of the reception section. Sounds like a lot, but it really isn't. The article still needs a good reception section, and an introduction to the story/gameplay would be beneficial. --Teggles 06:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The tidbit about Radical Dreamers having been planned to be included in the CT port should be added. Also ref #16 is broken. Kariteh 08:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed the reference, but I have no idea about this Radical Dreamers plan. Do you have a link? --Teggles 08:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's in the Radical Dreamers article introduction (it should be also put somewhere in the article body, but I guess it's a different question). The staff wanted to put the game as a bonus in the CT port, but Masato Kato declined because he felt that RD sucked and that CC replaced it anyway. Kariteh 08:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The link doesn't work. Besides that, it sounds a bit irrelevant. The interview was conducted in 1999, nearly 2 years before they even considered Final Fantasy Chronicles. I assume it means the basic PlayStation port of Chrono Trigger, so it should be put into that article, not Final Fantasy Chronicles. --Teggles 09:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I fixed the mistake. Kariteh 09:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:FF stance on including unreleased games in navboxes
There seems to be some debate about this and rather than get into an edit war, I've taken it here. The previous reasoning was that WP:VG told us so but since they can't make up their minds anymore, it's time to decide for ourselves. My two cents says that if they appear, they would simply attract more vandalism and rumor-milling than they already do. Axem Titanium 13:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Unchallenged since 27 May. Kariteh 13:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should be. That seems to be an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Axem Titanium 14:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's a counter-argument. You're arguing that putting unreleased games in navboxes will attract vandalism and rumor-milling. Check Final Fantasy Tactics A2 Fūketsu no Grimoire and Final Fantasy XII: do you see any significant increase in vandalism after 27 May? Kariteh 14:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That navbox is significantly less visible than the main FF series navbox. Axem Titanium 14:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So you want to forbid all unreleased games in all FF-related navboxes just because one article is being prone to vandalism? Why not just protect that FFXIII page from IP editing instead of censoring the whole project? Kariteh 14:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I object to labeling this censorship. Allowing misinformation to spread is censorship in itself as well. Anyway, I never said anything about enforcing this on every navbox. If consensus states that unreleased games should be avoided on the main series navbox only, that's fine too. I'm just looking for project consensus for or against. Axem Titanium 15:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I still fail to understand how any confirmed game shouldn't be on the navboxes. The "it could increase valdalism" argument doesn't even make any sense. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if it does, as editors we can be responsible to monitor such vandalism. The FFXIII was not vandalized IMO, it was going under edit wars (thankfully it has subsided). Even if unreleased, with all the substantial information released by the said developers it creates a strong basis for the games to be further expanded upon its release. Point is, there's nothing wrong with listing unreleased games which have substantial developer information in the infobox. My opinion. &mdash; Bluerで す. 16:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I subtley touched on this point a couple times on Talk:Final Fantasy XIII, do not give labels to things that do not actually fit those labels.  Edit wars are not vandalism.  Not including an article on a navbox is not censorship.  Let's not mislabel things with exagerrated terms, there is no room for hyperbole in an educated discussion.  --&mdash; Δαίδαλος  Σ  17:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Bump. Kariteh 21:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I was considering a consensus in putting FFXIII back in Template:Final Fantasy. A few reasons include: It was removed without consensus and the VG navboxes were debated for quite some time now and are no longer active. Comments or objections? Sjones23 21:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason not to. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there anyone else? Sjones23 01:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I vote to put it back Renmiri 01:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My vote for its return to the Template. &mdash; Bluerで す. 04:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fiction beats Facts in April 07 searches
Just thought I'd add that according to this article the most searched themes were fictional works at 30% (Anime + Movies) while research was at 28%. To be conservative I didn't include the remaining categories, but one could argue games are included in pop culture making Wikipedia searches overwhelmingly favor fiction. A point to ponder when trying to merge anything not fact based. Renmiri 21:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I already assumed the major hook for Wikipedia is fictional material. I don't think that should play any part in deciding what articles to keep and merge. The only reason popular culture is popular is... wait, that sentence is the answer. Something like La Mer isn't as popular as Final Fantasy XII simply because it's not the "thing of the moment". I think a great factor in this is that Wikipedia pages are usually in the first results for video game searches. Because of that, it's a given that pop culture is going to be the most popular. Mark my words, pop culture will always be the most popular, but every article in that scope will drop in popularity and get superseded by newer pop culture. --Teggles 04:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Who ever said that the main goal of Wikipedia was to be popular? I thought we were trying to make a well-sourced reference work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Great point aMIB. I hope that your concerns about making our articles a good reference will make you see that a game reference here needs to be comprehensive, .i.e. locations and history of the game universe do belong here. Otherwise, our WPFF articles cease to be a reference and get transformed in a dictionary entry which last I checked was part of WP:NOT. Both the Spira article and the other articles condensed into dictinary entries style lists were excellent reference for gamers and are very well sourced. Ultimania and Brady Guides were used extensively in each article, as were numrous walkthroughs. Renmiri 19:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how recapping every single bit of story and setting helps this be a well-sourced reference work. It seems like it makes it a fanpage, sourced to personal observation of a fictional work. Remember, a story is a subject, not a source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WPFF was never about recapping every single bit of story and setting. The idea is to be a good reference, i.e. comprehensive, not to get caught in both extremes of being too detailed or being a mere dictionary of game terms. We achieved this delicate balance many times here last year and got from ZERO articles FA worthy to FF being a Featured Topic. I would ask that you show more respect for those achievements before accusing us here of trying to do a fanpage Renmiri 17:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Talking about respect, running CSM out of here was a shame!!! He was a big part of the project last year, helping substantially in 5 FAs. I and other oldies were silent for too long it seems :( One thing I can tell you about the environment that nurtured our FA winning 2006 team was the mutual respect we had for each other and for the passion we had for the game. Edit wars happened, but Ryu and others were always there to help cool us hotheaded down and remind us all we loved the game and wikipedia more than our egos. And we returned the favor when they were the ones being hotheaded. We need to get back to being a team here! Renmiri 18:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Devoting entire articles to describing the fictional world, without reference to the real one, is the extreme of being too detailed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see that the case of Spira and other FF Worlds we have described. As time goes on we've found substantial amount of real world sources - developer interviews and feedback, the Ultimania and Brady game guide and other notable publications and game reviewers - to strenghten the fictional world articles. It is a very constructive addition to the World articles, the Project has done a good job finding them. And far from being a fanpage, the Project has made something much more better: a sourced comprehensive reference for Final Fantasy. &mdash; Bluerで す. 05:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The level of granularity is whatever can be supported by the sources, and no more. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And that's precicely what my draft of WP:FICT (at User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction) will be advocating: a clearer relationship between notability and the potential for out-of-universe perspective. &mdash; Deckiller 05:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect for deletion: Geosgaeno
Please vote or comment at Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 June 10. Kariteh 08:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured topic deadline
Per the new resolution at Featured topic criteria, the Final Fantasy VIII featured topic will be eligible for removal after 1 January 2008 if a third featured article for the topic is not promoted. See also Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Final Fantasy VIII. Thanks.--Pharos 02:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See my comment on the Featured topics/Final Fantasy VIII. &mdash; Deckiller 02:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess this means we will need to promote another article to FA. I suggest Music of Final Fantasy VIII, it looks to be the easiest (especially considering it's 95% real-world). Even if somehow the guidelines revert, there will eventually be a need to get another article to FA.--Teggles 04:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the guidelines don't say 3 FAs. That's why I referred to the talkpage of the topic. &mdash; Deckiller 04:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems strange that the Chrono series topic apparently passes, unlike Final Fantasy VIII. It only has two featured articles, just like Final Fantasy VIII. --Teggles 04:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess that's fair ;) Perhaps I did confuse it a bit with point #3.  I'm going to remove the deadline from the criteria page for now.--Pharos 04:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Rufus Shinra
Why does Rufus Shinra have an article? The article doesn't assert notability and I don't recall the character having any prominence. I was going to merge it straight away, but there may have been some previous discussion. --Teggles 06:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final_Fantasy/archive/23. There's a resolved discussion, but nothing has been done concretely yet. Kariteh 07:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Since I wrote most of the Rufus article I guess it was only fair that I should merge it. To be honest, it is quite a sad moment. Maintained most of the references though... Gavin Scott 19:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow

 * Thanks for that mention. I'm truly flattered.  But I couldn't have done it without all you guys. -- Sir Crazyswordsman  02:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Awwww... Thanks for adding me too, Deck. * blushes *. Working at WPFF has always been a pleasure. I hope we can get 2007 to be even better than 2006 so we can fill the hall of fame with everyone here :) Renmiri 22:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hidden message
I was considering adding this message in the Plot section:

"This section has been edited to be compressed to comply with the featured article criteria. Please do not add any unnecessary information. If you do wish to add detail on certain events, please direct the detail to any article that is pertains to the topic at hand. Any unneeded info added to any of this plot will reverted quickly, this includes any addition of a spoiler tag. This plot is meant to be as comprehensive as possible, while only containing the details needed to understand plot at its most basic level."

This should warn other new users not to add unnecessary information. Any ideas? Sjones23 19:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "If you do wish to add detail on certain events, please direct the detail to any article that is pertains to the topic at hand." Try as I might, I can't parse this setence. What is it meant to say?  -- Δαίδαλος  Σ  20:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * NicholaiDaedalus, I am not sure. Most of this message comes from the Star Wars Episode II and Episode III movies made by The Filmaker (see the plot sections, it is hidden, the Filmaker explained that he did a hidden message to warn new users not to add unnecessary information in the "Plot" sections on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith/archive1). Sjones23 20:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is trying to tell the editor to look for an article about that particular plot element. If we don't know what it means maybe we should reword it?"This section has been edited to comply with the featured article criteria. Please do not add any unnecessary information. If you do wish to add detail on certain events, please discuss the additions on the talk page first. Any unneeded info added to this plot will quickly reverted, including any addition of spoiler tags. This plot is meant to be as comprehensive as possible, while only containing the details needed to understand plot at its most basic level." Anomie 21:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It should work, but the "please direct the detail to any article that it pertains to the topic at hand" should be added to "please discuss the additions on the talk page". Anomie, it does really not explain that the "please direct the detail to any article that it pertains to the topic at hand". For example, if you want to add detail on Aerith Gainsborough's death, go to the Aerith Gainsborough article and add this information there. Perhaps if we could say in the FFVII for example"This section has been edited to comply with the featured article criteria. Please do not add any unnecessary information. If you do wish to add detail on certain events, please discuss the additions on the talk page first or direct the detail to any article that it pertains to the topic at hand. For example, if you wish to add detail on Aerith Gainsborough's death, go to the Aerith Gainsborough article and add your information there. Any unneeded info added to this plot will quickly reverted, including any addition of spoiler tags. This plot is meant to be as comprehensive as possible, while only containing the details needed to understand plot at its most basic level." Just a suggestion :D Regards Sjones23 21:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Meh. I'm not sure any of that really needs to be said.  If it does it should definitely be rephrased."This section has been edited to comply with the featured article criteria. Please do not add any unnecessary information. If you do wish to add detail on certain events, please discuss the additions on the talk page first or direct your proposed addition to a more detailed subarticle that pertains to the topic at hand. Any unneeded info added to this plot will be quickly reverted, including any addition of spoiler tags. This plot is meant to be as comprehensive as possible, while only containing the details needed to understand plot at its most basic level."And as a side note, Aerith's death is a really bad example since her death is not only key to the overall plot, but also regarded as a scene iconic of the game as a whole, but I do understand your point.  -- Δαίδαλος  Σ  21:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering that most people who would be adding fluff would be n00bs, I think a very detailed message is in order. I like Sjones verbose version Renmiri 22:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That is really nice of you, Renmiri. I added the hidden messages to all the games' Plot section that have the featured status. Sjones23 02:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Chocobo games
Ok, if this is non-controversial, fantastic; if it is, forget I said anything :) I think that the stubby Chocobo articles could be put into the newly re-established Chocobo article very nicely, bolstering that article for GA status. Take a look;


 * Chocobo

Part of Chocobo
 * Chocobo Collection
 * Dice de Chocobo
 * Chocobo Land: A Game of Dice
 * Hataraku Chocobo
 * Chocobo's Mysterious Dungeon
 * Chocobo Stallion

Separate
 * Final Fantasy Fables: Chocobo Tales
 * Chocobo's Mysterious Dungeon 2
 * Chocobo Racing
 * Chocobo World

So the article will branch off to the chocobo series articles that have enough to have their own article, and we'll have a strong Chocobo article. Judgesurreal777 05:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A great idea. The articles you've suggested to merge are stubs, so it'll strengthen the Chocobo article and decrease our article count without removing any information. I can't see any reason why not. --Teggles 08:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought we were to put merging aside and focus on the main articles? &mdash; Deckiller 15:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, the overall negative response over the mergers seemed to have been forgotten. We do have a focus now, let's put this idea away for use in the future, when we're done with the main series. &mdash; Bluerで す. 16:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We are focusing on the main games, however it was suggested that Controversial mergers be halted, and indeed they have. I thought, perhaps, this would NOT be a Controversial one, but a rather smooth one to improve a recently resurrected game. By all means, the focus is on FF9 and 11, but I wanted to field opinion on this one. Judgesurreal777 19:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the merging. Just because the project has a focus doesn't mean the world has to stop moving. If someone wants to propose a merge, nobody can really stop him, and since it's non controversial, why prevent it? Kariteh 21:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What to do with this...
Zero World. Recently created. --Teggles 05:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A new focus (IMPORTANT)
Okay, this is going to get out of hand if it continues. Let's leave all the articles alone except for the game articles. Let's focus on getting all the game articles to GA or FA. That's something everyone can enjoy. Let's focus on that, and take a break from the controversial stuff. That can be addressed another time. Final Fantasy IX and Final Fantasy XI are really close, and several people mentioned an interest in getting Final Fantasy Tactics Advance to at least GA. A break from the controversial stuff is needed. &mdash; Deckiller 02:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good plan. Renmiri 03:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then stick with it! I do not want to see another so-called merger. p/s: FFT is already a GA. &mdash; Bluerで す. 03:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant Tactics advanced. Bluer, I'm sorry that these mergers haven't been completed, done the right way, gone too far, done to quickly, etc. I am partially at fault for that. Merging should be off the radar for now, and if they are needed in the future, we will ensure that they are done at the right time (I.E. when Gameplay of Final Fantasy is actually established). I think we can agree that some of the merges have been good, but I understand why you'd be upset with a few of the other ones. I think it's clear we may have taken things a little too far or, at least, too fast. But let's put that aside and focus on the main game articles. Will you still be with us with these main article pushes? &mdash; Deckiller 04:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But yeah, this is probably for the best. We start from the top and work our way down. Get all the game articles to GA, then the game subarticles, and then we focus on the controversial stuff (common themes, etc). I suggested this earlier, but hopefully everyone will agree now. &mdash; Deckiller 04:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Deckiller, we need to refocus on being productive, and remember that we are the second best Wikiproject there is, and stop beating ourselves up for following clearly defined Wikipedia policies. I know of no other wikiproject of our relatively small size that has anywhere NEAR the amount of Featured and Good Articles as we have, and we should not apologize for our good work and for following what was expected from a good encyclopedia. So lets get back to the work we love, we merged over 50 articles in the last few months after all, and that is great, but that's enough for now. Judgesurreal777 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's coming back to bite us. We did it too fast, and we overcompensated. Final Fantasy IX and Final Fantasy XI seem like good first targets for FAC. Both are more than halfway. &mdash; Deckiller 04:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In the words of Selphie, "Everyone! Love! and Peace!". &mdash; Deckiller 04:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed :) Let's sustain what has been done and build, after all, look at all the new good articles! :) Judgesurreal777 04:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This means I'll actually have to finish Final Fantasy IX. I've had it for six years and for some reason I just don't bother finishing it. I end up clearing the save and trying harder for a "complete game". --Teggles 04:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, you guys will have to do at least part of those FA pushes without me. I'm taking a break from this WikiProject to gain some valuable strategic distance, especially after today. This project's goal is still a great one, but I think it's time for a break on my end :) &mdash; Deckiller 05:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should all try to cool down, I for one have never taken so much time just talking about articles and not improving them before! :) Judgesurreal777 06:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, some distance. I think for the next 2+ weeks I'll focus on the redo of WP:FICT and FACs. Then we can come back, refreshed. We're all just too tired and entrenched right now. Perhaps I'm overstating it because I'm exausted :) &mdash; Deckiller 06:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a good direction. I have for some time now expressed an interest in getting FFIX up to GA, and these mergers have been good ideas, but they were done too quickly and have been shoddy and a distraction from more productive work.  --&mdash; Δαίδαλος  Σ  13:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's three of us interested in FFIX. I've been picking away at it for the last week or so, and I've actually had my eyes on it since last August, but never got around to is. Perhaps we should get that and XI done first. &mdash; Deckiller 00:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems some others have already noticed, but I've undid the merges on Characters of FF3, 5, and TA. I believe that various other articles should probably be de-merged as well, but I'll leave that to the judgment of others. Also... JudgeSurreal, please be careful about merging articles that have images in them. Orphaned FU images can and will be deleted, so if a merger goes awry, work done by other contributors can be lost. I realize that you didn't think it would be reverted at the time, but that's a reason to be extra-super-careful on these things.

While I don't want to distract people from getting back to work on the main articles, some of these articles certainly could use work. Perhaps we should wait until any possible revisions to WP:FICT are worked out, though, so as not to waste time on an article that might be quietly deleted anyway. (Unless the work you want to do is add reception type stuff, in which case have a blast.) SnowFire 01:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Restored Characters of FF2 too. Kariteh 07:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are many ways of improving content that don't rely on WP:FICT's outcome, so I don't see why that should hold us up. --&mdash; Δαίδαλος  Σ  17:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VI to be on Main Page!
Congratulations WikiProject! Final Fantasy VI is to be featured on the Main Page Today's Featured Article on June 20! Editors, let's get it on and ensure the article be ready for the stipulated date, and watch out for vandals! &mdash; Bluerで す. 11:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What the? A fair-use image on the main page? I... I... never thought it would be possible. (Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross have been refused on the main page because of fair-use stuff or something). Congratulations for FFVI in any case! Kariteh 11:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wonder how many bitches about "yet another game article" there will be...not to mention the third FF game... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good luck, everyone! Sjones23 12:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

We should use this to our advantage by cleaning up the topic (the world/character/music articles, etc), since it will be getting some publicity. Also, our fair use (whoops, "non-free") policies are a joke and lawyer wank (there goes my chances for being a b-crat, since someone will dig this comment up...). &mdash; Deckiller 13:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, as a reminder, watch out for vandals. If there is vandalism, revert them and keep this page protected at all costs. :D Once again, I wish you all good luck. Thanks and congratulations. Let's go for it! Fire away Sjones23 19:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm back for this moment to bodyguard our treasure for a week or so. Also, I think you guys have convinced me to return.  I have some plans for a GA push for FFIV in-universe related lists (Characters and worlds).  Maybe I can stop griping and start using these merges to my political advantage (ie using the resources I have to make a listy article GA or FA). -- Sir Crazyswordsman  02:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, great to have you back :) Judgesurreal777 02:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed you manage to keep all the games from being merged to a Final Fantasy games article. Good job. --88.90.79.133 13:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Somehow I think if we couldn't prove the featureability of FFIV, FFVI, and Chrono Trigger, we wouldn't have articles on those games. But we proved otherwise. -- Sir Crazyswordsman  22:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's not that extreme; it probably will never get to that point, either. It's mostly about articles on topics within the fictional universes.
 * Weird...they didn't put the box art on the front page thing. Is there a new policy instituted by the copyright Nazis about box art in FAs? -- Sir Crazyswordsman  00:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They're using a picture of the SNES! What is up with that? Back when FFVII and FFX were Today's Featured, they used the Box Art. Why not now??? &mdash; Bluerで す. 00:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Some Wikipedians have been enjoying legal/legalese/NFC masturbation. &mdash; Deckiller 01:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can someone change it back to the game box image? This is wikipedia after all. Judgesurreal777 02:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, main page means that only an admin can do it. --PresN 07:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd rather have no pic than an SNES pic, so its fine with me.
 * And seeing as I got an "assume good faith" warning for my joke above, I'll clarify that it was sarcasm. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. As a means to that end, we have a lot of legal issues to deal with. Because the main page has so much traffic and only shows a minor bit of each article, NFC on the main page is decorative and generally unnecessary. &mdash; Deckiller 12:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's going to complain that FFVI is on the main page. That's a great article.

As for the box image, recently Jimbo has asked that non-free images not be used on the main page, due to the lack of the possibility of sufficient commentary. I'm ambivalent, myself, but it's an understandable position. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes and besides the pictures are just one click away anyway. Other language Wikipedias have much more restrictive positions. Kariteh 10:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and of course we have to listen to Herr Jimbo, even though Square doesn't care about fansites hosting their images. -- Sir Crazyswordsman  22:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They do, however, often care about people selling publications using their copyrighted images. - A Man In <b style="color:black">Bl♟ck</b> (conspire | past ops) 22:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Now, now kids! No one is selling publications here so drop the strawman aMIB and Jimbo has some valid concerns so drop the german CSM. Today is a happy day for the project so let's try to be a good happy team. Don't make me go there! (what I tell my kids when they fight) Renmiri 23:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a strawman. The reason Wikipedia doesn't allow non-commercial use is because it is explicitly intended to be able to be repackaged into for-sale form. - A Man In <b style="color:black">Bl♟ck</b> (conspire | past ops) 00:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well we intend this to be used for noncommercial purposes, no? I mean, if someone were to mooch off Wikipedia we'd probably get involved sooner than Square. It's like with fanarts, you'd sooner see the artist get pissed than the copyright owner. -- Sir Crazyswordsman  13:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, actually. The way I understand it, is that it's perfectly legal to sell WP content so long as the GFDL is followed. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, for instance free images which can "only be used for non-commercial purposes" are even forbidden at commons.wikimedia.org. Kariteh 13:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a stupid idea. Is there a reason the creators picked the GDFL (a license I completely despise) over Creative Commons, a free, noncommercial license? The whole idea of having people mooch off of us disturbs me. -- Sir Crazyswordsman  23:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Jenova
This article is in worse condition than Sephiroth, so we definitely need to take a look at it; no out of universe anything, and it's written in universe. Judgesurreal777 02:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Sephiroth (Final Fantasy VII), in case anyone missed it, what Judge is referring to is that it got delisted as a GA yesterday, and rightly so. --PresN 11:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The "ruining Wikipedia" crap
oh god not again—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 06:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Um. Can someone else deal with this? I don't need to be 3RR'd again because some IP doesn't realize he can't have his bottle.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 06:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I had a vandal (probably the same person) assaulting my userpage and spreading nasty comments about other users. I don't care; people immature enough to resort to vandalism are probably the type who use Wikipedia as their opium to contribute everything they know about the only topic they know. &mdash; Deckiller 11:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the vandal. Sjones23 19:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, make sure vandalism in both of these pages will be treated with a block. Thanks. Sjones23 20:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Release dates
Why are all Final Fantasy articles' release dates against VG Project's guidelines about release dates? Date preference formatting doesn't work if you use the "in video gaming" links. I tried changing the release dates in Final Fantasy IX but was swiftly reverted. --Mika1h 21:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted it. I was embarrassed to discover that "in video gaming" links were removed (and I was not really impressed at all that the links were removed). I prefer to go by the "in video gaming" links. I am not against this policy. By the way, if I made a mistake, Mika1h, I apologize. :D Greg Jones II 21:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've restored the preference formatting. Greg Jones II 21:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy IX is a candidate for Featured Article
Featured article candidates/Final Fantasy IX. I encourage everyone to check it out and evaluate it. Don't blindly vote support, review the article and decide for yourself. --Teggles 04:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Characters of FFX article
I haven't checked Wikipedia for almost over a week because of my Internet connection being down. The Characters of Final Fantasy X article needs a lot of work, so a lot of help is required. I would be appreciated if you respond to this. Thanks. Sjones23 19:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I really need some help on this article since I am back on Wikipedia. Sjones23 19:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Will try to help what I can. &mdash; Bluerで す. 20:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone else? Sjones23 21:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Count me in. It would be good if we can specific what are the issues that need to be addressed =) --Cyktsui 23:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly urge you to create a To Do box on the discussion page so we can coordinate what needs to be done and strike what has been accomplished on the way to GA. Judgesurreal777 00:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And also, Deckiller already listed in the now archived discussion his suggestions for what needed to be done...Judgesurreal777 03:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've created a to do list here from Deckiller's suggestions. Sjones23 13:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merged it with Characters of FFX2 today, fixed a lot of prose, cut a lot of images. Have a look and please feel free to tweak the prose. Renmiri 01:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts peer review
Hey, everyone, please comment on the Kingdom Hearts peer review. A couple of editors and I are FA-pushing it. This is quite in the same vein as the above. Axem Titanium 18:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Paine still has an article?
After all this merging and stuff? Wow. -- Sir Crazyswordsman  03:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Seeing that all there is in there is in-universe info, I've redirected it to the Characters article. &mdash; Bluerで す. 03:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see the material merged in the FFX-2 article. At any rate, I don't mind the merge as long as that characters of FFX-2 article is reorganized into headings. &mdash; Deckiller 03:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted the change because nothing was merged into Characters of Final Fantasy X-2, and I really mean nothing. I support the merging of it (somewhat), but that was not a merge. :) Perhaps I'll merge it later if no one else it up for it. I haven't done any merges (afaik), so I might not be the best person for it, but I guess it's a good learning point. --Teggles 04:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My point in doing that is a redirect and not a merger. Good luck in doing the merging :) &mdash; Bluerで す. 05:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've merged it. I only created the first and last paragraph, the middle two were just copied. :/--Teggles 06:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT issues aside, I don't think anyone has done a simple redirect in the past, at least not when there was no info already on the target article :-P &mdash; Deckiller 06:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We might want to take care of the FF7/FF10 character pages sometime soon to be fair; people may incorrectly assume a systematic bias (FF7 was the worst in the series IMO, so it's definitely not bias). &mdash; Deckiller 03:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to make a quick point about the whole question of mergers and the Good article status drive; one of the reasons I became very gung ho about these two drives is because it helps us on our way to having many Featured Topics. Now that we have our model, Final Fantasy VIII topic, we know what is possible, and with some careful restructuring of FF7 and FF10 character articles, we could be on our way to several featured topics from the same wikiproject, yet another impressive first from this group. :) Judgesurreal777 06:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For example, now that the Chocobo restructuring happened, once I and others get the Chocobo article and the other two games up to GA status....maybe try to get two FA chocobo articles...Chocobo Featured Topic? Laugh, but Kingdom Hearts is rapidly getting there, and not long ago their articles were thought to be terrible :) Judgesurreal777 06:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good luck finding sources for the Chocobo article. Did you know the existence of the mobile game "Choco-mate"? Kariteh 07:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it's feasible for the non-Nomura games (FFVI, for instance) to become a featured topic? -- Sir Crazyswordsman  13:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably, as long interviews and whatnot can be found. &mdash; Deckiller 00:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I was considering a merger of the FFX and FFX2 character articles. If we merge this, a lot of this redundant stuff can end. Greg Jones II 14:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

New notability guideline proposed
Check out the talkpage of WP:FICT. I got bored, so I decided to propose it early. &mdash; Deckiller 21:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to let your voice be heard. This rewrite is based on our experiences and successes. &mdash; Deckiller 15:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't feel pressured into it, but the proposed party usually has to have a lot of outspokenness, so anyone who agrees with the proposal are more than welcomed to support it, and those who disagree should make a comment on what should be altered. &mdash; Deckiller 05:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

FFIX is now FA
I'd like to be the first to say Congratulations to the Wikiproject Final Fantasy for yet another FA-class article: Final Fantasy IX! Cheers to all who have contributed, subtly or significantly! &mdash; Bluerで す. 18:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
There is vandalism here on WikiProject Final Fantasy. We need to stop them from editing this page at once. Greg Jones II 17:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's from the various sockpuppets of User:Headstrust. My userpage and usertalkpage have been assaulted for weeks now, and a sweeping IP block needs to occur to prevent the child from accessing grownup stuff. &mdash; Deckiller 18:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, god have mercy on Headstrust and his/her sockpuppets for vandalizing this page. We will treat this page with a block if we can. I can't believe he/she used sockpuppets! See WP:SOCK and WP:VANDAL. This vandalism is a huge disgrace. Headstrust has underestimated us. Greg Jones II 19:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have now contacted information about this situation to User:Darthgriz98 at User talk:Darthgriz98. Greg Jones II 19:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever the motives are, hopefully his/her attacks won't require us to protect the page. &mdash; Bluerで す. 19:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct. Greg Jones II 19:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up Sjones, I blocked Headstrust, who wasn't blocked at ALL for having so many suspected sock puppets, indefinitely with an autoblock. This situation deserves an autoblock, but if I wrongly blocked the user I will unblock them, but I doubt that is necessary.  The next step would be just wait and see if that stops them from creating accounts, and if not, auto block every sock. BTW, this project does some great stuff on Wikipedia, keep it up :).  Darth  Griz98  00:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "WikiProject Final Fantasy sucks ass and should be nuked." Uh, okay. I'm not sure what his problem is. --Teggles 00:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He probably lost some of his work during the consolidation. Which is laughable, since we all did. Hell, I did more work on some of those articles than the vandal. &mdash; Deckiller 00:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I remember someone making articles on individual Xenosaga characters... - A Man In <b style="color:black">Bl♟ck</b> (conspire | past ops) 02:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, two years ago. And I redeemed myself. &mdash; Deckiller 02:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sephiroth (Final Fantasy)
I looked this article over, and it is in need of major surgery. It is in universe in parts, isn't set up like the newer fictional character articles, and has some copyediting needed. Judgesurreal777 05:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there really a necessity to disambiguate the game that he appears in? (for instance, it's Yuna (Final Fantasy), not Yuna (Final Fantasy X).)  Or are there multiple Sephiroths that i am unaware of? hbdragon88 03:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sephiroth is also part of the Jewish Kabbalah. &mdash; Bluerで す. 04:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the need to disambiguate from other things. I was questioning the necessity of needing to add "VII" to the end of the current article title. hbdragon88 05:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea, it can probably be safely changed...Judgesurreal777 05:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Geez, how many different names does this character have?! And this "Safer Sephiroth" – what is that supposed to mean?  Sounds like a poster boy for a "don't drink and drive" poster. hbdragon88 05:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Safer Sephiroth is the name of his final (sorta) form in which he has 7 wings and no legs. --&mdash; Δαίδαλος  Σ  14:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, this article has lost GA status....guess it really did need some work. :) Judgesurreal777 02:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How ironical that after all these "hasty merges", the one article which gets de-listed is one that wasn't affected by a merge or a split... Kariteh 07:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Point. Although it does need work like the rest of the FF7 character GAs. &mdash; Deckiller 10:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(reset by Deckiller) Not so. There are other articles delisted. Two GA articles got merged into Spira (Final Fantasy) transforming two GA class articles into a hodgepodge of disjointed game facts that hardly qualifies as an article worthy of Wikipedia - see the cleanup tag - let alone WPFF class. Renmiri 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that is totally false. Neither article was up to GA status, and the combined one is marginally better, in either case each needed an out of universe perspective, lots of references and copyediting. Judgesurreal777 00:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I beg you pardon ? They were both GA, just look at the history. Do I have to take a screenshot ? Besides, the current article is nowhere near the level those two were. because it was just "stapled together" without narrative so it is definitely a change for the worst Renmiri 19:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to improve the merged article. Kariteh 19:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I posted on the article talk page, I don't even know where to begin :( Renmiri 02:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles on Real World Items
A few pages about things existing in the real world, but more famously existing in the world(s) of Final Fantasy, have been merged into the Final Fantasy project. Should articles such as Gunblade, describing real world objects as well as popular culture references (i.e. Final Fantasy), really be merged into the Final Fantasy project? There is information about such items that is not available on any of the Final Fantasy project pages. Redirecting to these pages is more likely to misinform than to inform readers as it indicates that these items only exist in the game. Rather than redirecting a real world item article to a fantasy world page containing 3 words about how the item appears in a game, it would be better to link the game article to the item article. --Cameron.walsh 15:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Gunblades "exist" in the real world, but I don't think they are called gunblades. That name is specific to Final Fantasy VIII. --Teggles 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point, in the real world they are called "Sword Guns" or "Pistol Swords". However, no wikipedia article exists for any combination of two of sword, gun, pistol, blade etc.  The name is not specific to FFVIII, it also exists in Parasite Eve and Wild Arms.  Gunblade NY was also the name of an (unrelated) Arcade game by Sega.  This indicates a few more options:
 * Move the article to "Sword Gun" or "Pistol Sword" and redirect Gunblade to that.
 * Create a disambiguation page for Gunblade (links to or descriptions of: "Sword Gun", FF weapon, PE weapon, WA weapon, Sega arcade game)
 * Keep the more common name of "Gunblade" and rephrase the article to indicate that "Pistol Sword" might be a better name.
 * Merging Gunblade into the Final Fantasy project is not the answer because "Gunblade" is not specific to Final Fantasy. --Cameron.walsh 03:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going through the notability guidelines, in case pistol swords would fail the notability criteria, but the template seems to apply to higher-level concepts like books, companies, games and so forth, rather than actual objects. At the moment I'm considering moving the Gunblade article to Pistol sword, rewording it to focus more on the real-world object, keeping the popular culture section for FF and other references.  At the top of the popular culture section I'd put "Gunblade links here, for the Sega Arcade Game 'Gunblade NY' please visit Sega Model 2."  Gunblade would then redirect to Pistol Sword or similar.  I'll leave this suggestion up for comments for a few more days.  --Cameron.walsh 04:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A small request for the lists
Do you guys think it's possible, to link to the character articles individually on my wiki for articles which didn't survive? That way those who want to learn more can more easily, through a single link, and those who get scared away can know there's a place for them. Although Wikipedia is meant to provide a brief overview, we have the obligation to direct people to places where they can learn more. -- Sir Crazyswordsman  03:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * All cast of character articles should have links to the character category at the Final Fantasy Wikia; it would probably make the external links section too long to list all the chars. Every article here should have a wikilink to a Final Fantasy Wikia page. Perhaps each cast of characters article can provide wikilinks to each related category to make it more prominant (main characters category, etc.) &mdash; Deckiller 03:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with automatic linking. The articles should link to the FF Wikia only if the link has additional and interesting information to propose, just like with any external link. For instance, I don't think a link to Category:Final Fantasy characters is useful in the FFI article, since the Wikia category is filled with a small dozen of one-liner stubs. A link to Squall Leonhart in the Squall Leonhart article is also not necessary, since the Wikipedia article already really covers everything about Squall and the Wikia link doesn't add much. Kariteh 07:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Squall one doesn't add too much, but most of them do, I think, and I think it's, if nothing else, a good gesture to just make it across the board to always try to link to something relevant at the wikia for FF articles. I agree with Deckiller, though, that it should be to the category for character list articles, as 10+ external links gets a bit cluttered.  --PresN 12:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any policy that says that Wikias have a privilege concerning external links? I don't see why systematically linking to them everywhere would be benefical. I mean, we could probably find for some particular entries a "better" site than the Wikia, but even still fansites seem shunned in Wikipedia (for good reasons), while you're implying here that Wikias are privilegied regardless of their usefulness. Kariteh 11:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there's CoN, which I still think is better than my site. But we have to link somewhere. If we don't link anywhere, we're saying "This character is not notable and this is the only information you ever need to know about this character."  We don't want to give that impression. -- Sir Crazyswordsman  13:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * AFAIK encyclopedias are meant to give you a comprehensive well thought out summary then link you to other more detailed sources. And as far as external linking there were some criteria: notability ([[Image:☑.svg|20px]] FF Wiki), preference for non-commercial sites to avoid WP to be used as free advertising ([[Image:☑.svg|20px]] FF Wiki), quality / reliability of the site ([[Image:☑.svg|20px]] FF Wiki), etc... Besides, considering Wikia is a sister of WP what is with the objection to linking to it ? Renmiri 02:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't forget that notability is not inherited. Just because the FF Wikia as a whole qualifies doesn't mean that every entry it contains automatically qualifies. If an entry is not interesting because it's just a non-informative one-liner (or if it has even less information than here), is a link really useful? Sure, it could be useful to have the link so that potential Wikia contributors see it and expand it, but the same thing could be said for any other website (it's easier to edit a wiki than e-mail a non-wiki site yes, but still). Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Wikia, but I just want for the criterias for external links to be followed and "fair". If there's a policy that says that sister projects can be linked to automatically, then it's fine and definitely benefical for these sister projects, but I don't know if there's such a policy. Kariteh 07:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your contention lacks foresight: As a wiki editor you should have realized by now that active Wikis are under continuous improvement so the one liner stub article of today will be the FA class article of tomorrow. FF Wiki has a large group of dedicated editors constantly filling up stub articles with thousands of edits a day. Linking to it is a very sensible policy. Besides, you can always expand the one liner FF wiki article yourself if you are unwilling to wait. Unlike a commercial external site, FF Wiki is open to ALL wikipedia editors, free of charge Renmiri 19:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but again, why privilegiate FF Wikia when there are other sites, like this one? Kariteh 19:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Awww you are so sweet! That is my site!! :D But this is precisely the reason I advocate FF Wiki: My site is a personal site, and although I don't intend to, what guarantees can you have that I won't start acting all snooty and say X and Y users won't be able to edit my Wiki ? Or charge for access ? At Wikia we have those guarantees because it is a sister project. See my point ? Renmiri 20:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmh, well okay I guess. But what about FFXIclopedia which is linked in Final Fantasy XI? There's no guarantee here either. Kariteh 20:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. We shouldn't be linking to private sites when there is a perfectly good alternative on a sister site. Like I said above, Wikia should take precedence over private sites, even when talking about my own site. Private site owners had the bad handicap of having something called a life and can not be counted to be around if their real life takes precedence ;) Renmiri 23:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But can I remove this FFXIclopedia link? There was a discussion on the FFXI talk page which led to the link being added, with the reasoning that although it's a private fansite it's also a "premier site" acknowledged by the FFXI official site. Kariteh 07:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I vote to remove it if you have concerns about it. But then again, we can make an exception if it's a very notable private site. How big is the External links section anyway ? Does a link to this place really add value to the article ? Renmiri 18:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I second the vote. We have a guideline for ELs, but it seems that the FFXI article has more unnotable ELs than the other FF articles? WHy the special treatment? &mdash; Bluerで す. 19:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I remember Deck telling me that part of the reason he okayed the merges was because of the FF Wikia articles. So wouldn't it be right for Deck to follow through on his promise? We are required to give "further reading" -- Sir Crazyswordsman  04:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a fair compromise to have at least category links on articles. Following policies and guidelines is good, but sometimes localized consensus and agreement overcomes those suggestions/rules. &mdash; Deckiller 04:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That was the one of the reasons I believed/believe in the mergers, was the understanding that the content would not be "lost", but "relocated". Judgesurreal777 05:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(reset) Wikipedia Annex is up. It's a resting place/transition for fictional material that does not yet have a wikia home or needs to be reorganized before being moved to a wikia. Renmiri started the idea. &mdash; Deckiller 05:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Splinter discussion about FFXI's ELs continues at Talk:Final Fantasy XI.

Cloud Strife, Aerith Gainsborough and Jenova
These three articles have had their Good Article status removed. I completely agree with it. Sure, we look better with more GAs, but I don't think that's what this project is about - I hope not. P.S. Traitor? Heh.--Teggles 19:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Damn, I forgot to tell him to archive that discussion :-D. Since our goal is GA+ status for all relevant articles, it looks like we're cheating if we keep sub-par GAs. &mdash; Deckiller 19:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as List of Final Fantasy titles remains a Featured Article (even though it contains two stub sections and lacks sources), there's not much danger for FAs to get de-listed anyway. Kariteh 19:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair, those section-stubs were added when the list changes its focus. &mdash; Deckiller 19:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% sure about the reasons given, but I agree those aren't GA class. I also don't think anyone should be concerned about being considered a "traitor" for delisting articles that obviously aren't good enough (Yeah, I found that discussion too). Anomie 19:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The "traitor" thing was mostly just a joke, but I did feel that someone from the outside should do it to satisfy any wikilawyers. &mdash; Deckiller 20:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I just did a lot of removal and modifications of Aerith Gainsborough, probably the worst off. Gems: Fanboys. Don't you love them? --Teggles 06:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Aerith often puts on a naïve persona, but, in reality, is a wise and understanding person who knows what’s going on with the Planet and its people"
 * "Aerith was apparently romantically involved with Zack, although she claims it wasn't serious"
 * "After Aerith and Cloud meet during the game, she appears to be very flirtatious with him"
 * "the only changes being the absence of her red jacket, the ribbon in her hair being red as opposed to pink, her gold bangles being replaced with silver bracelets on her left wrist, and the presence of a purple belt."
 * "Aerith is seen serving sweet beverages, drinks that Leon dislikes due to their sweet flavors."
 * Heh. I've come to realize that the best stories are those like Suikoden, FF12, and of course, Xenosaga. Most FFs are ridiculous in hindsight. &mdash; Deckiller 06:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You forgot Chrono Trigger. -- Sir Crazyswordsman  22:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was referring to games w/o evil guys wanting to destroy the world :) Lavos technically counts as that. &mdash; Deckiller 22:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Time to do stuff
Alright, it appears there are no current "projects", so here's something to do: get Aerith Gainsborough back to Good Article. I did a fair bit of removal and rewriting to remove original research, unnecessary details etc., but it's still a problem. Here's a to-do list:


 * Rewrite Final Fantasy VII and Advent Children section to a concise version.
 * Rewrite and possibly expand the "Before Crisis: Final Fantasy VII" and "Final Fantasy VII: Crisis Core" sections
 * Expand the development section
 * Expand the reception section
 * Possibly merge "Cameo appearances" with "Other appearances"

Anyone up for it? --Teggles 09:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not me right now; got my hands full comitting political suicide with the FICT rewrite.


 * Oh, and....


 * RUSH CONCERT TONIGHT!!!! &mdash; Deckiller 13:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, never subscribe to the Wiki-En-I mailing list. It's a scum hive. &mdash; Deckiller 14:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

See also Talk:Aerith Gainsborough. Kariteh 14:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, merge Characters of Final Fantasy X with Characters of Final Fantasy X-2 as well ASAP if you can. Greg Jones II 21:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Right now I'm merging some Pokémon into List of Pokémon (421-440). All of the articles follow the same format...
 * 1. Information about the Pokémon franchise (a text copy-pasted into every lead)
 * 2. Game-guide information (X evolves into Y at Level Z, has attacks X and Y)
 * 3. Useful (!) appearance information in anime
 * It's surprisingly easy to merge because of that. The hard part is standing up to the many people who are going to reject it for unknown reasons - it beats me why they want an article with the same information as a merged article. But that's yet to happen, so I won't accuse anyone of anything! --Teggles 05:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I take it Final Fantasy XI isn't the priority anymore? Kariteh 14:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As for Characters of FFX and X-2, the two articles put together weight about 108 kb 160 kb even with redundant parts removed; the articles may need to be cleanly trimmed first before being merged. Kariteh 19:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh... yeah. If we merge those two articles after we cleanly trim these two articles, we would put the Final Fantasy X-2 text in after the summary of the characters in the FFX story and the summary of the characters in. We should also remove those extremely minor characters first. Also, we need to add the voice actors in the character articles. Greg Jones II 19:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Even though I created the infoboxes for characters, I think we should remove them. The voice actors should be placed in the prose, where we can discuss their experiences (I'm sure at least one has brought up their character in an interview) --Teggles 00:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not even sure if your plan would work, Teggles, but that is a good idea. Greg Jones II 14:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Voice actor/ress prose? That should be placed in the respective VA's article instead, shouldn't it? And the VA infobox exists, while the list of VAs in the game article is regarded trivia and removed, why? &mdash; Bluerで す. 15:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As what Bluerfn pointed out to me in one of the entries of my sandbox move, try to use the infobox used for the main characters as seen in the characters of FFX article so that the voice cast and image can be organized well. Greg Jones II 17:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "That should be placed in the respective VA's article instead, shouldn't it?" - no, not really. That's the equivalent of placing Tetsuya Nomura's perspective of a character in his page instead of the character's page. I made the infobox just because the table thrown into the prose was annoying. I suppose it's no problem to have the infoboxes, but I'm still keeping them removed for the minor characters. --Teggles 05:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone there? I need some help with the reception section. I can't find anything... also, it would seem the only development information is on her death. Can anyone help with that too? --Teggles 02:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rikku from FFX2 won the best character of the year. Check the main FFX2 page, that sure counts as character reception Renmiri 02:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, did you like the merge ? Renmiri 02:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was actually talking about Aerith Gainsborough, should have mentioned that. But well done on the merge, the grouping was a nice approach. Still needs to be cut down and cleaned up, but that's my pedantic side speaking. --Teggles 03:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Lack of significant out-of-universe information may warrent a merge. Hmm... Playable characters of Final Fantasy VII? &mdash; Deckiller 02:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably not necessary. I could comment on merchandise, and there's likely to be some good reception; surely her death annoyed a lot of people. You managed to achieve a good article with Rinoa Heartilly, and the amount of out-of-universe information there is low. --Teggles 02:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point; only 3 paras (which is probably the threshold for true notability), but that was scraping from the bottom of the barrel. I'm sure it's out there somewhere. &mdash; Deckiller 02:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)