Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy/archive/25

Roll call: July

 * 1) &mdash; PresN 23:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash; Blue.  00:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash; Deckiller 00:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) &mdash; Anomie 00:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) &mdash; Melodia 00:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) &mdash; Greg Jones II 01:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) &mdash; Renmiri 01:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) &mdash; Judgesurreal777 17:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) -- Δαίδαλος  Σ  18:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Here, but unfortunately not very active. :(
 * 10) &mdash; RedTopHat 23:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) &mdash; Thanatosimii 22:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Here, but also not very active...
 * 12) &mdash; Teggles 00:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) &mdash; KrytenKoro 03:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Here, but busy with other things (not that it makes a difference)
 * 14) Shadowfyre 21:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) — Axem Titanium 16:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Wow, I'm late... and inactive...
 * 16) &mdash; Hibana 00:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC) A whole year late.
 * 17) &mdash; wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Wow, I'm actually playing a FF game right again, now that I have FF6Advance. Might get me interested in contributing to other articles =)

Fair use
Hi everyone here, I just thought I'd give you all a heads up of this I stumbled across; User:Durin/Fair Use Overuse. As you know, the self-appointed powers that be of Wikipedia have taken it upon themselves to tag numerous images without giving editors a chance to add rationales. In this list the user has kept, a few articles from this Project are present so please be wary, and take whatever action you deem necessary to address the fair use issue. Inform all the other projects also, as a few other articles from other Projects are on this list. LuciferMorgan 16:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's treatment of images is unprofessional and laughable, to say the least. Not singling anyone out, but overall, it's ridiculous. Thanks for the heads up. &mdash; Deckiller 16:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Durin's list is a list of pages with the most images. It exists because oftentimes such lists are full of non-free images, generally without actual or potential fair-use rationales, so administrators (or knowledgeable users, really) need to go through and make sure that valid rationales are present for each image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy item #3 stipulates that fair use images must be used minimally. The fair use overuse list wasn't constructed to look for missing fair use rationales. It was constructed to hunt down articles where fair use images were/are overused. The top article extant on that list is Characters of Final Fantasy X. It currently has 29 fair use images. It's hard to defend an article's minimal use when it has 29 copyrighted images on it.
 * Indeed I echo LuciferMorgan's concern. There are a considerable number of Final Fantasy articles on that list, and they will most likely be touched by people working to reduce fair use overuse. Far better to have members of this project reduce this overuse than to have someone unfamiliar with FF do so. --Durin 17:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think people editing the article lost track of the way we had set it up last year. We had links to images but limited images on the page itself. 29 images are NOT needed Renmiri 21:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, requiring a valid fair-use rationale does limit non-free images to minimal use. In the unlikely event that we could write valid fair-use rationales justifying each use of 65 non-free images in a single article, that would be fine. It's just nearly impossible to justify that many images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In a list of characters, it's easy to justify a large number of fair use images. If we weren't so admant about merging, then yes, you have a point.  But we have an obligation to show what the main characters in these games look like. -- Sir Crazyswordsman  13:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Benzo is hardly a main character... Kariteh 14:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strawman again ? Benzo's image was never visible on the article. Please limit your criticism to facts, it gets hard to have a civil discussion when you resort to those kind of disruptive tactics Renmiri 21:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say he was visible on the article, I said he was not a main character and the existence of a picture of him is thus questionable. I mean, what would you write for Benzo's picture fair use rationale? The picture is precisely not used! The picture is not visible in any article, but is still in a permanent state of limbo on the site's server, so how and what are we supposed to justify in its fair use rationale? Benzo (and all other John-Doe-esque NPCs) should not be pictured at all anywhere on Wikipedia, since their physical appearances are not particularly relevant to anything and we're supposed to limit fair use images on the website. Kariteh 22:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Where did you see this is not Fair Use ? Based on what ? The inline pictures have been making the article comprehensible for more than a year without any problems with the Fair Use police. Sharrol who was part of the Fair Use cops was the one who taught me how to do it. The images are there for people who need / want to see it for clarification which is the quintessential fair use. As far as fair use go, the fact that they aren't even displayed unless needed quite satisfies the second criteria: amount of work displayed. Again, please discuss facts not strawman. We have had inline images for over a year, and have been reviewed for FA and GA without those having been flagged as copyvio. That is a FACT. Inline images make the article comprehensive. That is another FACT. Your personal opinion about the usefulness of a picture of Benzo doesn't make it a violation. Renmiri 01:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Way to miss the point. Write a fair use rationale for the picture, that's all "I" want. Kariteh 08:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * From my user page


 * I find it sad that instead of learning to use facts in debate, or - heaven forbid - decide to contribute to the WPFF project quality you decided, as you admitted yourself, to tag images no one else would have tagged. I have uploaded over 200 images and have had their fair use questioned several times, the inline images are not violating WP:FU and have survived several reviews already. I will add up to date rationale as my goal is and allways was to improve Wikipedia. As for you, please cease immediately with the strawman and petty attacks. I find your attitude very disruptive and prejudicial to the WPFF project. Renmiri 18:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC):::I am sorry if I seem a bit harsh but what makes me put the disruptive and prejudicial qualifiers is that it doesn't really seem to me you are concerned with fixing fair use with you editing each article not to fix, but to complain. Had you really been concerned about the Fair Use reasoning  it would have taken you the same effort to fix the reasoning, the same effort it took you to tag the odd reasoning again, as you said yourself, the only problem with the rationale was that it was mentioning another article instead of Characters. With all the recent merges it was bound to happen, but the fix is easy, just remove mentions of the article in question. Please slow down and put aside any pettiness next time, concentrate on fixing the problem rather than trying to win an argument. We are a team here, and our goal is to improve the coverage of Final Fantasy articles, not fight with one another Renmiri 19:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what's going on here with regard to the personal issues, and I'm sorry I didn't notice this sooner, but inline links to pictures of minor characters is a lousy kludge that in no way deals with the pressing fair use issues.


 * An inline link is no different from a transclusion. In fact, it's even worse as far as fair-use goes; it divorces the image from the commentary. If the image isn't appropriate for the article, it's even less appropriate as an inline-linked image.


 * In fact, we probably shouldn't be inline-linking non-free images at all. Image pages generally don't have the kind of content to justify at WP:FUR #8 claim, and it's abusing the WP:FUR #9 standard of not using non-free images outside of articles because only articles can offer sufficient context to justify fair use. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh dear god! Why do we have to rehash the same battles over and over again ? This has been fought and won already aMIB. Do you want to be more catholic than the priests ? If you are lacking something to do, may I direct you to the copyedit of the article in question ? It does need a lot of help after the merge, you can help there without having to redo all that has been done already. Renmiri 19:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no idea where the issue began either. Some pictures used and non-used in the Characters of FFX/X-2 article have a missing rationale, a missing source, or a rationale that don't actually rationalize the use of the pic (e.g. claims that the pic is used to illustrate locations even though there's no location at all in the pic). I have no "vendetta" or "petty attacks" to give; I would have acted the same way for any article or contributor, and if my constructive edits happen to annoy or anger some people, it's unfortunate and not my aim. Fair use images need fair use rationale, that's all. Kariteh 19:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

it's unfortunate and not my aim. Fair use images need fair use rationale, that's all. Kariteh 19:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Constructive Edits fix problems it would have taken you the same effort to fix the reasoning, the same effort it took you to tag the odd reasoning. Please stop taking this personally and grow up. Wikipedia is not your playground Renmiri 19:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I missed your last answer. Meh.. Fair enough, maybe it didn't occur to you fixing was as easy as complaining. Next time remember the main goal: make good articles better Renmiri 19:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * WTF ??? Why is this picture you loaded considered good reasoning] while you are retagging all my pictures ? Do I have to initiate an arbitration with you or will you stop playing political games immediately ? Renmiri 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Renmiri, Kariteh is shining a harsh light on the sources of these images, and some of them just don't stand up to it. We need to know where images come from because it's important for the fair-use rationale; while it's easy to justify a rationale for a promotional image, it's nearly impossible to write such a rationale for an artbook image because we're competing directly with the commercial use of such an image (and thus failing WP:FUC #2).
 * This isn't a political game. It's very necessary and important work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry aMIB, I did try to assume good faith but I copied the current fair use rationale from images he himself loaded, btw, from artwork. I can't seem to find a logical explanation why they are sufficiently detailed for the images he loaded and then the identical reasoning is considered "not enough" today. Had I been a childish brat I would be tagging them with some harsh FU light of my own on his chrono chross images. But I won't, this is Wikipedia not a kindergarten Renmiri 19:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, that is why I am asking him to fix the rationale instead of playing games and risking 3RR on the images. Renmiri 19:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Try harder. Presumably, Kariteh hasn't looked at his own previous edits lately.


 * You are going to have to accept that, at some point, there are images we're going to have to lose. I just tagged an image of Rin, who has a grand total of two sentences in the FFX/FFX2 list. Why do we need a picture of him? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've tagged the pictures instead of creating or modifying the fair use rationales because I precisely didn't know what to put as a rationale. It's one of my first point in this discussion section: what are we supposed to justify when the picture are not actually used in the article (appearing instead as inline textual links)? The rationales currently used are mostly off-topic because they say, for instance...
 * The image is used to illustrate important locations mentioned in the article which permits to the reader to have an idea of how it looks like.
 * So remove the word, isn't that a) easier than tag it b)more appropriate to the goal we all should have: improve articles ? Renmiri 19:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ...even though it's clearly characters we're dealing with and not geographical locations.
 * In any case, please don't get so upset Renmiri. There's no political games. Do you think it's funny or enjoyable for me to see you get upset like this? Well it's not. We're all here to improve the articles and work together. Kariteh 19:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said before, the fact that they are not even displayed makes the inline images there [resent solely for clarification purposes, which is the heart of the fair use law. They do not decorate the article or do any other spurious purpose. If today's roster of WPFF members decides as a consensus to take them off so be it. I've said my piece. Renmiri 19:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said, I copied the rationale from your own image. Shouldn't you be fixing those too ? I have no idea how to fix them, should I start tagging them for deletion in 7 days ? Stop taking things so personally. I'm not upset with you, I'm trying to get this project to be a team again, like it was in 2006. Renmiri
 * This is really confusing... I haven't taken anything personally and have on the contrary "jumped" into an article which I never particularly edited heavily. The team work is precisely what we're doing (discussing and stuff), but it would be much easier if people were accepting differing points of view as points of view and not malicious attacks. Nobody has ever been malicious here apart from Headstrust. As for the word change in the rationale, that would have changed one insignificant bit of the problem, not the core of it as the next section on this page shows. Kariteh 19:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Kariteh, I agree with you The team work is precisely what we're doing (discussing and stuff). As opposed to that, you went and tagged over 20 images, refusing the same rationale on images that you used yourself on Chrono Chross images you loaded. aMIB went on and tagged another 10 images This is not productive nor mature. The crux of the problem is the use of those images on the Characters page, as you admit yourself that would have changed one insignificant bit of the problem, not the core of it as the next section on this page shows.. Same for aMIB's red herring of waving the WP:FUC flag over image links. If image links are copyvio then WP:FUC has to be rewritten as it recommends using image links for all instances of images out of the core Wikipedia namespace. He must have realized his mistake because he later switched from tagging "my" images DFU to tagging them orphaned, which is the only violation the linked images would incur - not now - but if they are removed from the characters article. There are 2 issues here:
 * a) Are those images needed in the article which we are discussing below.
 * b) The way this "discussion" has been handled by you and aMIB - I said before, I find this tag the images method childish, petty and very unproductive. I am appalled that aMIB, someone who has admin powers and should have know better took part in such nonsense. I had heard that old timers were being chased away from this project and came back precisely to see if I could find out what was going on and make WPFF a team again. Yesterday's petty game of tagging images perceived as "mine" gave me all the answers I needed. I will not stand by quietly while people who were not here in 2006 use the good name of the project and some bullying tactics to run roughshod over well intentioned editors who have contributed years to Wikipedia and the project. I am entering a formal complaint, for mediation at first, to see if we can get aMIB to rethink his role as Wkipedia admin and the actions he took yesterday. Renmiri 15:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have honestly absolutely no clue what's so similar about Chrono Cross (the rationale text is not the same, and inline image links are not used), but feel free to discuss that on the Characters of CC talk page if you want. Kariteh 20:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It is easy for me to see that removing the line that refers to the location was all that was needed, but you opted to tag over 38 images instead of fixing them. When confronted on why didn't you just fixed the rationale, you admitted here you had tagged the images because of their use on the Characters of Final Fantasy X article].
 * Since you honestly have no clue Let's see a rationale for an image you loaded and have recently reviewed, and the images I loaded in 2006. I took the liberty of highlighting the differences in italics, since it has been so hard for you to see the similarities just look for everything in non-italics font and tell me how they greatly differ
 * It is ok to be passionate about an article or about merging, fair use, etc... Kariteh. I am passionate myself. It is not OK to do what you did. The proper way to handle this dispute would have been to discuss it here on the project page. I hope that unlike aMIB you realize the error of your methods when confronted with dissent, and act properly next time Renmiri 20:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's funny you bring up Characters of Final Fantasy X, because just yesterday I started removing fair use images for minor characters. All you need is patience. --Teggles 00:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Final Fantasy Tactics: The War of the Lions article lost its box art image due to lack of fair-use rationale. &mdash; Bluerで す. 08:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference between those two pictures is the way they're being used relative to their fair use rationales. The one at the left is used in a standard way like so many other pictures of PCs in Characters articles on Wikipedia. The one at the right however has a rationale which doesn't correspond to what it is and how it's used. I tagged this and other pictures so that the persons who uploaded them could try to fix the rationale and the issue. And to my mind, removing the picture and deleting it from the site can be a perfectly fine solution too if a rationale really can't be justified (I'm saying this, for instance, for Image:Fayth 5.jpg where it's the same polygons and textures as Beclem, and Image:Barkeepffx.jpg where we can't barely see anyone or anything).
 * The line speaking about locations instead of characters would have been an "easy" one to fix, but that's just one part of the problem. The other problems are how can a picture "demonstrate the game's distinctive art style" if it's just a duplicate polygon of another NPCs or if we can't barely see anything on it, or (and that's what has been being discussed here) if they're artbook scans for very minor characters and/or inline links.
 * I mentioned only the location stuff in some DFU tag texts because I thought the rest was obvious, since it was being discussed here. And I don't see what's wrong in tagging something which is being discussed; it's not like it's an insult or a shot of rifle or anything, it's just a reminder and a notice for the persons who uploaded the pics, who are Hiraki-Tenchi, JarlaxleArtemis, Mirlen, Poccil, Seancdaug, Warpedmirror, or you. I guess I could have put a link to this talk page in the DFU tag text to be absolutely explicite, and I'd do it next time if it avoids this sort of irrationale heated escalation (see, I can look back on my behaviour). In any case, it might be ok to be passionate, but I am not. I'm just trying to follow guidelines and discuss topics and articles. And I didn't call anyone names. Kariteh 09:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

So yes, it does make a big difference between tagging every single one of them and discussing them all in a single page. A huge difference. Every single person I have worked before here in my 1.5 years of Wikipedia has not acted like you. Even in some very heated disputes. The same amount of zeal you exhibited on tagging 38 pictures would have been much better spent in a) fixing the pictures rationale or b) editing articles that are in dire need of help. Instead you opted to waste my time and yours. It was a very bad judgment call. I am going to assume good faith and believe you when you say you never saw the difference because you are just an editor and as far as I know, this is the first time you act like this. But be aware the what you did can be viewed as a personal attack. I wouldn't do it again if I were you Renmiri 03:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You should have realized that tagging 38 images for identical reasons, i.e. their disputed use on the Characters page was
 * 1) A lot of work for you. Work that could have been done in a more productive area. The Characters page is still in dire need of copyediting. Want to put your energy to good use ? Start there
 * 2) A lot of work for me. Having to have 38 discussions of similar content is time consuming and highly annoying
 * 3) Prejudicial. Tagging images may cause them to be deleted in 7 days. Discussing them in the project page does not, not until the images are actually removed from the article page (based on consensus) and the orphan bots do their job.

Mediation Cabal
The issue on the pictures explained above is now at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-05 WikiProject Final Fantasy. Any comments there should be very much appreciated. :D Thanks Greg Jones II 16:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This better not open a can of worms. We don't need this negative attention. &mdash; Deckiller 17:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just pointing out an issue by the Mediation Cabal, Tyler. The parties involved in this dispute are Ren(miri) and aM(an)I(n)B(lack) and Ren initiated the process. Most of the old timers left because of that issue Greg Jones II 17:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't shooting you (the messenger) or Ren/AMIB. It's a necessary thing to deal with, but it also may cause some problems :) &mdash; Deckiller 17:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This mediation case was absolutely necessary after aMIB and Kariteh started tagging images I loaded in a blatant effort to silence dissent by going after someone's contributions. Renmiri 21:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * TO ALL: I care not for whether the images I loaded stay or not, I have my own Wiki and also contribute to FF Wiki. My main concern is the method employed by aMIB and Kariteh, which I view as a blatant attempt to cower me into submission by singling "my work" for spurious claims reeking of Wiki lawyering. The kind of tactics used by aMIB and Kariteh against me yesterday are aimed at intimidating editors. I beg you to consider that WPFF earned it's prestige with quality work and civility, never by bullying editors. We have a good body of work and do not need to be reduced to online posse tactics like the ones used against me on a simple editing dispute yesterday. Renmiri 21:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, I added a picture of the extremes Kariteh and aMIB went to pursue my contributions, in spite of the fact that the images destination was being discussed here on the project page, leaving absolutely no need to go after individual images. This is the kind of action I am against Renmiri 21:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Extremes? Bullying? Is it really what comes to your mind? I am really, really dumbfounded. These actions' only goal were and are to improve the articles and make them follow guidelines; they have nothing to do with putting anyone in submission. I can see how they could be seen as a bit harsh (though I just see them as bold, since some flawed things tend to sit there untouched for ages if no one actually do something about them), but the intended result is to catalyze actions and make the article better, not to kick you out of this place and have the issue about those pictures remains unresolved. If I had made 500 edits on articles or pics only to found out that there were 500 mistakes about them, I would not mind seeing all those 500 stuff tagged, and I'd gladly try to fix the problem even if it's a pain. Please don't take it personally (it could have been anybody) and just forget these stuff about editors and "child"; we're dealing with an article, there is an issue about it, and it has to be fixed. The persons behind the arguments hardly matter, only the arguments matter. Kariteh 22:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What do we do about this situation now, Deckiller? I was wondering if I would report this to you (an administrator) or not? Greg Jones II 21:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I will now report this incident at WP:ANI. Greg Jones II 22:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Image disputes are not my cup of tea, per se; you've all seen me make dry, sarcastic comments whenever fair use policy is mentioned. However, a few months ago I posted a thread here about asking people to watch their behavior (which was bordering incivil), and I didn't get a single reply. It's all about tone and approach. AMIB and Kariteh do need to work on their tone and approach for some scenerios, but I can't comment specifically on the images either way. Both sides have points. &mdash; Deckiller 01:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely. The mediation is not about the pictures at all, is about the tone and approach Renmiri 02:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ren, after witnessing Kariteh's style over the past few months, s/he really doesn't mean anything personally; s/he very much tries to go by the book (although sometimes acting a little sharp in the process). Nevertheless, I think some sort of temporary compromise is needed. &mdash; Deckiller 01:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, first Karitheh is mentioned in my text but not the subject of my complain. Rough methods or not, he/she is just another editor. A Man in Black is an admin, which makes his actions a lot more serious. Second, I entered a request for mediation, not a formal complaint for a reason. A warning if you will. Because I wish to make aMIB, Kariteh and others rethink their methods. This is an encyclopedia, a very important work and administrators should not be running roughshod over editors because of editing disputes. All I want to see is this kind of piling on, roughing up on editors ceasing RIGHT NOW if not sooner. Renmiri 02:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that methods are everything. A cool, patient method will get much more attention and understanding from the other side. Sometimes, boldness can be taken too far (while still being in good faith). &mdash; Deckiller 02:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * After aMIB's blatant admission above that he singled out my contributions for a review because he disagreed with an editing decision I'm at loss as to how this mediation will help. It was my hope that the mediation would help him reflect on his role in this particular discussion and realize how blatantly wrong were his actions. I assumed that he just got carried away and was ready to put this behind us had he shown an iota of regret. Alas, aMIB is unrepentant and says himself that my assertions were true: He singled out my contributions because of an editing dispute. I consider his conduct very unbecoming to a Wiki Admin and will enter an arbitration request against him if he does not back down. My issue is not with the images, as can be seen above, but with his assertion that singling out a users contributions for a session of Wiki Lawyering is a proper way to handle editing disputes. To me this is cyber-bulying and foments warring online posses not the teamwork I have encountered in 2006. In my year and a half of Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikia and other Wiki media projects I have never encountered this kind of attitude, not even when disagreeing with Jimbo Whales himself at Wikibooks. Unlike aMIB, Jim Wales was very open to dissent and did not single out even a simple n00b who had a piddly little game guide on Wikibooks. I am certain that if Jim Wales sees what is being done to editors by aMIB when a dispute arises he will flabbergasted.

As I said to Jimbo himself, game pages were a good editor's first edit in several cases mentioned in the Wikibooks and will most likely keep on being here and in other Wikis. Witness Ryu Kaze, CSM and countless others who started here on WPFF. Game articles is where wikipedia editors cut their teeth in the editing area. It should not be allowed to become the place were aMIB and others break such teeth with personal vendettas like what was done to me on July 4th 2007.

I am very passionate about game articles because they were my first foray in Wikipedia: My then 6 year old wanted very much a cake with a drawing of Pukutak for her birthday. As a doting mom I looked everywhere for anything on Pukutak and only found one google match: Wikipedia's Characters of Final Fantasy X page. Alas, there was no picture of it in the page! Being a tech savvy mom I managed to find a book on ebay that had the picture, and the cake was made and enjoyed by my family and my daughter's little friends. After the ordeal I decided to make it easier for the next mom on a "cake mission" and proceeded to upload images of the book to Wikipedia. Not to compete directly with Square as aMIB hysterically asserts, but to help another kid and another mom have a fun birthday party.

I know aMIB used heavy handed tactics with countless others, but it is irrelevant. He has now done it to someone (me) in plain sight and has admitted persecuting someone's contributions due to an editing dispute. Such actions should not be overlooked. All it is needed for evil to triumph is for good people to remain silent. I will not remain silent until he and people who see nothing wrong with his actions back down. This is Wikipedia, not a gang or a high school Renmiri 20:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh gee, look a that Talk:Characters_of_Final_Fantasy_X_and_X-2 yet another one comes out of the woodworks and deletes all images from the article where the dispute started. Let's see if this is a coincidence ? Contrary to Seraphimblade's assertion that I did false links to fool the cleanup bots the links were done following the advice of GMAXWEL, author of the cleanup bots. I never attempted to fooled anyone but by the same token I will not accept attempts to fool me with Wiki Lawyering or it's new incarnation, the cyber bullying aMIB and his gang are pioneering here. Good grief! How long has this been going on ? No wonder people have been leaving in droves! The fact that aMIB and others have not even attempted to mask the fact they have been going after me is unbelievable!
 * Well, you can try all you want, but you will not get me to back off. Contrary to many here, I have nothing to lose and I will not stand idle while you try to make Wikipedia your playground to bully others. You can delete each and every one of "my images" (in reality Wikipedia images), I have plenty more where those came from and have my own site to post them on. I have done nothing wrong and never tried to fool anyone. I have never accepted bullying and I'm not about to start now. Renmiri 06:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade has been cleaning up other stuff too, it seems he came to this Characters page at the wrong moment and with the wrong arguments. We can just inform him and see how it goes from there. And really Ren, could you stop grouping people and calling them "--- and his gang", etc.? I don't personally know aMIB more than I know you, and I'm pretty sure I've never even interacted with Seraphimblade yet. People might have the same opinions on some things, which could happen to be opinions opposed to yours, but it doesn't mean there's a conspiracy against you. You are not the only person who uploaded pictures for the Characters of FFX/X-2 article. Kariteh 09:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes and the fact that Seraphimblade managed to accuse me of trying to fool the orphan bots right out of the blue after over a year of the page being there untouched is mere coincidence right ? I guess miracles and wonders never cease to happen... But never mind. I will again, assume good faith.
 * Kariteh, I can see you are trying to put this episode behind you and so do I. Again, I entered a very harmless request for mediation, which has no real impact on someone's Wikipedia "career" it is basically a time outwere we look for a calmer 3rd party to help cool things down. All I wanted with it was to make sure you, aMIB and whoever else felt tempted to act like you guys did on July 4th to reflect on what you did and the impact it has on an editing dispute. And the impact using such rough tactics have on teamwork and every editor's stress level while working on Wikipedia. It spoils it. It takes away the joy of trying to make articles better and makes it a place where everyone is afraid of speaking up. Which, as far as I know, it is the antithesis of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. So if I get your word that you will not rough up others like you did with me, I'll let you be.


 * My problem is with aMIB. He saw nothing wrong with you tagging 38 images, and he is not a n00b. He is an editor, he should know better. He knows very well that orphan bots will delete an image in 7 days. He has seen thousands of editing disputes. He could have chosen to not get involved. He could have chosen to support you here in the project page and turn a blind eye to the fact that you went after my images. Instead, he joined the attack and tagged 10 more. As orphan images which is a lie, their presence on the Character article was being disputed, i.e. they weren't orphaned yet. Tagging them as orphan will make the images be deleted and aMIB knows it. He even tagged images that are NOT on the characters page. He chose my work specifically, regardless of if it was on the disputed page or not. There is simply no way I can assume good faith in his case. He did it on purpose, to get his way.

In fairness to aMIB, he didn't deny it. On the mediation page he flat out admits going after images loaded by me, because he disagreed with the 2006 decision. Which makes my choice of the bland, harmless mediation moot. I see what he did to me as wrong and the antithesis of how editing disputes should be handled. He is unrepentant. I have no choice but to press further. Because, when it comes down to it, the reason I cared so much about "my pictures" and the Characters article is because I care about Wikipedia. The wikipedia that I experienced in 2006. The wikipedia that has a concept of letting anyone edit a page, not just "the anointed few". The Wikipedia that has a rule about not bitting the n00b and another about not using Wiki:lawyering to shut up editors. This is the place I want my images and my edits on.

If Wikipedia ceased to be this place and now the kind of thing aMIB and you did to me is considered proper behavior in editing disputes, then I want no part of it. You can go ahead and tag every single image and article I ever touched for AfD and you will be doing me a favor. If Wikipedia has turned into a place where people get their worked singled out because of a simple disagreement, then it is not the place I want my work on. And I will be grateful that aMIB is saving me the hours needed to take out my own work from this new place he is building. It isn't the place I want my work at all.

As for now, I refuse to believe things changed that much in less than a year, and I will keep on fighting aMIB until he admits what he did is very wrong and that there are limits to what can be done to editors on an editing dispute. Singling out someone's work is out of bounds. Piling on an editor ? Ditto! There is a very visible line between passion and boldness and bullying and aMIB crossed it. Until he admits his error I won't stop. No matter how many images I loaded he deletes. Until either he admits his error or someone at a higher level than aMIB tells me Wikipedia is now accepting and approving what he did as wiki policy then I won't stop. Because as I said before, when it comes down to it, the reason I care so much about my 38 images is because I care about the place I loaded them. And I will lose 38, 68, or 3,800 of my edits fighting for that place. The Wikipedia I encountered in 2006, where people weren't afraid to disagree with editors, not even when they were admins. Renmiri 04:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

DFU for Rinffx2.jpg and other images
"This is one of 20+ images being used in Characters of Final Fantasy X and X-2 to 'demonstrate the game's distinctive art style,' and the 'important location mentioned in the article' is a character which only merits two sentences of commentary. Additionally, this is not transcluded into the page. This currently fails WP:FUC #3a, #7, #8, and #9."
 * aMIB, lets examine point by point
 * From Image:Rinffx2.jpg


 * What is it with unilateral decision today ? aMIB, can't you debate an issue like a grown up ? Renmiri 19:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If I wanted to make a unilateral decision, I have a delete button. I was tempted to use it.

These images, as far as I can tell, fail nearly half of the fair use criteria. That's a major problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC) '''3(a) Minimal use. As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.'''
 * As requested, I'm addressing the points
 * The image is not even being displayed, therefore conforms to the lowest use possible: invisible.

'''7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article.'''
 * This image is used in at least one article

'''8. Significance. Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable.'''0
 * The image is there solely to enhance understanding of that particular game character. It is not there for any decorative purpose (it is invisible). Fair Use doesn't get any more well intentioned than that. It is there solely if needed as judged by the Wikipedia reader.

'''9 Restrictions on location. Non-free content is used only in the article namespace; it is never used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)'''
 * Precisely. Images are linked, as it is acceptable all over wikipedia areas where the use of ANY image is a Fair Use violation. By using the same method used on all other namespaces we are ensuring the same rationale applies
 * Maybe we should start by removing the easiest ones, like the Ronsos. They all look the same, there's no real need to show every Ronso. Kariteh 20:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the best option is to have images for the main characters (playable and other main characters); no images for the groups or minor characters. I think that's a fair compromise. &mdash; Deckiller 20:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Deck, if image links are against fair use then all namespaces on en.wikipedia are against fair use. Linking to images when discussing them is part of WP:FU guidelines aMIB is wrong, plain and simple Renmiri 20:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

*sigh*

Renmiri, you removed the DFU template from each of the images I reviewed and tagged, and replaced it with this deeply flawed argument.

You didn't address 2 at all for the artbook images. We're competing directly with Square. We need a pressing need to do this.

3a isn't resolved; Characters of Final Fantasy X and X-2 has 20+ images all with essentially the same rationale, with more linked inline. That's not minimal use. That's dozens of images.

7 isn't resolved. These images aren't used in any articles. 7 exists so that images are only used where they're illustrating specific relevant points in the text; the images need to be on the page with the specific relevant points.

8 isn't resolved. These are all minor characters. The merchant? A bunch of characters who only merit a handful of sentences in the article? How does illustrating a character not even important enough to write free text about significant?

9 isn't resolved. 9 exists so that the images are only used in articles, where they can illustrate specific relevant points in the text.

So, all of the problems still exist. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, instead of playing tag the image like you and Karitech and some others. I was trying to have a grownup discussion of the problem and adress the issues in the proper place for it Renmiri 20:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Logic 101: If the sentence below is true
 * 3a isn't resolved; Characters of Final Fantasy X has 20+ images all with essentially the same rationale, with more linked inline. That's not minimal use.

then the sentence below is false:
 * 7 isn't resolved. This isn't transcluded into any articles.
 * An image can't be on Characters of Final Fantasy X and be unused at the same time.

Addressing the only valid logic concern: linked images constitute minimal use and are accepted in all namespaces of Wikipedia, linking to images instead of displaying them is even part of WP:FU. I see no exclusion of Main namespace on the rules, do you ? Renmiri 20:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, this was painfully discussed in 2006 and consensus was that the image links would enhance the article, the invisible section on the end was added solely to address the limitations of wikipedia software in recognizing the links. If the project team decides to revert this decision I will withdraw my complaints and let the images be deleted Renmiri 20:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to add I find the current methods of "discussion" exhibited by aMIB, Kariteh and others very disturbing. I can guarantee you that Ryun would never have stood for it nor many of the old timers. I can't help but think this is why WPFF has been losing members. I saw no honest intent to address a problem, rather I saw a bunch of high school kids ganging up on work perceived as mine completely forgetting the project's lofty goals Renmiri 20:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You can make yourself out to be a martyr, if you like. My interest is only in dealing with images that don't satisfy WP:FUR. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They are not in violation. Your personal opinion not withstanding. Image links are part of WP:FUR guideline for discussing images. This is a FACT. If links violate WP:FUR then we have to excise them from each and every namespace on Wikipedia, why dodn't you start with some non- WPFF images since you are so worried ? Renmiri 20:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My opinion is a well-informed one. WP:FUC does not allow for non-free images that are only used for linking. We even have WP:FUC #7, which specifically requires that an image be used in an article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm here to tell you that 30+ images, many of them artbook images of minor characters, isn't kosher, whether they're transcluded or linked inline. Inline links break standard style, fail WP:FUC, and happen to also be ugly as all get-out.

All you're doing is concealing the WP:FUC 3a problem, not solving it. When all is said and done you still have three dozen non-free images on Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a valid concern aMIB. On 2006 the team felt that links would enhance the article, maybe in 2007 the team will agree with your concerns. The way to deal with it is to discuss it in a civil way on the project page, not go after each image. They all have the same problem, the grownup way would have been to discuss it here. Renmiri 20:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your heart might be in the right place but your methods are disruptive, heavy handed and counter productive' You, me and your many friends could have been arriving at a compromose or -heaven forbid - be editing the article in question, which still needs a lot of work Renmiri 20:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I tagged the worst of the images with DFU. That's what you do when you have some images with disputed fair use status.


 * Now, please stop waving your arms and crying for sympathy. Nobody is persecuting you. This USENET-style grandstanding is obstructing any sort of discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * aMIB, you are indeed not persecuting me. I do not consider those images mine, I consider them part of Wikipedia, improving an article I care about. This is where we differ. I am not here to play little games, I am here to see that the WPFF are continues to be what was in 2006. And I see yours, Kariteh and others actions on this particular case very telling on why the old timers left and why there is no more sense of team here Renmiri 20:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you considered the possibility that people are enforcing Wikipedia's fair-use policy for some reason other than a desire to play "little games"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no Wikipedia's fair-use policy problems. Linking to images is a well established practice and perfectly compliant with Wikipedia's fair-use policy.

The issue as I see it: Should we have links to images instead of displaying them on the Characters page ?

I support it because it enhances the article. If others think it is too much hassle to fight this WP:FUC wars every time a self appointed non-laweyer tries to make a crusade against it, then so be it, take them out. Renmiri 21:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that it's allowed, but it's not. WP:FUC #7 is clear. Additionally, having 30+ images, including artbook images (#2) and characters with trivial representation (#8) in the article, doesn't even come close to satisfying #3a. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * WTF? (sorry if I used profanity) I agree with Man in Black that WP:FUC is definitively clear. Greg Jones II 21:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't violate #7 because it says "Non-free content is used in at least one article." Linking is still using. But in this same defense, it violates #8: "Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article." Identification of minor characters isn't significant. I don't want to see them go, but I'd also prefer them displayed in the article. Perhaps talking about it at Images and media for deletion is a good idea. --Teggles 00:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The FF Wikia's role is to give more details, so why not rely on them like we do on other Characters articles? Kariteh 09:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Teggles got my point. Linking to an image does not violate WP:FUC. The bone of contention here is the image's significance on the Characters article. Renmiri 15:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Linking to images in an article page is a creative way to both have a comprehensive article and comply with WP:FUC and was used by us in 2006 to greatly reduce the number of pictures on the Characters page. Sure enough, after being FA and surviving almost a year untouched, we saw the number of displayed images creep up to an unacceptable level after teh links were removed. I myself used it last week to cut down from 29 or more displayed pictures on the merged article to the current 22. Brother was one of the images moved to a link. He is a major character on FFX2 but very minor on X and by leaving a link to the image we leave it up to the reader to see if it is needed. Renmiri 15:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I prefer to leave the need for the image up to the Wikipedia reader instead of me saying it's needed or aMIB saying it's not. The reader will click on the link if he feels he needs to see it. In my view, Fair Use doesn't get any more "pure" than that. Renmiri 15:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It may have been creative, but it didn't reduce the number of images on the page. Shuffling things around doesn't solve the problem that the article is currently using 30+ non-free images, many of them contributing so little to the page that it isn't significantly harmed when they aren't even transcluded into the page.

Additionally, we don't link to images instead of transcluding them because it doesn't work in printed versions of the article, it requires hacks to keep the images from (rightly!) appearing orphaned, and because we only give non-free images their own stand-alone pages for maintenence purposes. Image pages just aren't article content.

Linking to images is allowed. Linking to images inline in articles isn't, and images that are only being used in that they're being linked inline in an article need to be dealt with posthaste. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are good points aMIB: not appearing in print and linking just to an image with no additional content are weakness of the solution we arrived in 2006. I still think links are necessary but the good thing about links is that they need not to link to images hosted at Wikipedia. We are fortunate enough that CSM and his team at FF Wiki maintain an excellent body of work about Final Fantasy including game NPC like Rin. We on the WPFF could link each minor character to the appropriate character pages at FF Wiki. This way we would drastically reduce the images in the page, while still providing better content for the reader who wishes more detail. Other games have no such luxury, and might have to resort to the  solution we used in 2006, but we can live without it. Renmiri 19:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See ? Debating we can arrive at a consensus, there was no need for that disgraceful episode of cyber-bullying Renmiri 19:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with this idea (I proposed that just above actually). Since external links are supposed to be kept to a minimum, a single link at the bottom of the article would probably be enough though (or two links I guess, and ). Kariteh 08:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Characters of Final Fantasy X and Characters of Final Fantasy X-2
Renmiri has merged these two articles. Great work. Sadly, there are problems. The first problem is that the inline images have returned. Renmiri, you ask: "Augh!!!! WHO deleted all the images carefully put inline ? Based on WHAT ?? Idiot!!" Well, it was me, and it was based on WP:FU. There's no way we'll be able to justify the use of that many images for that many minor characters. Right now the article breaks copyright law, depending on whether or not that many images is justified (I would say no). The second problem is the length. This article is HUGE, at 133 kilobytes. I'm sure it can be cut down. --Teggles 04:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * At our last go with the WP:FU the inline images (linked but not displayed) did not violate Fair Use. When did this change ? They are there merely for identification and are not displayed. The display=none at the end of the article is there to prevent the images from being considered orphaned, while the inline link allows readers to browse the image only if needed for clarification. Renmiri 04:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How is linking the images any different to displaying them? --Teggles 04:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, I guess it doesn't matter, they can easily be removed when we get yelled at. --Teggles 04:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely. We have been through all this WP:FU rigmarole already. My idiot comment was in exasperation that all that was blatantly ignored. My apologies, you meant well. Next time, ask first, will ya ?  Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Final_Fantasy/To_do has the painful discussion and decision process behind all those inline images, display=none, etc...  Renmiri 04:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did it without asking because the same thing happened to Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. I wasn't part of WikiProject Final Fantasy at the time of that discussion, so I really had no way of knowing. --Teggles 04:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But they're not hidden! I can clearly see four weird empty boxes at the bottom right side of the article. Kariteh 09:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's because of some sort of CSS issue. I'll try to fix it. --Teggles 09:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, it's fixed. It happened because a few of the hidden images were given the "thumb" attribute. --Teggles 09:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it looks like most of the Japanese characters were broken. Fixing it now... :( --Teggles 05:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Gaahh.. Sorry, must have been the text editor I was using to cut and paste between pages. Thanks for your help BTW Renmiri 05:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, we need to add voice actors for X-2, since some of them are not mentioned in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjones23 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I forgot to sign my comment above. If that is the case, I apologize. Greg Jones II 14:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirects are nice but clean up is necessary too
Electro-Mag Rod has been nominated for deletion. Please vote/discuss on Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 1. Kariteh 21:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

MoS
I tweaked the MoS a bit. Nothing major; just reflecting current trends in article structure and whatnot. &mdash; Deckiller 07:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

FA push
Anybody in the mood for a FA push? Tactics or XI? &mdash; Deckiller 05:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If I had to choose, it would be Final Fantasy Tactics, I haven't played Final Fantasy XI. --Teggles 05:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto. But FFXI is so close; it just needs trimming in the gameplay section and maybe some refs. Maybe when Ra comes back? &mdash; Deckiller 06:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We could have two FA pushes at the same time, though Tactics would be more in my scope, but still, my wikibreak is starting next week. I'm afraid my contributions will be sporadic. &mdash; Blue. 12:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Dedicated Pages
anything wrong with starting the Shiva (Final Fantasy), Ifrit (Final Fantasy), etc. etc. Minor Final Fantasy Summons and such? i mean, the Blood Elf article can exist, so can the Miser (Soul Calibur) article, c'mon! seems a bit unfair. AnYtWo! 19:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The FFWiki is a better alternative to that IMHO. &mdash; Blue. 19:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to check out WP:PTEST. It's somewhat relevent to that question. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The existence of Miser and Blood Elf has absolutely no relevance to these FF summon topics. However, since Bahamut (Final Fantasy) exists, maybe the other summons should. (Or alternatively, if we reach the conclusion that Shiva and Ifrit shouldn't have articles, maybe Bahamut shouldn't too.) It's something to discuss. Kariteh 20:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In 2006 we had Final Fantasy magic as the article to mention summons that appeared in several games of the series Renmiri 21:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Bahamut article seems kind of lame with little hope for improvement. I don't plan on setting Ifrit and Bahamut on the same level but I feel that Bahamut should be merged somewhere. Axem Titanium 21:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bahamut should be merged again. It was recreated with the promise that there'd be reliable sources, but as of yet there are only primary sources. --Teggles 00:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That page should be merged. It doesn't help that with all the merging done in the past, this article is still established and lacks a real world perspective, apart from a mention in ancient Arabian mythology (not Islamic, mind you). I'll put up suggestion on it. I've put merging tags to said articles. If there's no discussion, will merge them. &mdash; Blue. 06:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The anti-merge (and anti-delete sometimes) editors have a habit of coming to discuss only after the merge (or deletion) has been done, unfortunately. Kariteh 08:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, nobody has reverted the change to Plot Summaries at WP:NOT. &mdash; Deckiller 08:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've merged it. There's a consensus in the discussion. &mdash; Blue. 09:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VIII
I've managed to trim the summary down by another 50 words or so; it now is 850-900 words (was 945 previously). Have I overtrimmed? I doubt it, especially with the Characters of Final Fantasy VIII article. &mdash; Deckiller 09:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I could get into a big essay about Wikipedia and content coverage, so I'll stick with "it's fine". --Teggles 00:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of RPGe
An article that you have been involved in editing, RPGe, 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/RPGe. Thank you. Kariteh 10:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Titan (Final Fantasy character)
Discovered this article and tagged it. What should we do with this one? &mdash; Blue. 18:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Guess I'll do the obvious. &mdash; Blue. 18:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Final Fantasy cast members
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Final Fantasy cast members, 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/List of Final Fantasy cast members. Thank you. Kariteh 21:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How odd. A mass-CFD resulted in "listify, then delete once a good list exists", so some admin ran a bot to make really crappy lists to justify deleting the categories. Anomie 23:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured Topic Push
I have been thinking that we should consider something audacious, such as a featured TOPIC push. We are very close in several cases; Final Fantasy IV, Final Fantasy X/X2, Final Fantasy IX, and Final Fantasy XII are all in a good place...one featured article for each, one or 2 good articles...I think it would be invigorating to push something like that. Just so you know, I would vote for FF4 :) Judgesurreal777 05:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We still have to get FFT and XI to FAC though. &mdash; Deckiller 09:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd rather they get done first. One thing I've discovered though, is the difficulty finding development information for Final Fantasy Tactics. I've even been through sites on the web archive, there's nothing. I can't even find the date it was announced. So I'd say to do Final Fantasy XI first, even though I haven't played it, heh. --Teggles 10:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I found this - http://web.archive.org/web/19970606053103/www.next-generation.com/news/073196cc.html - but it really only tells us that Final Fantasy Tactics was around on July 31, 1996. --Teggles 10:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Could the issue be avoided by stating when Matsuno joined Square instead? It was in 1995. Kariteh 11:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose, but that isn't going to fill a Development section :) --Teggles 12:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it has to be that long, look at Final Fantasy IV: not counting the rerelease subsections, the development section is incredibly succinct. For FFT, we could try to improve what's already in the section, and maybe mention the influence of previous Matsuno titles on the game. Kariteh 12:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Final Fantasy IV has a good amount of development information for the audio, and a lot of legacy information. That can't be said for Tactics. I suppose there's enough to scrape for featured status, but I personally wouldn't be happy about the content. I'll figure something out. --Teggles 13:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sooo, then how about after we get both of those to FA status? It would compliment both FA pushes and our GA article drive. Judgesurreal777 02:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If expanding the FFT Development section is too difficult, I propose to merge Final Fantasy Tactics: The Lion War with the FFT article. The FFT:TLW article is essentially just a Development section. Kariteh 12:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I oppose. We should wait until the Final Fantasy Tactics: The War of the Lions come out stateside. That way we can expand the FFT:WOTL article later. As for Tactics, hey, if Vagrant Story, a more obscure title has an expansive development section, I don't see why Tactics can't? &mdash; Blue. 13:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Vagrant Story wasn't supposed to be an obscure title when they were developing it. It had a big bilingual website with tons of interviews and developers' information and possibility for the readers to send their questions. On the contrary, FFT had and has literally nothing, unless it's Japanese-exclusive or something. Anyway, I really don't think this Development section is such a big deal. Final Fantasy VI has a Development section which is totally devoid of any core development information, and which is filled with Audio and Graphics info instead. Audio sections aren't supposed to be subsections of Development in the WP:FF Manual of Style, but I guess we can do something like that for FFT, plus info about the Ivalice legacy, etc. Kariteh 08:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll find that there's still actual development information in there. Without delving into original research, we can really only describe developer roles for Final Fantasy Tactics. I believe User:Mitaphane has a magazine with a preview of the game, that might prove helpful.--Teggles 19:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Redemption
You might be interested in a discussion on Talk:Redemption (song), since the article was previously merged and has been de-merged. Kariteh 14:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Should we de-merge Eyes on Me? It's a similar case. Kariteh 09:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since no one disagrees, I went ahead and de-merged Eyes on Me and Kiss Me Good-Bye. Kariteh 12:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed I should similarly de-merge Melodies of Life and the FFX/X-2 singles too, but I suppose I should stop right here and voice this here first, since I'd be accused of being part of some intimidating gang if I don't. So, should they be de-merged? If not, what would the difference with Redemption (song) be? Kariteh 12:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Teggles re-merged Eyes On Me but not Kiss Me Good-Bye. Discuss? Kariteh 08:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Eyes On Me was created with Final Fantasy VIII in mind. From the start it was intended for use in Final Fantasy VIII. They simply tacked on an instrumental of a previously released song. I even wrote some development information for Eyes On Me, and to have duplicate copies of that in Music of Final Fantasy VIII and Eyes On Me is redundant. Removing/summarising it in Music of Final Fantasy VIII damages the quality of the article. --Teggles 09:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see Kiss Me Good-Bye merged easily but I don't feel like it must be merged now. Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, after all. We can improve Music of FFXII first. Same goes for Redemption. Axem Titanium 16:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fate of the Locations in Spira article
An editor has recently de-merged the Locations in Spira article. To avoid a potential edit war, please discuss here about what should be done (merge? de-merge?) and wait for consensus before further editing the article. Thanks. Kariteh 21:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Remerge - Article seems to have no hope of being anything encyclopedic, which is why it was merged. Unless that has changed recently, it should be re-merged. Judgesurreal777 21:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't say it has no hope of being encyclopedic, but there needs to be a proper merge. Your previous merge was a simple copy and paste, which was deleted from the Spira article two days later. That's why I restored the Locations in Spira article and placed a mergeto tag on it. Someone needs to merge them so we don't lose all the information from the Locations in Spira article. --Xanzzibar 22:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, bits of the article were later compressed and reintroduced into Spira (Final Fantasy), which is why there is still a meaty section on Geography in that article. &mdash; Deckiller 01:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "merge" was not the proper word for what was done. It was integrated into the above mentioned section where it could provide a better overview without becoming too detailed (like it was). I think it's safe to just straight up redirect it now. Axem Titanium 22:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Characters of Final Fantasy VIII
Take a look at the bottom discussion. I'm somewhat surprised how quickly this came; usually, these cycles are ten months, not three months. But alas, it's only one user complaining. &mdash; Deckiller 05:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he has raised some valid points. The problem is reaching a good compromise. Edea and Seifer's placement is a tad misleading, but it's difficult to place them anywhere else. I also agree that there should be at least some gameplay pictures - they are characters in a game, after all. Certainly if this is the "example" article for fictional lists, it needs to be perfect. --Teggles 02:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a list; it's an article. It's the example of how cast of character articles should be done. I believe all the gameplay pictures were removed due to legal and stylistic reasons back in March, but we might be able to find some. &mdash; Deckiller 06:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you know what I meant. --Teggles 07:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Battle of Doma Castle (Final Fantasy VI)
An article that pertains to the project, Battle of Doma Castle (Final Fantasy VI), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Battle of Doma Castle (Final Fantasy VI). Thank you. -- Kariteh 08:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Result: Redirect to Final Fantasy VI. &mdash; Blue. 21:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

FFTA GA Drive!
I'm launching a Good Article drive for Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. By all means, join me! &mdash; Blue. 18:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My GA drive a success! &mdash; Blue. 15:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Title of FF series article (again)
A recent discussion at WT:VG has brought up a good point. Why does the article without the parentheses (ie, Final Fantasy) redirect to one with parentheses (ie, Final Fantasy (series))? That seems to go against WP:NC with suggest to avoid parentheses when possible. I figure that even though other series articles use the "(series)" dab, most people who search for Final Fantasy would be looking for the series rather than the first game, if only because the series is so big. Any comments? Axem Titanium 02:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing I might change would be to rename Final Fantasy (series) to Final Fantasy series; I would still keep Final Fantasy as a redirect to the series article. I think it's more useful to disambiguate both articles, since both are the common use for the name (particularly since they keep remaking Final Fantasy (video game)).
 * BTW, I can't seem to find the suggestion you mention in WP:NC, can you give a section link? Anomie 03:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to find it either. I know I saw it before somewhere but I can't remember where it is exactly. I'll keep looking. Anyway, couldn't a short dab message at the top explain that the article is about the series without saying "series" in the title? The point is to avoid having Final Fantasy be a redirect page. Axem Titanium 03:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that that's the best way. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OTOH, 3 months ago that rename was rejected. Anomie 04:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change. I believe Final Fantasy should be the main series article, with a message at the top saying "blah blah this is a series article; Final Fantasy (video game), blah blah Final Fantasy (disambiguation)." There is no point in addition of "(series)", especially when "Final Fantasy" redirects to it. --Teggles 04:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, it can change. Just be careful to determine if it did change in just 3 months before taking any action. Anomie 04:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy (series) and Final Fantasy (video game) have parentheses because they're not the only Final Fantasies in the world. Don't forget Final Fantasy (band). I think "Final Fantasy" should either redirect to the series article (since it's arguably the most common of the three meanings), or be a complete disambiguation page with links to the three other articles. Kariteh 08:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But there's no need for it. The band is inspired by the series, and the first video game is a lesser part of the series. If you want to follow the idea of equal importance, then Final Fantasy should be a disambiguation page. Otherwise the "(series)" is just unnecessary. --Teggles 09:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If nothing else, I would like to see Final Fantasy stop redirecting to an article with parentheses because that's just not necessary. And the series is far and away the most common usage, I think. Axem Titanium 14:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "The band is inspired by the series". Maybe, but what about Leo Ku's album? Was it inspired by the series too? With so much different meanings, I think a disamb page would be best. Kariteh 14:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The dab page should occupy the "(disambiguation)" spot because the series is so much more well known. Axem Titanium 17:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Leo Ku's album and the Final Fantasy band don't even have separate article. The German band does, but no pages properly link to it. A disambiguation on Final Fantasy for these three is obviously unnecessary. It's simple: "This article is about the Final Fantasy series. For the video game, see Final Fantasy (video game). For other uses, see Final Fantasy (disambiguation)." --Teggles 01:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If no one minds, I'm going to go ahead and do this now. Axem Titanium 03:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet another one-shot for deletion
Protaganists of Final Fantasy has been nominated for deletion. Please vote, thanks. Kariteh 13:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Result: Snowball delete per dicussion. &mdash; Blue. 21:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Characters of Final Fantasy IX
I made a comment of the discussion page about the topicality of these characters appearing in other games. Please have a look and give your opinion. Thanks. -- Elaich   talk 02:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Collection
An editor has recently turned the Final Fantasy Collection article into a sort of hybrid between a disambiguation page and a micro-list linking to FFIV, V, and VI. However, I think the article would be less redundant, easier to maintain, and would give the readers a broader view on all these compilations, if it were a redirect to List of Final Fantasy titles instead. What should be done? (This discussion may or may not apply to Final Fantasy Anthology too.) Kariteh 21:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Final Fantasy Collection is just an identical grouping of three previously-released titles, so we're not losing much. Then again, this could have its reception and possible development. I think at least the infobox for this game should be added back - or its image and release information. --Teggles 09:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the benefit of having a disambig rather than a full article. If were going to have an article about it, why not make it comprehensive as possible? I say redirect it or leave it the way it was. --Mika1h 15:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the redirect for now since there is no discussion consensus on the issue. Kariteh 19:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The To do list
The FFWikiproject should utilize that area more. And put it where someone could see and be itching to click it so he/she knows what areas within the project they can tackle. I updated it, but didn't archive; it seemed pointless. &mdash; Blue. 17:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

One album per article
For all those who helped write those "Music of" articles, this might interest you. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Happypal 20:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XIII
An entry on FFXIII's talk page, Talk:Final Fantasy XIII, says that only official links pertaining to Final Fantasy XIII will only be allowed and any fansite will be deleted. Some fansites will be removed as spam. This might not be against WikiProject Final Fantasy/Manual_of_style. Even fansites can be cited as sources. I am not sure. Greg Jones II 21:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that "External links" and "citing sources aka References" are two different things altogether. Citing fansites should be avoided unless it is verifiable - meaning the fansite provided a source for its own statements. That in turn moots the citation of fansites since a more venerable source is available. Agreed? &mdash; Blue. 01:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I think. Greg Jones II 02:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I need some help on the FFXIII article in getting this to GA status. Also, I need some help on adding external links. I know that official links are allowed, so why shouldn't FF Wiki be added? Greg Jones II 17:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind. The EL section allows for Official Site links and a wiki already covering much of the game's mechanics, so any type of fansites added in this section are not acceptable. I think that following the game's release, the FF wiki will be added. I am not sure. Greg Jones II 17:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, it failed GA on the grounds of being an unstable article about a future game. Should've seen that coming. Okay, let's move on to other alternatives, such as Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. &mdash; Blue. 18:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've saw that one coming. Let's go fix up FFT Advance for GA and also go for FA on FFII, FFV, FFT and FFXI. Greg Jones II 18:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I love how the reviewer referred the GA nominator to Metal Gear Solid, which was based off the Final Fantasy articles :-P Anyway, I agree; this is one instance where stability is huge. &mdash; Deckiller 18:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII
The story section in FFVII needs to be updated with plot citations. When the story section was trimmed, the plot references were stripped. Greg Jones II 19:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Also the information about Detective Joe and the original plot draft written by Sakaguchi should be added in the article as noted in the talk page. Kariteh 19:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, Kariteh. Greg Jones II 20:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Music of FFVII
I made a lot of changes to the page, to respect the WikiProject Albums, guidelines. This has in turn, created a very big table of contents, and removed all tables except for FFVII Original Soundtrack, because it's double track name thing keeps it complex enough to warrant it's use.

Personally, I hate the new table of contents. I miss the tables, which I found prettier and easier to look at, and I don't like separating the discs in track listing.

This is to say I prefered the old version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Music_of_Final_Fantasy_VII&oldid=146500508). It doesn't respect the WProject Albums guidelines, but I thought it was much better.

One compromise would be not giving the sub-Discs their own section.

So, do you guys like the page like this? Should we keep it, should we revert? Thoughts? Happypal 05:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. Absolutely no offense, but that looks disgusting. If this is adhering to their guidelines, I think we'll have to thin the amount of adherence... --Teggles 08:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * None taken, I think my work looks bad too :), and I agree with you. I did this mostly to see what the article looks like following guidelines, and my personal conclusion is that they should not be applied to this article. I do not believe myself to be active enough in either WP:FF or WP:Albums to make the call, so I thought i'd bring this here. I 'll leave you guys the call on reverting or not.Happypal 09:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The table of content is not a problem, it can easily be customized (see Characters of Final Fantasy XII for instance). The [show] links floating in the middle of the page next to [edit] links do look ugly though, as do the tons of numbers that appear before headers in some Preferences setting ("3.5.1.1 Disc one"). Kariteh 09:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe Happypal's idea of putting all the tracklists at the bottom of the article was the best idea after all? Kariteh 10:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was a good idea actually... The tracklists should be kept in their album section Happypal 10:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

<--

I undid my modifications. We are back to the old article. I did make some upgrades to it though. All the tables have a unified width="60%" and align="left" modifiers, so they are all perfectly (and professionally looking) aligned in the article.

NO floating "show" button. NO variable widths. NO misalignments. NO infobox interference. I think this is the best solution and (almost) everyone should be happy with it. 5:45 am, I am going to bed (wikipedia: addicting) Happypal 20:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to put the [show] links close to the "Disc #" headings? Like "Disc 1 [show]" or maybe "[show] Disc 1". I think it would be less confusing. Kariteh 16:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's possible, since it's what's being done for all the "contents" in all the articles. This requires floating width, but as soon as I don't define the width, then this hapens: The title and [show] bunch up.


 * If you can tell me a way to define a Minimum width, then I guess it is possible.
 * That, or you can link me to refernces on "collapsible"
 * Or, last solution, do this.
 * If I can't get [show] to appear right next, I guess you'll have to choose between the current page, and that older one.Happypal 18:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What if we "cheat" by trapping the [show] link in an invisible first column?


 * This is just a rough idea. The other rows of that empty first column might be annoying for the rest of the table. Or maybe that's where we can put the track numbers. Kariteh 18:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I was able to do this. Not perfect, but acceptable. I'm sure I can tweak it though.

Track listing
 * border="1" for illustrating the table architecture, it is not present in the articleHappypal 02:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just did some tweaking, and it looks very good in the article. Thanks for the idea. I guess I was too deep in this thing to see the obvious ideas. I think i'll keep it like this. The only way I can see to make it better, would be to really stick that [show] to "disc x", but I can't seem to get them any closer. But I think it is OK.Happypal 03:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I like what you did with the OST part. Can you make the show/hide button close to the track listing for the other sections too? Axem Titanium 04:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * I've made the bottommost "album" tracklist uncollapsible since it's only two tracks. Kariteh 08:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. In Opera, the show links are close to the "Disc One" and so on when I open the page. When I click one of them to open the table, the link jumps to the right and when I close the table, the link jumps all the way to the infobox. Davhorn 08:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually there are problems with i.e.7 too. I'll try to fix it, but I'm starting to grow weary of thisHappypal 08:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably easier to just remove all those boxes. They don't really serve much of a purpose except showing the covers, do they? :) Davhorn 09:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Forget the table, let's try with HTML divs:

Track listing It collapses automatically if there's more than three of these in the page. Kariteh 10:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) "Opening - Bombing Mission" – 3:59
 * 2) "Cosmo Canyon" – 3:36
 * 3) "Fight On!" – 3:34
 * 4) "Farm Boy" – 3:34
 * 5) "Rufus' Welcoming Ceremony" – 2:15
 * 6) "Electric de Chocobo" – 4:03
 * 7) "Honeybee Manor" – 3:53
 * 8) "Cid's Theme" – 3:12
 * 9) "Forested Temple" – 3:52
 * 10) "Let the Battles Begin!" – 2:48
 * 11) "Ahead on our Way" – 3:45
 * 12) "Golden Saucer" – 1:59
 * 13) "Crazy Motorcycle" – 3:38
 * 14) "Cait Sith's Theme" – 3:35
 * 15) "Descendant of Shinobi" – 2:46
 * 16) "J-E-N-O-V-A" – 2:35
 * 17) "Main Theme of Final Fantasy VII" – 6:29
 * 18) "One-Winged Angel" – 4:27
 * 19) "Aerith's Theme" – 5:01
 * I don't know if it's okay though, since I'm using classes that are supposed to be for navboxes (those boxes at the bottom of articles). Kariteh 10:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that doesn't seem to work under i.e. 7 either. I'm starting to wonder why we are even bothering with all this. Personally, I liked the very first version of the article (here).
 * It looked fine, and everyone was satisfied with it. It worked perfectly under any browser, looked fine etc.
 * Sure, we weren't following guidelines, but it's not like we are now, is it? Further more, these solution we are comming up are becoming too unaccessible. sintax in wikipages are supposed to be kept simple, and there is nothing simpler than a plain old wikitable (with a collapsible)
 * I vote to keep the page the way it always was. It's the simple solution, but I think it's the right one. Thoughts?Happypal 10:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought we were trying to follow guidelines? or propose a modification of them? Kariteh 10:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the reason, but if we have to use html, nested tables and all other difficult kind of things, when just a basic wikitable will give us a perfect table, then there is a problem.
 * Personally, I think the collapsible format is too limited to get the results we want. guidelines allow for tables. we could just do this, while still following guide lines:

Track listing
 * Disc one
 * Disc two
 * Or this

Track listing
 * or even this


 * All of these solutions are very simple, are compatible under both FF and ie7, are usebox friendly, and they make the article look good. As I was told the first time I put these tables in: accessibility and simplicity over looks and fine tuning.
 * In the end, we want what is best for the article, even if it's not perfectly in the guidelines, right?Happypal 11:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're mistaken on my proposition; I don't want to use HTML, this was just an example in raw format. If it were used, it would be used with a simple template. Something like this:

You can't do any simplier than that, and it would allow for full uniformity in all articles. This being said, if there's a bug with IE7, I guess it can't be used (I only have FF and IE6 so I didn't see it). All solutions considered, I suppose the very first solution was the best. I think maybe there's no need to separate each disc though. It could be simplier to have them all in the same collapsible table (like in your last proposition). Kariteh 11:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, I didn't get that, sorry. I don't think creating a template would be the best solution though. I think the current problems is the limitations of the "collapsible" format. I do not not where it is documented, but adding something to it as simple as deciding which table cell we want it in, or to tell it how to allign, would solve all our problems.

something like, once the collapsible wikitable has been created, we can just write


 * But I don't know enough to know how complex it would be to do that
 * Any idea where to redirect me so I can discuss this issue? is it something like wikicommons or something?Happypal 11:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Somewhere around NavFrame? There's a link there to Collapsible at Wikimedia but it looks dead cold over there. Kariteh 12:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Or maybe Village pump (technical). Kariteh 12:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, maybe that was me being sore talking. I'm going to look into this a bit, try to get some documentation, and I'll see what I can achieve. I'll be a bit busy, so don't expect anything soon. If all goes according to plan though, I will not accept anything short of perfection.Happypal 14:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I just found something. It works in both ie7 and firefox. It is a very good solution, and should work under opera no problem. I'm too busy for the moment, but i'll edit in about 36 hours (or 1 and a half day...).Happypal 15:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

<

There, that is done. the new tables are user-box friendly (they are be side by side, but don't clip). The show is real close to title. With opera, the show button still floats after wards, but I don't think it is correctable.

Unless anyone has any comments, I would say this be the final version. I'll update the other pages, and add tracklists to the others, in a week or so, to give people time to reactHappypal 06:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks nice. I don't think separating each disc into a different collapsible block is really useful, but it's a minor detail I guess. Kariteh 10:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am considering adding the track listings to every single one of the albums in the Music of FF articles (i.e. FFVI, FFIV, FFV, FFVIII and so on). Greg Jones II 01:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think separating each disc is really useful either, but let's not go anymore further from guidelines. since it's only minor, let's leave it that way.
 * The other articles also need track listings. I'd do it my self, but not having played those FFs, the motivation isn't really there. You are welcome to put them in.Happypal 01:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone who wants to add in the track listings (in English or Japanese) for other articles are welcome. Greg Jones II 01:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't have time to add track listings right now, so can anyone add in the track listings please? Thanks. Greg Jones II 13:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Relax, some of us don't have time to add track listings too. But the motivation will come in time, Wikipedia has no deadline, eh? &mdash; Blue. 13:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, relax, smoke a bold or something. I'm just kidding, but these things take time, there is no use rushing it, and some people who can do a great job helping us are doing something else. We just have to do things 1 at a time. For now, I will be doing MoFFVI, slowly, and "Wikifiying" FFX to look more like MoFFVII. That said, I did not find the old FF6 OST page. Anybody know where it is? All I found are pages that have never been anything other than redirects. Help... happypal (Talk | contribs) 14:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The old FFVI OST page is the MoFFVI page itself, before it was moved (renamed). Kariteh 15:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is the answer. Greg Jones II 17:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Quite useful it was. happypal (Talk | contribs) 18:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that this is finished, we will put in all track listings for the "Music of" articles. Greg Jones II 18:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)