Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy/archive/30

Music of Final Fantasy IX GAN
Next one up, it's number 9. I'm posting it to GAC right now, so if anyone has changes they'd like to make, hop to it! --PresN (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to see that the project still has some active members! I wish I had the time to dabble back into the project; I may eventually! &mdash; Deckiller 17:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I hate asking like this, but can any member of the project take a look at the nomination? I'm not asking you to promote it- I'm sure it has problems that need fixing I didn't see- but it's been there for 9 days and it's holding up the whole vg games GAN line.     --PresN (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone should fail this already. It's holding up 16 GANs for pete's sake! FightingStreet (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No....someone should review it. Besides, no one stops people from reviewing any GA nom on the page, so it is by no means a strict order. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And it's passed! Finally! --PresN (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Chocobo World needs to be re-GA'd.
The FFVIII Featured Topic is now up for removal, as one of the articles- Chocobo World- is not GA+. The removal nom takes 2 weeks to run through, so that's the time limit to get it back to GA. --PresN (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made some cleanup recommendations here, as it's in bad need of cleanup, but the article hasn't been touched. Is there anyone from the wikiproject willing to take this on? Gazimoff (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I proposed a merger to FFVIII, please come look! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Chocobo World was merged to Minigames of Final Fantasy, so the topic is saved. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Good article reassessment
Final Fantasy Mystic Quest and Tidus have both been nominated for good article reassessment. Please comment at Good article reassessment/Final Fantasy Mystic Quest/1 and Good article reassessment/Tidus/1. FightingStreet (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Tidus was saved, save Mystic Quest!!! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Meets the reviewers concerns, just needs to be closed now. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mystic Quest was kept, thanks to Judgesurreal who ref'd it up. --PresN (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured topics/Final Fantasy titles
Final Fantasy III has been demoted from GA and needs to be re-promoted by June 10, 2008 or the topic can be removed. Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Esto gaza
Esto gaza redirects to Final Fantasy IX, yet the paragraph itself never mentioned Esto Gaza. However, Esto Gaza is hardly Notable to become a standalone article. Nominate for redirect deletion? &mdash; Blue. 11:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you feel that no one, or an insignificent number of people are going to search for it, yeah go ahead. Otherwise, if it has a little notability, perhaps a mention could be added. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII featured article review
Final Fantasy VII has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. FightingStreet (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's more wise to handle these things differently. But what can I say, this new generation of Wikipedia editors has no sense of the diplomacy, realism, or compromise that is required in collaboration. This is one of many examples. &mdash; Deckiller 16:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Handle how? The aim of a featured article review is to improve the article. I don't see what's wrong with doing that.FightingStreet (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you wanted people to improve it, the best way to go about that is to try to get a group of people here to work with you on improving it. The people here are the most committed to getting final fantasy articles improved.  Instead, you just sent it off to FAR with a form letter to the contributors here, leaving them only limited time to fix things before it gets bumped to FARC.  Declaring it to not be good enough and putting it through a formal review process is not the same thing as talking to the people involved and who care to get it improved.  --PresN (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I must agree with Deckiller and PresN. The new generation of Wikipedia editors now are quick to merge and silently delete articles of this variant and if it has a featured status, quick to push it for a review and delist them. I don't see any notion that they wanted to improve the article; they feel it'll be easier if the articles are delisted and merged. I am sad to see the recent "merge" aka silent deletion of the articles, such as World of FFVI and Characters of FFIX that the project spent time to create, on the basis of notability and verifiability. I thought Wikipedia has no due date. The editors doing the review also seems to quickly nominate for delisting, seldom have I seen any comments to improve the article. &mdash; Blue. 01:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I do agree that this project should be more active, but on the other hand, FFVII has been tagged for cleanup for quite a while, and the two merged articles have shown no notability for much longer. And now that they were merged, I don't see any prospect of someone emerging with a bunch of references that would make them notable, or that such references were maliciously overlooked. I would gladly help build those two articles up if we are mistaken to merge, but I'm equally not afraid to merge them if they don't seem notable. But, as a new member, I would just caution FightingStreet about the FAR review process as anything but a last resort for our own articles, as we are the most active in terms of article repair for our own articles, and you have a better chance of improving them by requesting here than putting it there. :)Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Feh... All I can recommend is move it to the Annex or to FF Wiki and forget about Wikipedia. That would force those drive by taggers to have to actually DO something to improve an article instead of just whining about it. Wouldn't that be something ?  Renmiri (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't want to anger people or anything like that :( I just tried to "be bold" and I thought FA reviews (which are distinct from FA removal candidates) were like peer reviews but for featured articles. The constant "new/old generation" differentiation from this WikiProject is a bit confusing for me. FightingStreet (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry! Sometimes you get yelled at while learning on wikipedia, I put a POV tag when I first joined in Spring 2006, and they went ballistic! It was kinda scary, obviously that's not Deckiller :) But just take it as a learning experience, and remember that you are more than welcome to participate. Also, something to know about our Wikiproject, and wikipedia in general lately, is that there is great controversy over notability issues and the deletion and redirection of articles. Not to say you did anything wrong; just keep in mind that many are sensitive about it, as some have actually written these big articles that we are calling non-notable and deleting or merging. Putting them on the Annex Renmiri mentions is a good idea. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, just wow, congratulations, that's the most (NPA deleted) comment I've read on Wikipedia. Ever.  You think FightingStreet's comments have no merit whatsoever?  Then prove it.  The FAR hasn't been closed early yet, that meets the FAC director thinks that there's osmething wrong.  Let me tell you this, the FAC director isn't shy about closing FARs early; most recently, ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls was closed early, citing something like the arguments should be discussed on the talk page instead.  Or, let's take GameFAQs, which was also closed early (but not as early) because the FAC director didn't think the concerns were good enough to even vote on (that kind of made me unhappy).  If FFVI is such a great article, or if FS's problems so thoroughly fixed that the concerns are all addressed, the FAR may not even come to a vote.  Then WPFF will have been totally right all along.  Of course the article will have been greatly improved with just this review even if the gold star status is never threatened.  You don't like drive-by editors who simply see problems and then run and don't improve articles?  Sometimes you need the outsider to get the article moving.  Ha, ha if you think that a project member would nominate a sacred gold star article for review.  Maybe it has happened and I'm wrong, BUT I do believe that more non-project members nominate articles for FAR than do project members.
 * With that, I've made my semi-annual contribution to the WTFF talk page. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A "drive by" semi annual contribution" ? ;) There is a reason a project member would (seldom) nominate a sacred gold star article for review: The game which the article refers to has not changed, the article was painfully taken from scratch to a gold star. Why would it need a review ? The only thing that has changed is Wikipedia's batch of active editors and their favorite pet peeves. Like this recent obsession with notability. I remember losing and editing dispute where I argued the article was clearly not notable enough (an obscure FFX2 minigame called Sphere Break), and got outvoted because it was making the topic coverage more comprehensive. Nowadays the decision would have favored me. I think it is a disservice to readers and to Wikipedia to modify gold star articles to comply with the latest fad in Wikipedia editing wars. Gold star articles get this way after a thorough review, they should not be prey to people trying to play Wiki politics. (Let me be clear that I am not implying that FightingStreet's objectives were to play politics, but unfortunately his tagging of the article opened it to a lot of power plays by editors who have no interest in Final Fantasy VII) Renmiri (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) No, not true. In 2004 it was just "brillant prose" that go an article featured. Then Cite.php came along and the standards demanded in-line citations. But that's just a big, obvious change and I'm sure there's been a lot of changes in interpretations to the FA criteria. I have never worked with FA so I wouldn't know what has changed. (The no inline citations was what I used to nominate Palace of Westminster, Lord Nelson, and Ridge Road for FAR.) If there's one thing that I know, articles need to be constantly revised and subject to review. And, like I demonstrated before, if the issues are frivolous and not true (as they were to a degree when I nominated Operation Downfall), I have full faith that the FAC director and his two comrades will close it before it can even get to voting. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I, too, am sick of the drive-by taggers, and even more, the image removal bots that remove images for little or no reason. Wikipedia used to be a place where people worked together to make the best article possible. This "new generation" seems only to be interested in policy, rules and regulations, and in imposing their will while hiding behind the paperwork. Of course, this is a blanket statement and as such, doesn't speak to all editors. It's the drive-by type who get the attention because of their actions.


 * I would also like to register my opinion that the FFIX characters article merge be reverted. I, for one, put a lot of work into that article, and cleaned up a huge mess that existed before. To have it simply merged by a "bold" editor who did not even seek the will of the community is not right. The proper process is to nominate it for merging, and to allow the community to speak. I just may become "bold" enough to undo the merge myself. -- Elaich   talk 21:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On a similar note Locations in Spira has been redirected by the same guy (who has apparently retired today from Wikipedia). --Mika1h (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear FightingStreet retired. I myself was once a n00b seeing a game article that was weak in my view - FFX2 at the time had a section telling that the game had lesbianism in it to attract a male audience - and unlike FS I didn't tag it for others to do cleanup, I cleaned it up myself. Did the same - added good content to an article - to the then GA Spira page and got mighty yelled at as well. But instead of whinning I tried to learn the reasons for being yelled at from the old timers and joined the project. Guess asking people to actually DO something to improve an article instead of just adding tags saying "clean this up" is too much to ask for some... Oh well. Sad to see it though. Wikipedia is and was a good place to learn about writing good articles. Renmiri (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, we need more members to help meet the workload that we currently have just to maintain what we have already built to GA status. But I believe I have tolerated criticism of "mergism" for too long without saying anything. If there are any references that would establish notability for either of the two articles he mentioned, show it, because I can't find any. If you can't, then it is only logical and fair to agree that it is currently not notable, and should have been merged a long time ago. I applaud those who wrote the articles covered by this wikiproject, but you must remember this project used to have close to 300 articles, and with an article count in the 140's, you must agree that fewer articles that cover more ground at a higher quality is a better system. I am a "notabilist"; if it has references, fantastic, we'll build it up, but if it doesn't, why keep it?Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not I used to be a "mergist". As I mentioned above, I wanted to merge the Sphere Break article but others wanted to keep it. I lost that fight but me, Ryu, Deck and others merged many articles bringing FAs and whole topics to FA status from "Yuna and Leblanc had a lesbian scene". And no, I don't see the current articles as fewer articles that cover more ground at a higher quality. As far as I understand, the 300 articles were paired down not for lack of coverage or lack of quality but were simply considered to be much too detailed for Wikipedia.


 * I respect that you prefer less quantity and less detail and that you are working hard on keeping WPFF current with the new Wikipedia policies while keeping the articles with acceptable quality. I am also glad you are here and grateful someone is taking care of WPFF. But I was part of the team that made WPFF the success it was - when we got into the project it barely  had 2 GA class articles, in 6 months it went to 9 FAs, many GAs and good quality articles for all the games in the series. I will not accept anyone telling me that our articles lacked quality or weren't comprehensive. This body of work covered more ground at a higher quality than the current 140 articles but alas was deemed much too detailed for Wikipedia. Renmiri (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Rather than "retiring," he should have taken some time to learn how things are done here. Looking at his talk page, his extremely quick morph into a "mergist" and someone who was constantly trying to get artcles deleted, I find it hard to believe he was a n00b. N00bs don't catch on to that stuff that fast. Probably someone who had their account blocked indefinitely for past indiscretions. Just speculation on my part.


 * Believe it or not, I am against "list of characters" pages. I think that if the character is not notable enough to have their own dedicated page, they should not be mentioned in a "list of characters" page. But that is the convention here. I would like to see all "list of characters" pages merged. However, that should be the decision of the community, not one renegade editor, and it should be done across the board, not just for one game. -- Elaich   talk 00:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Way to smear his name and make speculative and snide comments behind his back, particuarly even better since he cannot even defend himself anymore. Nobody has ever been indef blocked for being a mergist.   has put on a form of parole for being overly aggressive in merging (see Episodes and characters 2 arbitratino case), but I cannot recall anyone acting in good faith ever being indef blocked for doing mergist activities.  Elitist comments such as "maybe he should have gotten to learn how this project does it" are the kinds of comments that have caused other users to leave, quit, or think that WikiProjects are obstructionists, bureaucratic, and biting of so-called "outsider users" or new users.  WikiProjects do not WP:OWN their articles.  Nobody should ever have to join a project to improve the encyclopedia.  Ever.  The very essence of being bureaucratic.  The worst such example was the amazing quibbling and arguing and debating over the scope of the Highways Wikiproject, which went to arbitration  (see Highways 2 case). hbdragon88 (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That's right kids, gather around the communal fire and hark back to the good ol' days of the fabeled "old generation". To remember the golden age, we must stretch our memories back about... what, three years? Yep, the good ol' days when we didn't have these officious users, who will compromise the project's prestige by, dare we say it, question an FA's standards. Ah, one star fewer&mdash;all the hard work's been thrown to the wind. Nonsense. At least, nonsense from the eyes of someone from the "new generation". These old and new generation labels achieve nothing, except making the former seem elitist. Ashnard Talk  Contribs  11:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That comment is a little extreme; the point I was making is that there are communities of users who have been working together for a long time, and these communities should be approached about questionable standards before it is thrown to a wider review process, which is backlogged as it is (this coming from a once-heavily active Featured Article Review user). Newer users tend to either rigidly follow the policies instead of reading between the lines, or ignore the policies/guidelines altogether. The key is to find that balance between rigid and diplomatic interpretation; this balance comes only with experience. In that respect, it's not a matter of elitism, but rather advice. &mdash; Deckiller 15:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I seemed a bit too agressive there. That comment makes alot of sense, it's just that I felt the initial responding comments could have been more tactful as they seemed to ostracise the new user. Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  15:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh no problem; it reminded me of what I used to say to the "oldbie" generation of an online Star Wars fan club I was once part of :) &mdash; Deckiller 16:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Music of Final Fantasy X GAN
Alright, MoFF9 just passed, so lets move right along to the next one! Hopefully this one won't take a month to wind it's way through GAN. Same deal as always- feel free to leave comments, concerns, change things, and/or review it yourselves. --PresN (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And passed as well! That's 5 down, many to go. --PresN (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Music of Final Fantasy V GAN
I had some time on my hands, so rather than wait for FFX to wind it's way to the top of the GAN list, I went ahead and nominated Music of Final Fantasy V for GA. Drop on by and show the article some love! --PresN (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And Passed! That's 4 down, a bunch to go. --PresN (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Music of Final Fantasy III GAN
I am a machine, and have nominated Music of Final Fantasy III for GA. Same rules as always, feel free to edit, critique, review, whatever, the article. I'm a little worried since I couldn't find any development info about the soundtrack (the fact that it's a 18 year old game that was never brought to an English-speaking country in it's original form might have something to do with that...) so if anyone knows of good sources of information, please, let me know. Thanks! --PresN (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Passed now. --PresN (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Music of Final Fantasy VI GAN
I've gone ahead and nominated MoFF6 for GA. I've been staring at it for too long and can't see the flaws I know are there any more, so if anyone wants to look over the article, I'd be much obliged. --PresN (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, never mind, already passed. --PresN (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Another day, another GAN
Music of Final Fantasy XII now at GAN. Comments welcome. --PresN (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems for every axing this project is facing, another two GAs are being nominated. Nice work, and it's great that people still have some interest left in the project! (I'm really in no position to talk). &mdash; Deckiller 00:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Now passed. --PresN (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Transferring a few articles to the Square Enix wikiproject jurisdiction

 * The Final Fantasy Legend
 * Final Fantasy Legend II
 * Final Fantasy Legend III
 * Crystal Tools
 * Game Designers Studio [[Image:Crystalball.jpg|15px]]
 * Final Fantasy Adventure

My rationale is this; the SaGa series is really where the Final Fantasy Legend articles belong, and so they should be under the sole control of the Square Enix project. The same applies to Final Fantasy Adventure which as a very loose connection with Final Fantasy and is right at home in the Mana series template and SE wikiproject. Finally, the Game Designers studio and Crystal Tools are just waiting to be merged to the main Square Enix article, and are not directly final fantasy related. None of these article fits into any final fantasy topic either; they either fit into a topic about Square Enix, SaGA, or the Mana series, so it makes sense to make their ownership by Square Enix wikiproject alone clear. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Final Fantasy Adventure is a Final Fantasy game everywhere in the world except Europe, so I don't know why it should be removed from the scope of this project. It's the first game in a distinct series, Mana, but it's also a real Final Fantasy game. Final Fantasy Gaiden was even remade for mobile phones a little more than one year ago, with none of the Sword of Mana stuff and with all the Final Fantasy details kept intact, and with even more Final Fantasy influences added in (Sumo now looks like a typical red-haired FF1 knight). Megata Sanshiro (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the Square enix project can cover it just fine, and put it in their eventual Featured Topic for the Mana series, whereas here it as no where to go. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So you want to remove them only because they can't be included in a featured topic? Okayy... --Mika1h (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah. It makes sense that they deal with the whole of their topics, so they would work on the articles that would go in their featured topics... I mean, that was one of the reasons they started the Square Enix wikiproject, was to handle articles related to Square Enix but were not fully Final Fantasy articles. I'm not saying throw them to the wind, but the next step for the project, I believe, is making featured topics, and on that basis, they would take these and we keep all the same onces we have. We have done this before with Kiss Me Good-bye and another song that were not directly related, so its not unheard of. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but you don't seem to have any concrete argument to backup the claim that Final Fantasy Adventure is "not a Final Fantasy". Again, it was created by a Final Fantasy designer (Koichi Ishii worked on FFII and III) as a Final Fantasy title and released as a Final Fantasy title everywhere in the world except Europe (where the "Final Fantasy" brand didn't even exist yet). It did spawn a distinct series and was remade as a non-FF title (Sword of Mana), but it was also remade as an FF title much more recently than Sword of Mana. Should a complete "Final Fantasy series" featured topic be made, Final Fantasy Adventure would definitely have to be included. An article can be in multiple topics at the same time, like Final Fantasy VIII in "FF titles" and "FFVIII", or Final Fantasy Chronicles which is in "Chrono series" and could also be in an "FFIV" topic. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article clearly states it is a "spinoff", and we don't cover most spinoffs like Kingdom Hearts, that is for teh Square Enix Wikiproject. And that is the point; if we want to achieve our goal of having the first all GA wikiproject, we should give these articles to the project most responsible for them; Final Fantasy Adventure was GA when they made the Final Fantasy titles featured topic and chose not to include it since it was not a crucial title to include. Just because it says "Final Fantasy" doesn't mean it is, Square slapped that on this game and Final Fantasy Legend both, which were very different games. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I got the impression that the only spin-off actually not covered was Kingdom Hearts. All the others seem to be covered. Kingdom Hearts is a crossover series by definition, so it's okay to omit it. It features some FF characters, but from the start it was intended to be its own series (although they could have stopped at the first game if sales hadn't been high enough).
 * I've checked the FF featured topic nomination, and I think bringing it here is a weak argument. Who do you mean by "they"? Only one person actually voted in the nomination. It's a wonder the topic was validated (I guess standards were different in 2006). Anyway, in the latest addition process a user said FFX-2 and FF Mystic Quest shouldn't be included in the topic if the other spin-offs aren't included, as that would be cherry-picking.
 * There's a huge difference between FF Legend and FF Adventure. FF Legend was titled SaGa in Japan; the "Final Fantasy" label was only added in the North American version to boost sales. So yeah FF Legend isn't a "real" FF. On the other hand, FF Adventure was titled Final Fantasy Gaiden: Seiken Densetsu in Japan. It's basically the same title (gaiden = side-story/tale/adventure in Japanese language) but with a subtitle. They didn't randomly slap the "FF" brand on it -- at least not more than they did on Final Fantasy Tactics (a Matsuno game which could easily have been a Tactic Ogre game instead) or Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (a strange Hawaiian experiment barely related to the series). While Kingdom Hearts was intended to be its own series from the start, FF Adventure wasn't. It was intended to be what it has always been called, whether in 1991 on GB or in 2006 on mobile phones: an FF "gaiden". Only its sequels have removed the "FF Gaiden" label and are thus not FF titles. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And note that, as you said, FF Adventure is already a Good article. So if your goal is to have "the first all GA wikiproject", then what would removing FF Adventure from the project achieve? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The suggestion is that Adventure would go to the Square Enix wikiproject, which would create the Mana series featured topic. It would be under their sole purview as it is their featured topic...how is this hard to understand? Again, this is the reason that the Square Enix wikiproject was created, to deal with the not strictly Final Fantasy related topics, but were related to Square Enix. How can we make featured topics with extraneous articles that don't even fit in our own topics, and can be covered perfectly well by the wikiproject we created for this exact reason and purpose? It's not our responsibility to build up the Mana or Saga series articles, pure and simple, or Square Enix's subsidiary company articles or their video game engines. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not hard to understand. It's just that one thing being true ("FF Adventure is part of the Mana series") doesn't mean the other becomes false ("FF Adventure is part of the FF series"). Final Fantasy Adventure is a Final Fantasy spinoff and the first game in a distinct series. Thus it can be part of a Mana featured topic (which is something within the Square Enix project's scope), but it can also be in a Final Fantasy featured topic (this project's scope). I've provided tons of evidence and explanations as to why it's an FF spinoff. Your only explanation on the other hand amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT: a personal point, not even a practical point, considering FF Adventure is already GA and thus that no additional work is needed on it if a featured topic is made. This project deals with the Final Fantasy series, not just the main numbered games. If you remove FF Adventure, then remove FF Mystic Quest, FF:The Spirits Within, the Chocobo games, all the FF Crystal Chronicles, and the compilation disc FF Chronicles (which is part of the Chrono series featured topic). Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is solely a practical point, there is no "I don't like it" involved, as I helped build up Final Fantasy Adventure to GA in the first place. The point I make yet again, is that it has no where to go in our featured topics, and there is a wikiproject that was set up to take articles that don't directly fit into the Final fantasy wikiproject scope, as these do not. No other games in our project were later spun off into series that aren't Final Fantasy related anymore, and they belong in Featured Topics that the Square Enix wikiproject should take care of. I am not saying they aren't final fantasy related, just as the Kingdom Hearts games are final fantasy related, but they aren't completely so they are under the square enix wikiproject. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On a similar note, the reason I passionately want this to happen, is I have created a sketch of what our topic would look like if all of them were in featured topics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Judgesurreal777/Topic_Building#Final_Fantasy_topics This model does depend on merging a bunch of notability-challenged articles, cutting a few from this topic and putting them in the Square Enix wikiproject, and creating a taskforce under the banner of the Video Games Wikiproject to focus on and improve the people of video games (designers, composers, etc), as they get very little love from most video game wikiprojects. Do that stuff, and we will have the first wikiproject that is all GA, and all in featured topics. It's a dream, but there is a very realistic roadmap to get there. That is my proposal. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with FF Adventure, according to you, is that it's a standalone FF spin-off, and thus that it's difficult to make it fit in an FF topic. You're right, but this applies to FF Mystic Quest too. And again, FF Mystic Quest and FF X-2 shouldn't be in the "Final Fantasy titles" topic, not if all the other spin-off games aren't also included. Furthermore, the "standalone" problem also applies to FF:The Spirits Within and FF:Unlimited (which has several installments but only one article). You include them in a "Final Fantasy series" topic along with Dissidia, but can you clarify how is that? Why are a movie and a TV series included with one spin-off game, while the other spin-off games are excluded?
 * I'd like to note that while an implicite goal of wikiprojects is to get all articles to GA, I don't think getting all of them to featured topics is a definite or necessary goal. If an article can't fit in a topic, then it simply can't fit in a topic. In what topic could The Last Remnant be featured for instance? None, but that doesn't mean the Square Enix wikiproject should reject this article and do as if it's not within their scope so they can build a perfectly harmonious world where everything fits together. One cannot square a circle (no pun intended).
 * This being said, FF Adventure can fit in an FF spin-offs topic:


 * The "Final Fantasy titles" topic would exclude FF Mystic Quest and FFX-2 and perhaps List of FF media; it would include Gameplay of FF, Music of FF and FF character classes. The "Final Fantasy series" topic would be discarded since it's ill-defined as I pointed out above. With that setting, only List of Final Fantasy cast members would remain without topic. I don't really see the point of that article and I think it should be deleted. Apart from that article, this setting solves all the problems you and I had. Thoughts? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fantastic! :) Except in very rare cases, most articles can find a topical home somewhere, and I'm glad we figured this one out, great thinking and collaborative work! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008 Roll Call
Please sign your name if you are still with the project.
 * 1) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  Greg   Jones   II  19:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) PresN (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Nanten (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Ost (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Xanar (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Malphus (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2008
 * 10) Miutsu  (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please fix Final Fantasy VIII citations
The reception section is really poorly cited. Which edition of Game Informer was it? Who wrote the review? The same goes for quite a few others in the review box out. - hahnch e n 14:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Chocobo Featured Topic
Gather round, and listen to my dream of a Chocobo featured topic...


 * Chocobo - Desperately needs to be rewritten and have more content. It also needs to make clear that this article is about both the character and his gaming franchise, which the lead doesn't explain. Goal: GA
 * Chocobo Racing - I addressed the reasons it was delisted, and added a VG review template, so it should pass GA. Goal:
 * Final Fantasy Fables: Chocobo Tales - It's GA, and the best Chocobo article currently. Goal: FA
 * Final Fantasy Fables: Chocobo's Dungeon - Just announced that its coming out in July, added about 10 references to it, perhaps a GA in late July, FA in August?

Feel free to jump in on this one. As Chocobo Dungeon 2 and Chocobo World were merged, we are much closer to a Featured Chocobo topic :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII FARC
Final Fantasy VII has now fallen to FARC, which means it's in danger of losing its star. Please assist in fixing it! --PresN (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Bumping this topic. We have two "delist"s so far. &mdash; Blue. 11:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

State of the Project
Here are a list of former GA's, FL's and FA's. We have restored many lately, so here are all the rest of the fallen ones;
 * Final Fantasy VII - FAR review
 * List of Final Fantasy media - was FL
 * Cloud Strife - was GA
 * Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) - was GA
 * Spira (Final Fantasy) - was GA
 * Yuna (Final Fantasy) - was GA
 * Final Fantasy III - was GA

Here are the articles that would have to be GA to get back our Final Fantasy X and X-2 Topic;
 * Characters of Final Fantasy X and X-2
 * Music of Final Fantasy X-2- PresN
 * Auron
 * Rikku
 * Spira (Final Fantasy)

And finally, two weak GA's we should bolster to prevent challenges to their status;
 * Final Fantasy (video game)- Judgesurreal777
 * Final Fantasy II

Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We should each pick an article and work to restore it! I pick the original Final Fantasy, it needs a bunch of fixes...feel free to claim one to restore if you want :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm working on Music of FFX-2, of course. --PresN (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured Topics to work towards
We at one point had a Final Fantasy X Featured Topic, which currently looks like this:

And I'm currently creating a Music of FF topic, which has a ways to go, though not as far as it once did.

Does anyone have anything else that they think we can work towards? Don't forget that we have 2 months to get FF3 back to GA, or we'll lose the FF games FT. --PresN (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't think this Music of Final Fantasy topic would have much chance of being featured, because it doesn't cover everything that it should cover. A complete topic would have to include all the album articles in Category:Final Fantasy albums, all the song articles in Category:Final Fantasy music, and possibly the articles for Nobuo Uematsu and the other composers. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I disagree. Call it "Music of the Final Fantasy video game series", and you lose the FF:Spirtis within and Mystic Quest stuff. Then, combine a bunch of the stub articles like Potion and Pray into a "Final Fantasy compilation albums" article, and you're totally there.  I think we can get by without including the composers. --PresN (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mystic Quest is a video game so it can't be excluded that way. It could be excluded if the topic is restricted to the main series, but then Music of Final Fantasy X-2 and Music of Final Fantasy Tactics Advance would have to be excluded too. I agree the non-OST albums could be merged into one article though (not sure about what's the most appropriate name for that article though... perhaps a "List of..." something would be good). Still, quite a few articles probably can't be merged: Dear Friends -Music from Final Fantasy- (definitely on-topic), Kiss Me Good-Bye, etc. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit: Wait, Mystic Quest doesn't have an OST article. The game's article is categorized in Category:Final Fantasy music, but it can be of course be excluded from the topic. Well I guess this negates the first part of my post (not the second half though). Megata Sanshiro (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Kiss me goodbye is going to be redirected to Music of FF12#Kiss me Goodbye as soon as that article goes GA, since there's actually less information in the article than there is in the section. I'm not sure if we need to include articles like Dear Friends- it's just an article on a series of concerts where they played FF music.  I'm in the fence though.  I see it as about three places where you can draw the line- one is as I have it above, one is that plus the compilation albums, and one is including everything in the categories that's relevant, which means no composers, redirect the singles, and include the concert series.  I personally like the first line, though I see the merits of pulling in the compilation albums, and I would like to make that article anyway, the ones we have now suck.  I really don't want to pull in every single article about something related to FF music, though, I think that's way too broad.  Does anyone else have an opinion?  It's all academic at the moment, mind, even for the first line I still need to send 5 more articles past GAN, and then find enough sources to get at least 2 to FA.  --PresN (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your on to something there PresN. Most of the remaining articles can be merged to either the main Music of Final Fantasy article or to a "compilations and remixes article", and then maybe 2-3 GA's to make, and that would be everything. We don't need the music composers, and if we did what I outlined, we would have a featured topic :) I think its eminently doable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the merging, and wish you good luck for the merging of the single articles (judging from Talk:Redemption (song) you might encounter some strong opposition. I'm still not sure about being able to omit Dear Friends though. It's 100% related to the music of Final Fantasy, it was not just "a series of concerts where they played FF music" (that would be something like Play! A Video Game Symphony). Dear Friends was specifically a series of concerts of FF music. Just my two cents though. I don't really participate in this project, so I leave the matter in your hands. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My thought was that the song is FF related, but not strongly enough to have to be included, it was even cut from our project jurisdiction for that reason. Also, Dear Friends may justify its own article, but if may also be able to fit into a concert section of the main Music article. Now that we have begun the process, we just have to try stuff out, see what merges where... Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

People of Final Fantasy
Could we create a list of the composers of final fantasy, thuse facilitating a featured topic? for that matter, a list of developers/programmers, a list of producers, and also a list of actors (not the current "list of cast members") so that we will have a main topic that would allow the people of final fantasy articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems like the list would be a little lengthy, and I'd assume that a person would look up game if they wanted to know the producers, the character if they want to know the voice actors, the music if they wanted to know the composer, etc. Even the list of cast members might be merged with articles. And the fact that Final Fantasy is still active; the list would just keep growing and growing. And all of the Compilation of FFVII titles and spin-offs, etc. Just seems like the person could go to the game page to find out information.WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Composers isn't as hard though- it's really only voice actors that's giong to be crazy long. Composers are: Nobuo Uematsu (1-10, 11, one song in 12) Masashi Hamauzu and Junya Nakano (10), Noriko Matsueda and Takahito Eguchi (10-2), Naoshi Mizuta and Kumi Tanioka (11), Hitoshi Sakimoto (12, Tactics, TA), and Ryuji Sasai and Yasuhiro Kawakami (Mystic Quest).  --PresN (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If you only do the main series composers, the topic looks like this:

Not exactly the most well-developed topic, but definitely possible. --PresN (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have proposed a taskforce at wikiproject video games dealing with the people of video gaming, meaning these exact articles because they are so neglected with a few exceptions. The composers list might be viable, though with 5-6 names it will be very short, but it is an important question to grapple with. Trying to figure out how to make featured topics out of the people/studios/companies is tough, and this is my first thought. Any others? Thanks PresN for the visual! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure about "Composers of the Final Fantasy series". What would the article actually says? We can't really make boxes and put the composers' birthdays and birthplaces like we do with the titles in the video game lists. And if we put information about the music instead, we would end up with a duplicate of Music of the Final Fantasy series. In a few cases I think we might be able to create topics based on the persons rather than the games. For instance with Yasumi Matsuno we could have an 8-article topic, "Games designed by Yasumi Matsuno" (with Matsuno's article as the main article). However, this kind of topics is more likely to spans several wikiprojects than a single one (I don't think there's a Final Fantasy designer that has only worked on FF games during his whole career). Megata Sanshiro (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which goes back to what I was saying about starting a people of video games subproject at wikiproject video games, as they do seem to span different franchises and such a topic would only be doable by such a taskforce. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Blitzball article
Hey, I'm back... Well, that's not really my point for posting this new section. I'm browsing through my watchlist and noticed that the Blitzball article has been turned into a Final Fantasy article again instead of being about the novel A Separate Peace (or being a redirect, way back when). Thoughts on what to do about that article? Kariteh (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is a big surprise! I thought there was a discussion where the information on Blitzball of Final Fantasy X has been merged with Minigames of Final Fantasy! Here is the diff that changed the article again. I am for reverting this change. &mdash; Blue. 12:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what the people who decided to eliminate the old Blitzball article were thinking--regardless of how much discussion went into it, a bad decision is still a bad decision. Most people searching Wikipedia for "blitzball" will be looking for information related to the FFX minigame, not a piece of classic literature. If you want numbers, consider the following google searches:

"blitzball separate peace" - 1,170 results "blitzball ffx" - 62,300 "blitzball john knowles" - 680

Now, clearly Knowles's Blitzball deserves its own article. But if it does based on being a core part of a noteworthy work of fiction, then so does FFX Blitzball. The old article contained a great deal of good information. The new one might well have good information about the Knowles version, but the pared-down version in the Minigames of Final Fantasy does a serious disservice to anyone looking for info on FFX Blitzball.

I propose that the content in the current Knowles Blitzball article be moved to a new article named Blitzball (A Separate Peace), and the current Blitzball reverted and renamed to Blitzball (Final Fantasy). Blitzball should disambiguate so that anyone looking for information on either has a fair shake at getting what they're looking for, and the section in Minigames of Final Fantasy should be pared down with a link to the proper article. Amezuki (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless Blitzball from Final Fantasy can show a lot more notability, it should be a section in minigames of Final Fantasy and not its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that neither a fictional game from the book nor a fictional game from FFX are notable enough to need their own article. A Separate Peace doesn't even link to Blitzball- nor does it talk about it for more than a sentence. Minigames of Final Fantasy, on the other hand, exists because none of the FF minigames are notable enough for their own article.  Blitzball should be a disambiguation page.  --PresN (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I second that, neither seem to be notable on their own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I third for a disambig. &mdash; Blue. 04:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Music of Final Fantasy X-2
Music of Final Fantasy X-2 is now at GAN. --PresN (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * GA'd. --PresN (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Final Fantasy compilation albums
It lives! List of Final Fantasy compilation albums is now live, and all individual albums are now redirects to it. I'm planning on slapping a touch of reception for each album and flinging it at FLC. I've never been there, so if some more experienced editors could take a look at the article list, I'd be obliged. --PresN (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it's complete? I'm pretty sure there was a Final Fantasy N Generation before Final Fantasy S Generation (N stands for Nintendo, and S Sony). Also, shouldn't the Black Mages albums be on that list (whether they're actually merged or not)? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see where you put it, sorry. 20020220 Music from Final Fantasy is really missing though. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I think reception information should be added. Kariteh (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reception info will be added, see above. Allright, so I need 20020220 Music from Final Fantasy, and I should mention the Black Mages albums, anything else?  --PresN (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently the FF Finest Box. --PresN (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd just go ahead and merge those 3 black mages albums, not that notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Should the Final Fantasy Anthology and Mystic Quest soundtracks be placed somewhere? Also, music of the Crystal Chronicles line is absent from the Music of Final Fantasy section, except for a few passing remarks.  Ost316 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They are already taken care of in their own articles, and aren't compilations of music anyway. Same with the Crystal Chronicles music. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that you were working on the compilation article and that my comments may be better suited in another topic, but with the exception of Anthology (which is arguably its own soundtrack or a compilation soundtrack of the music of V and VI), I was just bringing up this point for completeness of the Music of FF article. It seems lacking completeness without sections for Mystic Quest, the Crystal Chronicles games, or Final Fantasy Tactics A2, all of which have soundtracks.  Why should the music of these games be omitted from the Music of Final Fantasy? Ost (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose just because they don't have their own articles, whereas all the other games have had enough music remixing and re-releasing to warrant separate articles. But that's not nearly all, the Chocobo games have their own CD's, and I bet you could find SaGa music compilations that have music from the Legends trilogy. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I won't offense anyone by saying that the Music of the Final Fantasy series article is plain horrible; it needs to be deeply rewritten. Crystal Chronicles, Mystic Quest and all the other spinoffs except the SaGa games will definitely be mentioned in the article when it's rewritten, but they don't warrant separates articles. Instead, links to Audio sections of the games' articles should be enough. The Chocobo games do have quite a few soundtracks available though. I think I'll create Music of the Chocobo series when I have the time (or someone can do it first if they want). Kariteh (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Yeah, Music of FF is truly a mess. I'm not even going to fix it, I'm going to scrap and redo it when I get to it. As for the other articles, the criteria I'm using for whether or not a game gets a "music of" article is if it has 2+ official albums. That's why Tactics doesn't have one, and the information is in the game article's audio section, but Tactics Advance does, as it has the OST and White. Mystic Quest just has the one, so it stays where it is. Currently to be added- FF Anthology cd thingy, Black mages will be mentioned but will be their own article, and 20020220, see below.

Question: I'm thinking about merging the specifically final fantasy orchestral concert tours together into a "List of Final Fantasy concert tours" page. Is this a good idea? And if so, should 20020220 Music from Final Fantasy be merged there, to the list of compilation albums page, or both? --PresN (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't forget about Chocobo Racing and the Wii Chocobo game, both of which are basically remixed FF music, they at least deserve a mention. As for Tactics, why not a 'FF Tactics Series' music article, which is four CDs, much of it by the same two composers? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I like that idea! MoFFTA->MoFFTs it is. --PresN (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Either a list of concert tours or merge them into the main music article. I think the list might be better since I think it would be too much information for that article, and I think we have enough for a concert list. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I created this to put all the music articles in a template, I think the music of final fantasy is important enough for its own template. Template:Music of the Final Fantasy series Thoughts? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * i dunno, I always liked Template:Music of Final Fantasy, since it was unique. I'd hold off on rolling out the new template, since several articles in it are going to be merged, hopefully over the next week.  --PresN (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well once the merging is done, there will probably only be 3-4 more articles to add to the original template, and then we can decide. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to ruin all the work that has been done but... isn't ffmusic.info a fansite? It's used a lot in the recent articles even though it doesn't seem to be what Wikipedia calls a "reliable source". Kariteh (talk) 08:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also I just found that Template:Tracklist was used on Music of Final Fantasy VII. We might need to standardize the formattings used in the articles when the topic is ready for nomination. Kariteh (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't gotten to FF7 yet, so I dunno what templates it's using, and yes, ffmusic is a fansite, it's being used for sourcing of literal translations of the Japanese names of tracks. I try not to source any other info to it. I'd use RPGFan, but they alternate between literal translations and official english names and never say which one they're using.  --PresN (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2008 (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 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 (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kariteh (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

May 2008 Roll Call

 * 1) Ost (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) PresN (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Umrguy42 (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Nanten (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 7)  Greg   Jones   II  16:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)