Now that Final Fantasys 1-12 are all GA or FA, I think it's time to look at resurrecting the Final Fantasy titles featured topic. As per this discussion, it looks like we're going to need List of Final Fantasy media, our former featured list, to get back up to FL to be the lead article of the topic. I've started taking a look at it, and the thing it needs most of all is a bunch of citations, but I'd really appreciate it if some of you guys could take a look at it and make suggestions. Thanks! --PresN 17:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there. The media list is quite overwhelming. What about split the video games back to List of Final Fantasy games? The media list can briefly cover the main games, have shorter single entries for stuff like the FF Legend and Chocobo games, and omit things like the compilations and collections. The game list can then give better detail with fewer constraints, and will serve as the main article link for the video game section of the media list. Plus other lists like List of Final Fantasy compilation albums could be linked in a similar way. Thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

I have nominated Characters of Kingdom Hearts for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Delisted. We really need to find those Famitsu articles. --PresN 03:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The link is here. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

the article is written in a in-universe style. for example, yensids tower/mysterious tower, is really focusing on one title instead of mentioning the change by series.

same with Radiant/Garden and Land of Departure/Castle oblivion. they all follow fictional chronology which makes it in-universe. it would be great if someone could help me on this.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is now up for AfD here. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirected to Universe of Kingdom Hearts. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

About a year ago, I said some pretty harsh things — mainly about Wikipedia and its projects "losing their way" and whatnot. The typical thing most Wikipedians of 4-5 years go through. I was growing extremely frustrated with the project, though I've now had plenty of time away from it. Sorry if I offended anyone.

Anyway, I'll be poking around more often, most likely. I guess you could call me the "wise old sage", so feel free to come to me with questions. — Deckiller 19:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Just please don't nominate your own project articles for the review processes unless the WikiProject needs outside help. This was a fad last year that drove me away, because it puts unneeded strain on the GAR/FAR processes and is an unintended insult to co-editors. — Deckiller 20:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Not unless I review them first. Guys like PresN or Gib should know. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

From the looks of it, you're not a member of the project/heavy contributor of the pages aside from the important task of reviewing; nevertheless, I still recommend posting the concerns on this talkpage first when it comes to the featured articles. That way, you don't have to strain the extremely limited resources at FAR. — Deckiller 20:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I've been on Wikipedia for over a year, did over 20 GARs and 4 FARs. I know the drill. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That may have been directed at me, but I wasn't and still don't regard myself a member of WP:SE. In any case, FFVIII stands solidly now ^^ — Blue。 15:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Dec raised a good point on GamerPro's talk page re the Final Fantasy character classes article- is it even worth having? Usually I'm all about trying to save our articles at GAR/FAR, but this one... I mean, it's entirely in-universe for one thing, a massive percentage of the sources currently present are the game manuals themselves, and it's really the only article of its type in all of WP. I feel that it should be redirected to the Gameplay of FF article, and the "Character development and classes" section of that article beefed up with what information is useful. We need at least one article to hold all of these "multi-game" concepts together, but I don't know if this one is really adding anything. Thoughts? --PresN 06:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it's a Good Article, though there are only a few sentences of real-world information. It's basically a game guide, albeit a very well-sourced one. I think it should be trimmed greatly and integrated into the Final Fantasy gameplay article.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not going to be a Good Article for long, as it's 7 days are about up. --PresN 16:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ditch it I'd say. The classes don't need detail to this degree to understand them from an encyclopedic standpoint.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

O.K, ladies and gentlemen, the article has now been offically delisted. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we should trim the character classes article since it is entirely in-universe and merge it to the Final Fantasy gameplay article as per Zxcvbnm's suggestion and to redirect it to the gameplay article while adding information from the character classes article per PresN's suggestion. Any thoughts or objections? Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Since everyone seems to be in agreement, I've merged in/redirected the article. --PresN 01:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Minigames of Final Fantasy also seems like a game guide article that should be merged. It has similarly small reception information.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with that idea. The minigames do not really need detail to understand them from an encyclopedic viewpoint. We should also merge this Minigames article as well. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed aggressive the other day. Considering the direction of Wikipedia, I think those merges are nice ideas. — Deckiller 16:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, they are really excellent ideas. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, if no one complains in the next few days I'll merge Minigames. Fitting, I suppose, since I wrote the ugly thing in the first place. In the mean time, go write some articles, people! We're at 30% GA+, and it's going to take forever at this rate. I'm doing The Last Remnant, if anyone wants to help. --PresN 03:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just written Final Fantasy XV :) Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh, didn't realize that they'd talked so much about it already. --PresN 16:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why there's a link to the currently empty FFXV website. I know it's going to be used soon, but presently there's no content so why bother? — Blue。 01:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually don't think it'll be used that soon, but I thought it would be interesting since the link exists.[1] I guess it should be removed though, especially since there are place-holder ads on it. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I see it's replaced with a link to a wikia site. I went to check and it seems to be just a mirror of the current article with minor trivial info. Doesn't seem to comply with WP:EL per open wikis. I suggest removing the EL section until we have one that complies with WP:EL. — Blue。 03:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point, but the Wikia article has been tagged with a "De-wikify" tag so I think we should give it a few days to see if their article is effectively de-wikified, in which case it wouldn't be a mirror anymore. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

WIkia does not meet EL even if one article has to be "de-wikify", it's much more than mirror. WIkia hardly ever meets EL, in fact hardly any wiki ever met the right requirements. Also, FFXV just an idea, nothing has been confirmed it's only small quotes and vague answers, but nothing has confirmed that ffXV will exist. there only ideas. we need more. and yes we need to confirm information. it doesnt have to be true though, it just has to be verifiable.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the Final Fantasy character classes merge was adequately discussed, I've reverted it and started a merge discussion at Talk:Final Fantasy character classes#Merge proposal. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles like Final Fantasy use a timeline which Dragon Quest attempted to copy and that coding came under fire by User:AnOddName because it lacks some important FA requirements.陣内_Jinnai 01:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of release years

1986 –		– Dragon Warrior
1987 –		– Dragon Warrior II
1988 –		– Dragon Warrior III
1989 –
1990 –		– Dragon Quest IV: Chapters of the Chosen
1991 –
1992 –		– Dragon Quest V: Hand of the Heavenly Bride
1993 –
1994 –
1995 –		– Dragon Quest VI: Realms of Reverie
1996 –
1997 –
1998 –
1999 –
2000 –		– Dragon Warrior VII
2001 –
2002 –
2003 –
2004 –		– Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King
2005 –
2006 –
2007 –
2008 –
2009 –		– Dragon Quest IX: Sentinels of the Starry Skies

If we're going to switch to tables, then we can replicate the previous timelines well enough. Here's a tweaked version that adds back the bar. This shouldn't be too difficult to update either. Just add a new row with the year and title and update the rowspan count at the top. This could be further developed to include the white lines in the colored bar rather than next to it. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

I like this version: it's simpler and less obtrusive. Speaking of Dragon Quest, Dragon Quest character classes needs to be merged and/or redirected, it's 95% game guide content.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it would look better if only the years with releases were written out. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that would work. See, a timeline arranges years in a recognizable order, release or no. If they are just listed by release date, it ceases to be a timeline.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Any issue with me replacing the timeline in Final Fantasy with a table version? Or do you guys want to see one that replicates the old version more. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC))

Sounds good to me, I'll have to try to adapt it for Music of Final Fantasy later. --PresN 23:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I wanted to get your thoughts on making it a template. The data is the same and updating it once will update both articles. I also think keeping it out of the actual article might reduce vandalism, which has been a problem with the timeline in the FF article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC))

Is that a "no"? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

Yeah i guess a template would be better. would it look similar to the one we have now?Bread Ninja (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, somehow missed this one. Yeah, a template would be a great idea; I don't know how to code templates myself though. --PresN 17:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I noticed some person created the FFXV page, and although the page does contain sources, some of it is simply using too much elaboration on the sources. It seems to be violating WP:FUTURE to a very high extend. Someone used a translating machine to create the Chinese, Japanese and Spanish page based on this one as well, and the Chinese and Japanese pages are currently undergoing AfD(did not check the Spanish) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 06:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is WP:FUTURE:

Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2010 U.S. Senate elections and 2016 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified.

Which sources violate this "to a very high extend"? Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Alberto (2012)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise. Similarly, articles about words formed on a predictable numeric system (such as "septenquinquagintillion") are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use. Certain scientific extrapolations are considered to be encyclopedic, such as chemical elements documented by IUPAC before isolation in the laboratory.

FFXV is more of the "Tropical Storm Alberto (2012)" sort. The first source is only about SE registering the FFXII to XV domain name, which is exactly the same as this example. The second source might be a little relevant, but it is only stating they did not have any idea at that time. The third source? stating it is not yet in development. The fourth is basically talking about the series in general and not specific about XV, the fifth I cannot access since my office network blocked it as games(no, it seems to be a word block and the google cache does not work as well.), but the sixth did not even mention XV, using totally unrelated sources as sources for the article about XV without any mention about XV? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 01:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The fourth does talk about FFXV specifically. What direction FFXV takes will determine the direction that the series will take (rather than the other way around). This source establishes notability for the article, and the second and third provide additional encyclopedical information. The other sources provide information which might be a bit more generic, but notability is already asserted by the other sources so this is just additional background information. We know more about FFXV than Dragon Quest X IMO. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly the things within the above quoted paragraph by me. If it is only a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics. It is. 1 source does NOT establish notability, especially when all of the other sources are either unrelated or simply giving it pre-assigned event value. Also, the third source have only one question about XV, and the answer is one word, in which a person with no German background can still pretty much see it is a negative answer. The fourth source is still only a predetermined list or pre-assign at most. 7th is only pretty much the same as 4th. 9th is basically the ONLY notability source I see, but the whole article will only be a pure speculation type of article if you only include 1, 4, 7 and 9. SE registered the 13~15 domain names back in 2000[1], the game is still not in development[7], it might be fantasy or SF[7] and Toshiyuki Itahana cannot choose if he can work on XV or not. How notable is that? For DQ X, I will show you WP:OTHERCRAP —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 15:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

We have both posted our opinions which happen to be differing so I posted a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Information about an unannounced game to get further input. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Mythsearcher on this one. Plus, i find some of the sources there very questionable.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that its way too early to be creating an article about a game that is still in planning stages and not yet in development even. I myself would not create an article until Square Enix put out something solid about the game that would stir up the community, like some beta stage screenshots for example. Every company has great ideas for great video games but more than half of them get canned even before getting to development. NeoGenPT (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

For example, Duke Nukem Forever was never released, but did get to be developed up to some point. They did get to the point of showing off what they had, although they didn't have the budget and resources to finish it. Unlike FF XV, Duke Nukem Forever was more than just an idea. NeoGenPT (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Until we get an official confirmation that it will exist, or that it's in production, then i suggest the article not exist for the time being>16:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

While we are on it, we might as well discuss about the DQ X article as well, pretty much the same issues. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 17:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

DQ X was formally announced, so not as big as an issue as ffXV. still it's a very small article.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Both articles need to be merged into their series pages discussing the future of the series. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mythsearcher that the article should be merged until it is officially announced and such. This is basically a crystal ball without any plot and gameplay information.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand Mythsearcher's points, but I strongly disagree with other points that say "Not announced? = No article!". There either is notable information about a topic or there is not; announcement has nothing to do with it IMO. A game project can be unnannounced and be notable, and an announced game can be non-notable. I think a "Future" section should be created in the FF series articles (and DQ too) rather than the article being redirected or deleted. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 10:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A Current developments section might be useful if it got sources. However, I doubt the notability of a section stating a bunch of The company thinks the game can go in either fantasy or SF statements. Also, the section would have to be changed every time a new game comes out(it would not be in development then.) I propose redirecting the FFXV page to FF for now. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 12:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I was reminded with Project TRICO The Last Guardian. When that article first started it was made because there was the developer's concept trailer and screenshots released - sufficient official development info. This didn't happen for FFXV... yet. I support the redirection to Final Fantasy. — Blue。 13:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Weighing in on the Final Fantasy article, it is kind of in a delicate state in that it attracts a lot of editors for better or for worse. I worry that adding such a liquid section would lead to too many cooks in an article that has gone through an enormous amount of editing to get it to FA and stay there. To be honest, this is not a great reason to avoid editing, but since the future game articles will be created eventually, it seems silly to constantly build and split the content ad nauseam. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC))

Mythsearcher: "the section would have to be changed every time a new game comes out" -> Well YES, that's the whole point of Wikipedia as opposed to paper encyclopedias that are always one step behind and have long editorial cycles :)

Bluerfn: I still think a merging is better than redirecting. There is no good reason to delete everything.

Guyinblack25: I said it before but that's what I dislike about FAs. The point of Wikipedia is to provide up-to-date information for the benefit of readers, and non-meaningful stuff like FAs or GAs should not prevent editors from improving articles IMO. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting would not technically "delete" the content. The edit history (and by extension the previous versions) would still be preserved and available. This sounds reasonable to me since it's only a temporary solution. We all know the game will be released, but there's no reason to jump the gun.

I also agree that maintaining a pristine article should not hinder up-to-date content. However, the VG project is drastically undermanned to handle the number of articles in our scope. As a unfortunate result, we have to be frugal with our volunteer time.

While I agree we should provide accurate information, Wikipedia is not meant to be a news website. Up-to-date information can be troubling to edit properly and is difficult to maintain as it occurs. Some of our most successful (well-written and accurate) articles are ones that are out of the spotlight. Basically, I don't see a need to rush this. The necessary sources to help this article shine will come, we just have to wait. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC))

Ive read the article myself and would prefer a merge over anything. This is too premature at this stage to have an article and there is alot of crytsalballing in the article as well as speculation. Shall we have a formal merge discussion section of FF XV's page? Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I think a formal merge discussion should be created. I agree with the problems of notability. However I still disagree with problems of "speculation". You can argue that the sources are too few and not specific enough, maybe, but not that there is "speculation" in the article. There is no speculation in the article. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It is speculation if a source have not mentioned FFXV but is included to support a claim of prompted some media outlets to wonder about the implications for Final Fantasy XV and a bunch of we don't know this, we don't know that statements in the staff section is speculation. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 14:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No need to be an ass, jeez... Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Hardin, he's not being an "ass". his comment was completely neutral. anyways, i think we all have an agreement now? or does someone else still oppose.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, although I have no intention in being one, my actions might seem like I am being one. However, I am only trying to be clear so as to prevent future similar events. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 00:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately we don't, as someone on the talk page wants to outright speedy delete all the information (despite the fact that WP:SD doesn't support his claim) instead of merging. Sigh. I'm tired of explaining why a deletion is not warranted. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

if we were to keep the information, it would be to no use when FFXV game actually does exist. it wouldn't be important to the article and only be removed when the article becomes made. A speedy deletion wouldn't be so bad, especially form the information is so vague. i doubt it can holdit's own section in the ff franchise articleBread Ninja (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I know i proposed a merge discussion here; Talk:Final Fantasy XV but if some are thinking deletion and such, perhaps it should be brought to an AFD to formally decide wether deletion is the avenue, I think its clear that there are multiple opinions on this debate. (My preference is still a merge but id like the community as a whole to determine this one). Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Very well then, please place an afd on the article.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have placed an AFD. I think it would be best if we formally decide where consensus lies with the page.Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

A merge tag was added to Dragon Quest a while ago and I'm just wondering if there is any consensus on the issue. The series article is/was/kind of going through FAC, and the merge needs to be resolved before it can get passed. In my opinion, the articles should not be merged (mostly because a Future section would be problematic and the DQ X article will just be recreated in a month or two anyway). Ideas?  ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 17:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections to removing the merge tag for DQX. I think the previous discussions on the series talk page was more than enough and nothing substantial has changed since that discussion (has anything?). Though i cant speak for everyone else. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel that because we only know that it's coming, merging is not a problem. Such information can be summed up in a few sentences in the series article on the series' future, and shouldn't hurt its chances at the FAC. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have located these legit Twitter pages from Square Enix developers and would like to know if it's okay to link them in external links sections, especially when there's nothing else to link to:

• Kenji Ito
• Yasumi Matsuno
• Hiroshi Minagawa
• Yasunori Mitsuda
• Taku Murata
• Soraya Saga
• Hironobu Sakaguchi
• Hitoshi Sakimoto
• Hiromichi Tanaka
• Kumi Tanioka
• Takashi Tokita
• Yoichi Wada
• Ryo Yamazaki

Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

i dont think so....it's like youtube, many companies have there own youtube pages to promote there stuff, but it's not really something as external link appropriate. Bread Ninja (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! The Final Fantasy XIII article claims that Sazh was based on Lionel Richie, citing a summary from IGN. But I'm pretty sure this is just a "joke" that started on messageboards. I don't think Richie's name was ever mentioned in Famitsu or developers' interviews. Should this be removed? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing on the IGN site to indicate it's a joke, though I dunno anything about that "stars" page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It appears that those biographies are contributed by IGN users. But I'd say that even if the claim was made by IGN staff, we should prefer a primary source for claims of that nature. That biography actually says that Sazh's appearance was reportedly based on Lionel Richie, which sounds like speculation. Reach Out to the Truth 14:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't meant that it was a joke for IGN, I said it's a joke that was started by people on messageboards and which was apparently taken seriously by the person who wrote that entry on IGN Stars. The entry also claims that Squall was based on Gackt, which also seems to be a misconception (Squall Leonhart article makes no mention of it). Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah those profiles can be tricky...while some are written by staff, others are just half-assed user entries, so you have to look carefully (amusing, there's an interview on IGN where the creator states Squall was based on River Phoenix).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

His Final Fantasy Wiki article attributes it to a Shounen Jump interview with Yoshinori Kitase. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

An editor has reverted the merge of Final Fantasy character classes, saying that the proper procedure was not followed. Please see the discussion they have started here. --PresN 16:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

On the same note, last call for disagreement on merging Minigames of Final Fantasy to Final Fantasy gameplay. --PresN 16:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Minigames of Final Fantasy actually, i feel Minigames should be merged with all the respected articles it mentions. it's difficult to merge an article of examples to gameplay.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Final Fantasy gameplay itself could be streamlined and merged with Final Fantasy. If the gameplay article was focused on the common elements of the series rather than listing every characteristic of every installment, it would be much shorter and would fit well in the main article. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's alread focused on the common elements. Most of the information in the gameplay section applies to several games in the series, and quite a bit of it applies to over half of the main series games. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think as it stands now, it should be. While we based splitting Dragon Quest's gameplay on the basis FF had its split, we did so (on my insistence) only after we had something that could greatly exceed the GNG therefore be on a good standing for not being merged or deleted. That article focuses on the reception the DQ/DW series gameplay has had and its legacy. The information about commen elements is to help support that. I think if the FF gameplay article it should use that methodology.陣内_Jinnai 08:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It's an interesting contrast between the two too boot, as reception for FF seems more about the characters, while DQ seems more readily about the game itself as the series goes.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix/archive/7/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix/archive/7/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 23:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Vaan and Balthier were created last fall as forks from Characters of Final Fantasy XII (GA) I've been notified that they should have been added to the "Final Fantasy XII" topic a few months ago, so it is in danger of being demoted. There are a few options as to what we can do about this:

• Merge the two into the characters article- The 'Concept and Creation' and 'Appearances' sections of the articles are almost word-per-word in the Characters article to begin with, so this would only entail merging in the reception sections. From reading through them, they could be condensed to a good-sized paragraph each when the repetition is worked out.

• Get Vaan and Balthier to GA- I don't think there's anything else to be added to the articles (I haven't found anything), so this would depend on whether we think they can be GA'd as-is with some copy-editing.

• Ignore the issue, because you don't care about FTopics and Gtopics.

Thoughts? I'm in favor of merging, personally. --PresN 18:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know it worked like. I was told that individual character articles would not matter to the FT as the character list is FL, and the FT is not about character, but about the game. Vaan and Balthier should become GA or FA only if the FT was "Characters of Final Fantasy XII". For example if a FT is called "Simpsons seasons", only the articles of the seasons should be FL/FA, and no the individual episodes. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the current thinking is that while you are correct, if there's only a couple of "sub-sub-articles" like this, then they should be in the same topic, not in a subtopic. I'll ask rst20xx his opinion on whether we can avoid this. --PresN 22:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what PresN has written above - If there are only a couple of articles then they should be included in the same topic, instead of split into a separate one. WP:FT? states in the recommendations section that "a topic should not be excessively sub-divided; an all-encompassing topic of five articles is better than two topics of three each." Any potential "Characters of Final Fantasy XII" topic would have a very small scope. We're only dealing with 8 articles in total here (the 6 already in the Final Fantasy XII topic and the two other character articles). Whereas for a Simpsons seasons topic, we would be dealing with about 500 articles! rst20xx (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, we could always do some sprucing up of the two articles. I don't think it would be too hard to fix them up. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It was my understanding that supplemental articles—articles that offer excess or tangential detail of the main article—could remain outside the topic with the possibility for inclusion of all of them at a later date. I'd consider the two separate character articles as supplemental, regardless of their quality rating. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

It depends upon the number of articles involved, and the overall size of the topic. Here, it's 2 articles, and the overall size is 8; both of these are very small. Can you honestly tell me that the topic as it stands is comprehensive on Wikipedia's coverage of FFXII when it is missing 2 out of 8 articles? - rst20xx (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say yes, I think those 6 articles give the layman most everything they'd need to know about FFXII. The two character articles would certainly aid the layman, but the more important details would be covered in the other articles.

I do, however, recognize that others may not agree with that assessment. Regardless, it looks like simpler plans are underway. So I'll leave the editors to their work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

I still say we just ought to bring them up to GA. As stated above, it shouldn't be too difficult, mostly copyediting and such, and maybe doing some source checking to make sure all of the sources would pass for GA. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Per a suggestion when I was working on List of Final Fantasy media a while ago, I'm trying to split out a "list of Final Fantasy video games" at User:PresN/LoFFVG. I've worked down through about FF11, and I'm looking for opinions on the format that I'm using. I'm putting in all of the different releases of each game- does the way I'm doing it work? Thanks! --PresN 16:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks a bit complicated, i forget, but what's PAL region?Bread Ninja (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Europe/Australia. --PresN 17:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

well i can't see anything to change. my personal opinion is to split any ff spin off and leave just the numbered ones and those related to it.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I like this. I think I'll split it into "main series-related sequels and spin-offs" and "other spinoffs", and leave the "other spinoffs" in the "List of Final Fantasy media" article. My thinking is that this leaves the FFTactics games in "main-series related", due to the Ivalice Alliance thing, but pushes the Kingdom Hearts, Chocobo, Mana, SaGa, Crystal Chronicles and such series off to "Other". Is this your opinion as well? --PresN 19:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well i was thinking more like, sequels and prequels on one page while the spin offs with the same title would stay. but your format works just as good. i didn't know kingdom hearts and SaGa were spin offs.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

They're pushing the line as to what you can call a "spin-off". That's the annoying part of making the list- there's about five different points at which you can draw the line as to whether its a "final fantasy" game- SaGa just used the name, but KH uses some characters, Mana had some FF elements in the first game only, but then took them out in the remake, FFTactics just has some of the elements but then was merged into FF12's backstory, Crystal Chronicles pretty much just uses the name... it's a mess. --PresN 19:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...that really is difficult...i originally considered ivalice alliance, crystal chronicles and chocobo ff to be spin off...now I'm questioning itBread Ninja (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's my two cents. I recommend using {{VGtitle}} for the list. I think it'll display the information about the ports/re-releases better. The first "Video games" heading is not necessary because the title will give that information. Because of that, all the headings can move up a level: 3 → 2 and 4 → 3. Also, I'd split the games up by series and use those as headings, this should prevent entries appearing more than once.

Here's how I think the table of contents should look:

1 Main series

2 Direct sequels

2.1 Compilation of Final Fantasy VII

2.2 Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy XIII

3 Spinoffs

3.1 Final Fantasy Tactics

3.2 Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles

3.3 Chocobo

4 Compilations

(Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

Alright, so you think I should just have the full dates for the first release, then just the year for the other releases? The ability to do the full date for each region for each release is pretty much the only reason I was using {{Video game table}} and {{Video game table item}}. --PresN 19:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Listing every one is just too much and crowds the tables in my opinion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

Alright, can we get a consensus on what games/series to include under "Spinoffs"? I.e., which ones are "Final Fantasy enough" to make it on this list, rather than the Final Fantasy media list. Note that one option is to take none of them (except for maybe tactics) and keep it to just Main-series and main-series-related on this list. --PresN 20:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say any game you're having a tough time categorizing elsewhere should go here. The media list should briefly cover a good chunk of the game entries. This game list is for another layer of detail for all the games.

To that end I would remove anything from the media list that is a direct sequel, including the FF7 compilation, Ivalice Alliance, and Fabula Nova Crystallis because they are derivative of other entries. Those should probably be briefly mentioned in the notes section. As far as spin offs on the media list, I recommend keeping it simple and have entries for the series as wholes rather than each individual game in those series. Like an entry on the Chocobo series that only describes what it is rather than mention every game. Some details in the notes can be the title and release of the first entry and the genre(s) of the series. I'd say a full list of the spin off series would be Mana, Kingdom Hearts, Tactics, FF Legend, and Crystal Chronicles. Stuff like the snowboarding game, games based on the FFU anime, Crystal Defenders, etc. can be omitted from the media list because they are derivative of other entries and can be briefly mentioned in the notes of their respective entry. I'm tempted to say games like Mystic Quest and Dissidia should be omitted, but they are kind of different from the rest.

This is not quite clear in my head, so please stop me if I'm babbling incoherently. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

Alright, so you're saying that the Video Games list should include every game, spinoff or no, while the Media list should only have a brief overview of the main/spinoff series and direct the reader to the Video Games list for more detail? Or are you saying that the Media list should have brief entries on each spinoff series while the Video Games list has nothing? --PresN 21:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The first one. I think that will trim down the media list which has grown practically too large to manage and allow the video game list to provide more detail than the media list is capable of doing right now. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

Still working on this; it's now broken out to List of Final Fantasy video games. --PresN 17:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's really shaping up. A few suggestions came to mind while skimming though it.

• No need to list an endash for nonexistent regional releases. If it was released only in Japan, then just list a Japanese release date.
• Any year that had multiple system releases can list them on a single line. Like "2002 – PlayStation 2, Microsoft Windows personal computer".
• Is Tactics related to the main series, or would it be a spin-off?
• "Spin-offs" could probably have a subsection titled "Series". The Legend, Crystal Chronicles, et al entries could go there in.
  • I'm wondering it each title in the spin-off series should have their own entry...
• I question whether the "Collections" section is needed. It looks like most of the information is already in or can be added to other entries in the list. Removing it might save space and prevent redundant entries.
• I would change all instances of "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System".

The list is well on its way to FL. Once it's done, the media list should be much easier to manage. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC))

Thanks!

• I left Tactics as "main-series related" due to FF12/FF12:RW being set in Ivalice, with some interview comments that they are before/after the FFTactics games in that world's history. It could go either way, really- they were spinoffs to begin with, then were retcon'd to be prequels/sequels to FF12.
• I kind of want to leave the spin-off series as blocks rather than individual games, if only because there are 30+ of them (I need to add in Kingdom hearts, which will take it to almost 40). That's going to completely overwhelm the list, which is crazy-long to begin with.
• Hmm, yeah, anything in the Collections section is also mentioned in the individual games as well. Let me think about it.
• The replacement section in List of Final Fantasy media is a bit rambling and unsourced, so if anyone wants to take a crack at that... you can probably just copy in references from Final Fantasy or the video games list.

I'll go ahead and implement the rest of your suggestions right away. Searching for dozens/hundreds of refs gets a bit boring! --PresN 19:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I really question whether we should add kingdom hearts, SaGa and/or Legend of Mana series into spin off simply because we decide it its, it feels a bit OR.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's ok. We can back up the claim if need be. There are independent third-party sources that label them as spin-offs. I think a few first-party sources too. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

I worry a little, i know Mana Series is a side story to ff, but would we consider it spin off?Bread Ninja (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The first one, Final Fantasy Adventure, was titled as a Final Fantasy side story. However, every game after it dropped that designation, and the games as a whole have since been recognized as a separate series. That qualifies it as a spin off to me. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

hmmm....very well, on what about kingdom hearts? that one i have alot of doubt that it is a spin off, but probably would believe someone labeling it as such.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at the lead? I wrote it, but I'm not entirely happy with it. I've gotten references made for every line in the article (148 of them!) though I still need to clean the older ones up. I'm leaving off Kingdom Hearts- although FF characters have cameo roles, the world is unique, and it was never marketed as a "Final Fantasy" game, but rather as a unique series. --PresN 21:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've always considered KH a spin-off, but I'm not sure if there are many sources to back that up. I think at the very least the "See also" section should include a link to the KH media list.

I'll try to give the lead a copy edit sometime soon. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

the leads good, and for guyinblack, i think there are similar elements like magic and spin off final fantasy characters. although the minor characters are spin off, i don't think the series itself should be considered as one seeing as how spin off would have to be through the intentions of the one who created the game. Plus, the list already filled with games that have final fantasy or once had final fantasy in the title.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, as soon as I get a copy-edit/get bored of waiting I'll submit it to FLC. --PresN 19:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to revert/tweak as needed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

Alright, nominated. --PresN 16:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it's been a week, and though I've gotten a bunch of comments and sorted out their issues, the nomination hasn't gotten any votes. Would you guys mind stopping by and giving your opinion? Thanks! --PresN 16:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's now passed! --PresN 00:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless i am mistaken, the Final Fantasy series seems to be missing an article that would cover one of the biggest themes and certainly is\are involved in the plots of most of the games. The summoned creatures. Simply south (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's addressed in the gameplay article or under the Summon magic redirect (which seems like it should go to a broader topic than FF). I doubt anyone else would complain if you could expand based on reliable sources. —Ost (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I am considering a Good Article (or a Featured Article) push on the Final Fantasy XIII article. I think the lead section needs to be in three paragraphs. Any comments or suggestions you might have to help make this to either a Good Article or a Featured Article? Thanks in advance. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is constantly getting edited, and although it does seem to be good for GA, i think we should wait until it cools down a bit. that's just me, i think it's ready but i also think the characters article can be split so that more information can be added. Plus it looks a little long. other than that I'm sure there are a few things to fixBread Ninja (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that idea, Bread Ninja. The music section should also be split to the Music of Final Fantasy XIII article if that is possible. I will be working on these pages in my Sandbox as I go along. Any other ideas? Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, I'm not so sure it should be split yet, it's just one soundtrack and it doesn't take up too much space, if anything i say wait until more soundtracks and the info on them come out.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm all over the "music" article. It's one soundtrack + a single, but the OST PLUS is coming out end of May, so when it does I'll have the article ready to go. It's in a sandbox now. I'd support a GA+ push for FF13 right now, just don't worry about the music section yet. --PresN 05:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as suggestions, consider just deleting the characters section and starting over. Half of it seems to have been written based off of the demo and pre-release movies, while most of is half poorly-written character summary, half plot summary. If you want a place to start, though, start with the plot section- aka, there is no plot section, so write a summary. I'll help out when I'm done with my current articles (I just 5-starred the last boss. Trophy for me!) --PresN 06:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I am currently working on the character article here and the music article here. By the way, do you want me to put quotes from the game as references for the plot section (Setting, Characters, Story) and reformat the plot section to match the other Final Fantasy articles (i.e. Final Fantasy XII)? Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be best. Like I said, don't worry about the music article, I got it covered. --PresN 18:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is now up for peer review here. This would help give us more suggestions on how to improve the article. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, since the character section needs to be fixed up as explained above as part of the GA push, I am considering rewriting and consolidating that section to match the other articles per PresN's reasoning and splitting it to an article about the characters (for example, please see Characters of Final Fantasy XII) so more sources can be added per Bread Ninja's suggestion. I am currently working on it in my sandbox, but it still needs some expansion. Any thoughts or objections about splitting the characters section? Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Since there is no response yet, I have decided to take these suggestions to the main article's talk page, which can be found at Talk:Final Fantasy XIII#Good Article Push. Any further suggestions are welcome there. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Music of Final Fantasy XIII now exists. --PresN 01:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Now at GAN. --PresN 19:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Now GA. --PresN 05:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

At User:Teggles' request, I scanned ten pages related to Final Fantasy VIII from some 1999 Game Informers. Just letting you all know in case there's some usable information in them of benefit to the article. Cheers. sesuprime 04:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Trying to track this little bit down to get it translated by a friend of mine, but it seems like every uploaded copy of the soundtrack is lacking the interviews. In a nutshell, SaGa's 20th Anni OST came with an additional 21st disk that had interviews with all the musicians behind the series. Does anyone here happen to have a copy of it? It's probably the only dev info if any we'd get for SaGa 3 in the long run as a result.

And yeah like I said, this is a longshot, especially given the going price for the set is $250.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. The most expensive CD i have is roughly 50 or so and completely unrelated to SE (although still a gaming CD). Might check out some libraries.

Good luck on your search. I wish I had someone willing to help with translations with text and more complex kanji.陣内_Jinnai 02:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, gave it a shot but was unable to find that DVD. I'll keep looking. --PresN 19:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Heads up that a prod was placed and removed by me and there might be an AfD.陣内_Jinnai 21:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, I've opened up a peer review of this list here, if you want to make any comments. Hopefully, it's good enough for FL again. Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nominated for FLC! Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Final Fantasy media/archive1 Leave a comment. :) Axem Titanium (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI- Axem found an online version of a lengthy Edge article about the Final Fantasy series. I'm sure there's snippets of usable content for the individual FF articles. Those interested, here's the citation code:

<ref name="Edge177">{{Cite journal| date= July 2007| title= Final Frontiers| journal= [[Edge (magazine)|Edge]]| publisher= [[Future Publishing]]| issue= 177| pages= 72–79| url=http://www.edge-online.com/news/squares-final-frontier?page=0%252C2,0| accessdate=2024-12-26}}</ref>

(Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC))

Template:Final Fantasy locations looks a little sad right now. It only really has 3 links. We should either TfD it and put see also links on the respective articles or re-expand it to link to the setting section of each game article. Thoughts? Axem Titanium (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Setting articles for most of the games could probably be created if we had access to all the the Japanese-language information that was never translated. It's so difficult to find translators though :( Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually the issue is not development information so much as reception. A lot of the worlds the games are in are lacking any reception and sometimes an actual name.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The review can be found here. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Organization XIII was delisted from GA status. GamerPro64 (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A discussion concerning the use of romaji for English words (mainly titles) written in katakana has been under discussion at WT:MOS-JA#WP:VG/GL#Non-English games. Input from this project is requested.陣内_Jinnai 19:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Final Fantasy media was re-promoted to FL today, three years after being demoted! Congratulations to Axem Titanium! This also marks the SE project's 100th GA,FA, or FL! --PresN 15:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wow, really? Well, thanks. Keep up the good work, everyone! :D Axem Titanium (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Most members may be aware from other groups but since more input is generally being sought, I thought that I would note that there is an ongoing RFC about the use of romanization of English loanwords in the Japanese language. —Ost (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Keiji Kawamori, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keiji Kawamori. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi! The current articles treat the Chocobo series as a part of the Final Fantasy series. However, it is not actually a part of it; Square Enix treats it as a distinct franchise. See http://www.square-enix.com/jp/ , at the bottom of the page, where the main Square Enix franchises are listed. Moreover, when you think about it, the Chocobo series has very different gameplays than Final Fantasy, largely different staffs and a younger, different fanbase. And also quite simply it doesn't have "Final Fantasy" in the original titles of its games. It is similar to Kingdom Hearts in that while it does features Final Fantasy characters (or creatures in this case), it is an original franchise. It even has kind of its own (loose) continuity, with characters like Shirma and Croma who are recurring in it but have never appeared in the main Final Fantasy series. So I think all relevant articles and lists should be corrected to separate Chocobo from Final Fantasy. The two Chocobo games that were released in English as Final Fantasy Fables games should still be mentioned in the Final Fantasy lists for completion's sake, like the Final Fantasy Legend games. Thoughts? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this comes from the fact that Chocobos came from the FF games, had FF characters in the early chocobo games (mog, bahamut cloud and squall were in racing), Cid is in the Chocobo Dungeon games, Chocobo World was part of FF8, and new and rereleased games are now being called Final Fantasy Fables.. Theres NO mainstream Chocobo game that doesn't borrow from a Final Fantasy game, in name or characters. I wouldn't to be honest say the series is strong enough to be considered a franchise on its own outside of Japan.. The English Wikipedia puts preference on RoW over Japan despite it being the CoO chocobogamer mine 23:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What would it actually mean to treat it as a separate franchise? I don't think it would entail treating Chocobo articles any differently than they currently are, to be honest. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably a sub-franchise like Shin Megami Tensei: Persona is to Megami Tensei.陣内_Jinnai 01:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but as editors and members of this Wikiproject, what would that mean to us? Would we treat them differently in some way? Axem Titanium (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It would only change the "lists of" articles, basically, which is why I'm kinda surprised no one is agreeing. All the stuff in my first post were additional stuff to try to make it more obvious, but I could also have only mentioned the SE website, as the bottom line is that the SE website lists Chocobo as a distinct franchise in its franchise list, next to Final Fantasy, next to Kingdom Hearts and all the others. SE treats both KH and Chocobo as distinct from FF. SE America also makes references to a Chocobo series.[2] Megata Sanshiro (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess it is like the Seiken Densetsu series, where originally comes from the FF series (FF Gaiden Seiken Densetsu) and later developed into its own world. However, there's a difference for chocobo, KH and Seiken. KH clearly states it as a crossover series and Seiken Densetsu slowly got rid of almost all of the FF influence(except maybe for the Moggled special status) Chocobo series still clearly uses many FF elements like Cid, Summon monsters and same magic system. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 09:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As I was saying before, what does that actually mean to us editors? What kind of change are you looking for in terms of our presentation of that series? This is Wikiproject Square Enix so it would still cover Chocobo just as well as FF. What change are you proposing to the "List of" articles? Axem Titanium (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

MythSearcher, that sounds logical, but the bottom line is still that SE considers Chocobo a distinct franchise. Seiken Densetsu is a distinct franchise because SE considers it at such (it is listed separately from FF), not because they got rid of the FF elements. Same for Kingdom Hearts (SE lists it separately and the sales figures of the series are also counted separately). Axem Titanium, I think the List of Final Fantasy video games should not list the Chocobo games (except FF Fables), just like it doesn't list the KH games. It should have a "See also" link to Chocobo (series) instead. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you're taking this a bit too seriously. The ultimate goal is so the reader can be informed. Ask yourself, "will removing the Chocobo games from the List of FF games benefit the reader?" If the answer is no, then don't do it. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the page should reflect what the collection of games is best know as in English. MS notes that Square-Enix America calls it a series—as we do—and I don't think that we have any other sources calling it a franchise (including SE Europe). It may be interesting that SE considers them franchises, but does that necessarily make them mutually exclusive? It may just mean updating the series article to say franchise. I don't think that the non-Final Fantasy Fables games should be excluded, especially if older Chocobo games are being re-released as such. The series share myriad elements and there may precedence for spin-off franchises (e.g., both Mega Man and Mega Man X are called franchises in their ledes and both series are present on List of Mega Man games).

Tangentially, Chocobo doesn't currently mention any games from its series. —Ost (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

well, i just thought i show some light on some much needed articles. for example Before Crisis: Final Fantasy VII needs refs for the characters (not much, just to verify them), gameplay (perhaps some coverage on a magazine like dangeki or famitsu?) and story needs to be trimmed. After that, some reception and some mention of development would be good to move it up to at least C-class (again probably from Dangeki or famitsu). An image of all the playable characters wouldn't hurt either

as for Dirge of Cerberus: Final Fantasy VII and Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII need more refs on gameplay. but other than that. i think it could merit to at least B-class if not A-class or GA. this gave me the idea of making an article for the turks, similar to how Organization XIII has it's own article. but it's up to us to find the sources.

Now onto other matters that aren't so important, but some-what relevant.

the ff series template, shows Final Fantasy IV: The After Years and Final Fantasy X-2 in the spin off section even though they are direct sequels. maybe they should be added in parentheses next to the original game? well I'll leave it to you guys to start things, but i think this is very important and hope we get some agreement and/or refs.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed IV:AY and X-2 from the spin-off section since they're already listed above in the custom section. Axem Titanium (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say to wait on making a Turks article until we're sure we have reasonable concept/creation and reception. While there are many Turks, only Tseng, Reno, Rude, Elena, and Cissnei have a real importance in the series. The others lacks names, don't appear past BC, and have a small description rather than a decent back story or personality. I can attempt to source the character page with what I have (the Reunion Files), but we'll probably need some more guidebooks or Ultimanias. Before Crisis will be difficult to expand, but I left some articles that contain reception and possibly gameplay info on the article's talk page. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with WhiteArticWolf. Besides the Org XIII article is not the best example due to its large in-universe info. As I researched, Yuffie may have more opportunities of having an article than the Turks, but as far as I'm experienced, it's better to create article once we have the out-of-universe info. Besides, it's not like Dirge of Cerberus and Crisis Core are having some big and serious issues. It's not like they are GA and are about to be reviewed. About prequels and sequels, X-2 is a sequel, while the only VII game labelled as spin-off is Dirge of Cerberus.Tintor2 (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I contemplated making a Yuffie article, but it didn't go as well as I hoped, with most sites that you'd check for sources pretty much disregarding her. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Also agree with that.Tintor2 (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not saying the Turks is article will gain immediate attention and make a article ASAP. but i just thought it would be interesting to see how much we can find. AS before Crisis Core and Dirge of Cerberus, i know they aren't urgent, but i just thought i shed some light to those who aren't focusing much on it. though I'm sure we can find some sources on the gameplay considering they were released in English territories.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Hirosato Noda, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hirosato Noda. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Two Square Enix Wikiproject articles Dissidia: Final Fantasy and Final Fantasy XII are now missing their cover boxart thanks to an edit that made the images orphaned and speedily deleted. Now both pages are using logo images which if WP:VGIMAGES is concerned, says that English boxart should be used instead. If I remember, logo images are a no-no, as they are mere decorations unlike a boxart that identifies the appearance of the product. Am I correct and what should be done? — Blue。 12:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you're justified in just going ahead and finding it somewhere on the internet and reuploading them. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out that the current FF12 cover is an English boxart, because PAL region uses the same boxart. --Mika1h (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded the Dissidia boxart. For XII im not sure i'd stick with the current one as it lacks the company logo and other product information that identifies it as being made for the PS2, ratings and others. — Blue。 16:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Takashi Katano, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takashi Katano. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please sign your name and date below with four tildes if you are still with us.

1. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
2. The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Ost (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
5. PresN 15:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
6. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
7. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
8. — Deckiller 01:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
9. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
10. Ost (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
11. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

A discussion has begun about whether the article Takayoshi Nakazato, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takayoshi Nakazato until a concensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This article has been kept. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this AfD may be worth revisiting in the future, as the first generated little discussion. It is very borderline, and some interview sources—if any—should be hunted down. — Deckiller 00:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

A user keeps removing sources from Tifa Lockhart to modify information without consensus about the character's hair and keeps breaking WP:Civility and assuming bad faith as seen in Talk:Tifa Lockhart#Hair. I would revert the edits, but it would result into an edit war.Tintor2 (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to make a few suggestions here:

1. The Final Fantasy portal has been inactive for quite some time, apart from Portal:Final Fantasy/Final Fantasy Featured Articles and Good Articles. Therefore, I suggest that we change it to the Square Enix portal, since most of the WPFF has been merged into it almost a year ago.
2. This project might need a coordinator, such as those in WP:FILM. That way, it would maintain all of the procedural and administrative aspects of this project.

Does anyone have any comments or objections about these proposals? Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I was only wondering whether the portals are even accessed at all? — Blue。 19:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

about 20 times a day. So, not much; I don't really know that we need a portal at all. I don't think a project of 7 people really needs a coordinator. The only admin thing we really have is keeping the front page and index page up to date, and I/we take care of that pretty well. --PresN 20:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A discussion has begun about whether the article Takeshi Nozue, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takeshi Nozue until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is now deleted. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Square Enix articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

a discussion about the final fanasy template and Final Fantasy Tactics (series) article is in progresss in the WT:VG page.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A discussion has begun about whether the article Final Fantasy gameplay, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final Fantasy gameplay until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This article really should have never been brought to AFD. Gameguide, etc. are not applicable here, and the page demonstrates clear notability and potential for encyclopedic coverage. It's just a matter of userfying, as that AFD stated. — Deckiller 23:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is really confusing. It is supposed to be about compilations of Final Fantasy I and Final Fantasy II but it also discusses standalone releases of these two games (PSP, iPhone, Blackberry sections). Besides, it only describes changes and additions, which are sometimes very minor and trivial (you know it's trivial when the editor starts a sentence with "Interestingly, ..."). There is no actual Gameplay and Development sections in the article. Just because it's about re-releases doesn't mean it shouldn't have those sections (see Final Fantasy Chronicles, a GA). Furthermore, the Reception section is very disjointed; when dealing with a game that has a dozen of different versions, I think the Reception section should try to summarize things a bit instead of dealing with each release individually in a repetitive manner. Also, the Game Boy Advance section has a random paragraph about reception for some reason.
Basically, I think the current format is not suitable because it's the usual video game article format, even though the real topic isn't a video game (or two video games) but simply the differences between the versions of a video game (or two video games). For all those reasons, I think the article should either be:

• recycled into Final Fantasy (video game)#Versions and re-releases and Final Fantasy II#Re-releases, which already contain most (if not all) the actually non-trivial information, or
• rewritten into an actual List of Final Fantasy versions and an actual List of Final Fantasy II versions, which would be list-style articles similar to List of Final Fantasy video games or Versions and ports of Doom, and would convey their points better than the current insuited format.

Thoughts? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Gut it. It used to be rereleases (which would include PSP, iPhone versions) but it was really just a holding ground for a bunch of articles with little room for expansion. Redistribute the useful info into FF1 and FF2. Axem Titanium (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, gut it. Most of the article has do to with the changes between version, but those changes are better described in the two articles themselves. Final Fantasy II, in fact, which I GA'd a while back, already skims through the changes between version even if it was a compilation release; and I see that the same is true for FF1. The article has no real value, therefore. Since three people is about a consensus around here, I'll go ahead and split it up tonight; shouldn't take too long. --PresN 02:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This article has been merged into Final Fantasy (video game). Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears a large ammount of users have gone to it and edit it drastically, to a point where i can't revert them all. I need some help. alot of refs are gone.Bread Ninja (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that the FFVII template has all the characters in brackets. I think this looks rather messy, so I think we should change it from

to

Understandably, Axem Titanium reverted the edit when I made it, because this leaves Gaia on its own with no other articles, meaning it's a whole line for just one article. Rather than engage in an edit war, I thought I should go here and see which other people thought looked better. Harry Blue5 (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's fine the original way although it would be nice if characters was made a bit clearer.陣内_Jinnai 19:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, we need to make a Universe-related article! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

there are some navbox templates out there that have one group if they don't fit with the rest. sometimes it's ok.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it's that messy. This method is used often elsewhere, while I don't believe that having a single article on its own line is a common practice. Also, technically, Gaia is the Universe article, if that helps. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit split here and can see both points of view...I'm inclined to like the original more, if only because the actual universe is Gaia and the other characters fit within the label. And I don't think that it looks messy. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Both are fine, but I'd prefer the first. --PresN 21:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with PresN, having an additional column for just one article appears to be pointless.Tintor2 (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away and put words in other people's mouths. Consensus is to keep the original, so we'll keep it.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I was agreeing with PresN, and then gave my own opinion. Please avoid bad faith.Tintor2 (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

that would be contradicting, but again,we have consensus. so no use discussing this.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

My only issue with such a move is that it may encourage newer users to "expand" the Universe header and insert excessive information, but I'm sure everyone will be on top of that. Our current articles lead by example anyway. — Deckiller 01:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)