Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Fantasy VII/archive1: Difference between revisions
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
**Thanks very much. I'll fix that "however" you mentioned. I appreciate the support and input. [[User:Ryu Kaze|Ryu Kaze]] 18:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
**Thanks very much. I'll fix that "however" you mentioned. I appreciate the support and input. [[User:Ryu Kaze|Ryu Kaze]] 18:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
***Oh, wait. I see what happened there. Half of the preceding sentence got cut off at some point. The "However" was supposed to point out that a rebuttle was coming to mention of the remake rumor. I'm glad you caugh this. [[User:Ryu Kaze|Ryu Kaze]] 19:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
***Oh, wait. I see what happened there. Half of the preceding sentence got cut off at some point. The "However" was supposed to point out that a rebuttle was coming to mention of the remake rumor. I'm glad you caugh this. [[User:Ryu Kaze|Ryu Kaze]] 19:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
*'''Minor object''' simply because it's 3X the recommended size. Otherwise, it's an excellent article. If this were on one of the biggest events in the history of the world, such as [[World War II]], I could live with the article's size, but we are after all dealing with a video game here.[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 19:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
*<s>'''Minor object'''</s> simply because it's 3X the recommended size. Otherwise, it's an excellent article. If this were on one of the biggest events in the history of the world, such as [[World War II]], I could live with the article's size, but we are after all dealing with a video game here.[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 19:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
**Read the nomination italics. — '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]][[User:Deckiller/EA|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User talk:Deckiller|r]]''' 19:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
**Read the nomination italics. — '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]][[User:Deckiller/EA|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User talk:Deckiller|r]]''' 19:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
***This isn't really an actionable objection, is it? It sounds like you're saying that you're objecting based solely on the length alone, regardless of whether or not the length is needed. The category of the subject has no bearing on how many kbs are required to provide proper coverage of the subject. Some video games require more coverage than others, as some have more content than others or are more notable than others (this particular title falling into both categories). The [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article?|featured article criteria]] makes no mention of the "recommended length" thing. That's simply [[Wikipedia:Article size|a stylistic suggestion]], not an actual rule, and one that openly admits that there will be exceptions to how strictly it should be considered. Few, if any, FAs would make it if there was a rule that we couldn't exceed 32kb. [[User:Ryu Kaze|Ryu Kaze]] 19:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
***This isn't really an actionable objection, is it? It sounds like you're saying that you're objecting based solely on the length alone, regardless of whether or not the length is needed. The category of the subject has no bearing on how many kbs are required to provide proper coverage of the subject. Some video games require more coverage than others, as some have more content than others or are more notable than others (this particular title falling into both categories). The [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article?|featured article criteria]] makes no mention of the "recommended length" thing. That's simply [[Wikipedia:Article size|a stylistic suggestion]], not an actual rule, and one that openly admits that there will be exceptions to how strictly it should be considered. Few, if any, FAs would make it if there was a rule that we couldn't exceed 32kb. [[User:Ryu Kaze|Ryu Kaze]] 19:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
*****We refuse to succumb to that sort of cutting down on our FACs; I think the other FACs in question think that the objections are credible as they are, and therefore do not form a solid counterarguement. — '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]][[User:Deckiller/EA|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User talk:Deckiller|r]]''' 19:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
*****We refuse to succumb to that sort of cutting down on our FACs; I think the other FACs in question think that the objections are credible as they are, and therefore do not form a solid counterarguement. — '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]][[User:Deckiller/EA|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User talk:Deckiller|r]]''' 19:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
******Agreed. They're simply not credible "faults" and won't be recognized as such because they aren't part of criteria. In any event, why would examples of people not recognizing proper FAC procedure in other FACs have any bearing on this FAC — which ''should'' recognize FAC procedure? I'm not accusing you of anything, but the way you worded that almost suggests that this is a case of [[WP:POINT]]. Is it? [[User:Ryu Kaze|Ryu Kaze]] 19:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
******Agreed. They're simply not credible "faults" and won't be recognized as such because they aren't part of criteria. In any event, why would examples of people not recognizing proper FAC procedure in other FACs have any bearing on this FAC — which ''should'' recognize FAC procedure? I'm not accusing you of anything, but the way you worded that almost suggests that this is a case of [[WP:POINT]]. Is it? [[User:Ryu Kaze|Ryu Kaze]] 19:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
*******I've spoken with [[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] on his talk page. He's expressed that he isn't interested in coming back to explain his reasoning further and that his objection can be dismissed.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rlevse&diff=prev&oldid=69770902] [[User:Ryu Kaze|Ryu Kaze]] 16:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* Additionally, I'd like to nip something else in the bud: just because this article is 98 KB long and featured 140 references doesn't mean that all FAs must mimic this; most gaming articles should have about 50-60 references, but this article must be extremely comprehensive about several additional aspects than the other final fantasies, namely significance, the compilation, etc. — '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]][[User:Deckiller/EA|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User talk:Deckiller|r]]''' 19:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
* Additionally, I'd like to nip something else in the bud: just because this article is 98 KB long and featured 140 references doesn't mean that all FAs must mimic this; most gaming articles should have about 50-60 references, but this article must be extremely comprehensive about several additional aspects than the other final fantasies, namely significance, the compilation, etc. — '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]][[User:Deckiller/EA|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User talk:Deckiller|r]]''' 19:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
**That ''is'' something that needed to be brought up. Also, I'd like to add to what Deck said by pointing out that no other video game has had as much [[Wikipedia:Fancruft|cruft]] associated with it, requiring extensive use of references here. [[User:Ryu Kaze|Ryu Kaze]] 19:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
**That ''is'' something that needed to be brought up. Also, I'd like to add to what Deck said by pointing out that no other video game has had as much [[Wikipedia:Fancruft|cruft]] associated with it, requiring extensive use of references here. [[User:Ryu Kaze|Ryu Kaze]] 19:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:56, 15 August 2006
I'm wicked jealous — this is perhaps the best article on Wikipedia. It has nearly 140 references, is amazingly comprehensive when considering that this is the most influential video game of all time (but not the best!), and 80 percent of the work was done by Ryu; I only performed a light copyedit on this one. Speaking of copyedits, it might need a few more tweaks, but we'll leave that for you to determine. Additionally, I raised a few concerns with Ryu, and here was his reply:
- Maybe it's because I'm too close to the subject (I wrote the entire article, and after almost 100kb, I guess that's inevitable XD), but I honestly can't see what we could lose from the Plot or Development sections. I mean, the thing is long as hell, yeah, but it does meet the FA criterion of staying tightly focused on the subject. Pesonally, I think if we shortened anything, we'd be losing that comprehensive overview.
- I mean, looking back through the various Plot sections, I don't see anything we can lose because it's either backstory vital to understanding the rest of it, subplots that have to be touched upon in order to meet comprehensive standards, character design info that we always include and shouldn't cut just on the basis of length (it's technically shorter than VIII's character section anyway), or the major revelations and resolutions of the storyline (and we're still ignoring how much? Rufus gets mentioned one time, we don't mention any specific Turks' names, "huge materia" doesn't pop up, nor does "Sister Ray" or "Northern Cave", Bugenhagen's name doesn't even appear outside of references, all the specifics of Barret, Red, Yuffie and Cid's stories don't even get touched on, etc.). I know there's a lot of content to the article, but there's a lot of content to the game, and we don't even make note of a lot of it. More than most of them have in all honesty.
- In the Development section, we're able to provide info on the software that was used in the game's development, how many people it took, how much money was spent, what prompted the leap into 3D, the initial 3D experiment (something that resulted in some criticism leveled at Square by gamers, which is mentioned later), the rationale behind some extremely notable decisions that have affected gaming ever since, the difficulties overcome in developing this groundbreaking game, and one of the most intensive marketing campaigns in the history of gaming. Again, I know we've got a lot of content, but this isn't an article about just any game. I know I'm sounding like a Final Fantasy VII zealot when I say that, but it's true. I might not personally worship the game, but it can't be denied its props. This is the World War II of video game articles. I mean, this really is the game that changed everything. Playing video games in the US was suddenly cool, "RPG" became a household name outside Japan, and you could say a game took 60 hours to finish to an awed audience instead of a jeering one.
- I know there are some people who will oppose on the basis of length alone, but we both know that's not a valid objection. They would have to explain how we got off the subject in the face of us knowing why the information is relevant and able to point it out. There are actually Featured Articles longer this one, such as World War I, Polish-Soviet War, Byzantine Empire and Theodore Roosevelt.
- I know you also have concerns about the References, but according to Wikipedia:Article size, only the main body of prose is supposed to be counted. Reviewers aren't even supposed to look at the references beyond making sure that they're actually referencing what we claim they are.
- I really feel like it deserves its place as FA like it stands right now. If FA isn't something an article can get just because somebody says "This comprehensive and informative article on a major subject takes me more than half a second to scroll the entire length... and I'm just too lazy to scroll any longer than that" then it's not an honor worth getting. I think we should try it before cutting anything, and only cut if they provide some darn good reasoning. I usually go with your advice, and I won't consider moving the article forward until you agree with me, but this time, I feel sure of our current standing. I really feel sure. Ryu Kaze 13:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe I have nothing more to say. This is how Ryu wanted to depart from Wikipedia activity with a bang, and I think he'll get one. — Deckiller 17:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Co-nom/obvious support: As Deckiller said (and thank you for the wonderful comments, Deck; I didn't realize you thought so highly of the article), I did a lot of work on this one and I feel like it warrants being counted among the best of Wikipedia. I guess what he's quoted from me probably says everything that I need to or would want to say, so I'll just leave it here and await the input of all of you. Ryu Kaze 17:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - The Compilation of Final Fantasy VII section could probably be shortened, with the bulk of it going in its own spinoff article. There should probably be a mention of the sequels in the lead, as well. Other than that, this looks fine. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- The Compilation section actually had its own page a couple of months ago, but we merged it in because it wasn't doing anything other than serving as a link station for the various titles that are part of the project. We felt that it made the most sense to discuss the Compilation within the article the project is based on, while providing links to the various titles that comprise it. You make a good point about the sequels. I meant to add mention of that into the lead and will do so now. Thank you for the reminder and general approval. Ryu Kaze 18:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support - I'm usually a jerk about references, but at 138, I don't think I have too much to complain about there. The article is long, yes. But I can't say what should be cut. There's just too much to cover- most of the sidestories are ignored or incredibly short as it is. The only critism that I have is minor- In the very end of the Compilation section, second to last paragraph, that "however" doesn't make any sense, as it's supporting the previous sentence. Other than that- well done Ryu! This is an amazing article, and the speed at which you moved it from bloated GA to FAC is awe-inspiring. --PresN 18:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. I'll fix that "however" you mentioned. I appreciate the support and input. Ryu Kaze 18:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, wait. I see what happened there. Half of the preceding sentence got cut off at some point. The "However" was supposed to point out that a rebuttle was coming to mention of the remake rumor. I'm glad you caugh this. Ryu Kaze 19:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. I'll fix that "however" you mentioned. I appreciate the support and input. Ryu Kaze 18:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Minor objectsimply because it's 3X the recommended size. Otherwise, it's an excellent article. If this were on one of the biggest events in the history of the world, such as World War II, I could live with the article's size, but we are after all dealing with a video game here.Rlevse 19:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)- Read the nomination italics. — Deckiller 19:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't really an actionable objection, is it? It sounds like you're saying that you're objecting based solely on the length alone, regardless of whether or not the length is needed. The category of the subject has no bearing on how many kbs are required to provide proper coverage of the subject. Some video games require more coverage than others, as some have more content than others or are more notable than others (this particular title falling into both categories). The featured article criteria makes no mention of the "recommended length" thing. That's simply a stylistic suggestion, not an actual rule, and one that openly admits that there will be exceptions to how strictly it should be considered. Few, if any, FAs would make it if there was a rule that we couldn't exceed 32kb. Ryu Kaze 19:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Tell that to the people that have had FACs cut down because of it.Rlevse 19:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- We refuse to succumb to that sort of cutting down on our FACs; I think the other FACs in question think that the objections are credible as they are, and therefore do not form a solid counterarguement. — Deckiller 19:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. They're simply not credible "faults" and won't be recognized as such because they aren't part of criteria. In any event, why would examples of people not recognizing proper FAC procedure in other FACs have any bearing on this FAC — which should recognize FAC procedure? I'm not accusing you of anything, but the way you worded that almost suggests that this is a case of WP:POINT. Is it? Ryu Kaze 19:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've spoken with Rlevse on his talk page. He's expressed that he isn't interested in coming back to explain his reasoning further and that his objection can be dismissed.[1] Ryu Kaze 16:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. They're simply not credible "faults" and won't be recognized as such because they aren't part of criteria. In any event, why would examples of people not recognizing proper FAC procedure in other FACs have any bearing on this FAC — which should recognize FAC procedure? I'm not accusing you of anything, but the way you worded that almost suggests that this is a case of WP:POINT. Is it? Ryu Kaze 19:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- We refuse to succumb to that sort of cutting down on our FACs; I think the other FACs in question think that the objections are credible as they are, and therefore do not form a solid counterarguement. — Deckiller 19:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Tell that to the people that have had FACs cut down because of it.Rlevse 19:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't really an actionable objection, is it? It sounds like you're saying that you're objecting based solely on the length alone, regardless of whether or not the length is needed. The category of the subject has no bearing on how many kbs are required to provide proper coverage of the subject. Some video games require more coverage than others, as some have more content than others or are more notable than others (this particular title falling into both categories). The featured article criteria makes no mention of the "recommended length" thing. That's simply a stylistic suggestion, not an actual rule, and one that openly admits that there will be exceptions to how strictly it should be considered. Few, if any, FAs would make it if there was a rule that we couldn't exceed 32kb. Ryu Kaze 19:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Read the nomination italics. — Deckiller 19:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Additionally, I'd like to nip something else in the bud: just because this article is 98 KB long and featured 140 references doesn't mean that all FAs must mimic this; most gaming articles should have about 50-60 references, but this article must be extremely comprehensive about several additional aspects than the other final fantasies, namely significance, the compilation, etc. — Deckiller 19:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- That is something that needed to be brought up. Also, I'd like to add to what Deck said by pointing out that no other video game has had as much cruft associated with it, requiring extensive use of references here. Ryu Kaze 19:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Object, excessive use of so-called "fair use" images, most of which have nearly identically written (and insufficient) fair-use rationales. For example, almost every image says "The image is used to demonstrate the game's distinctive art style", but it's not at all clear that 11 images are required to do this, nor is the "distinctive art style" of the game ever discussed in the article. To move to specific images,
- Image:Ffviibox.jpg. Rationale says "The image is used to illustrate important characteristics of the game mentioned in the article, which conveys to the reader an idea of what they look like", but it isn't. It's just used for decoration in the infobox. At 650x650 px, it's also hardly "low-resolution" as stated in the license tag. Also, no source is given for the image.
- Image:FFVIIbattlexample.jpg has no fair-use rationale at all, and no source is given.
- Image:Midgartechdemoshot.JPG. Rationale once again says "The image is used to illustrate important characteristics of the game mentioned in the article, which conveys to the reader an idea of what they look like", but the caption just says "City of Midgar", not explaining anything about what precisely is being seen in the image. Some aspects of the city are mentioned in passing in the article, but there's no way to tell which in any of them are being shown in this picture.
- Image:FFVIInomuracastdesigns.JPG and
- Image:FFVIIsephirothdesignbynomura.JPG. The rationales for these images once again say "The image is used to illustrate important characteristics of the game mentioned in the article, which conveys to the reader an idea of what they look like", but actually they both illustrate what some characters in the game look like. The characters' physical appearance does not seem to be an important characteristic of the game at all; certainly not so important that the existing text description needs to be accompanied by two images. Image:FFVIInomuracastdesigns.JPG, at 567x632 px, is also not low-resolution.
- Image:FFVIImeteorapproaching.jpg. The rationale includes the familiar line "The image is used to illustrate important characteristics of the game mentioned in the article, which conveys to the reader an idea of what they look like", but with no explanation of why the reader needs to know what it looks like.
- Image:FFVIIaerithrest.jpg. Same as above; why does the reader need to know what this scene looks like?
- Image:FFVIIneomidgar.JPG. Same as above. What crucial information does this image provide that is not already adequately covered by the text in the sentence "While the landscape had once been desolate due to Shin-Ra's operations, it is now a land of lush greenery"?
- Image:Compilation of FF7 logo.jpg is just the logo of the series to which the game belongs. Why is this image essential to understanding the article?
Apart from the problems with the images, the article seems to contain some original research (for example, who says "Themes of the game include environmental awareness, acceptance of self, and the nature of life, death and the spirit"? Is that the editor's own interpretation?) I notice a lot of the "references" are actually just quotes from the game, meaning primary rather than secondary sources are being used. That's not against policy, but it is discouraged, especially for claims that are open to more than one interpretation. User:Angr 19:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- That line you quoted is in the lead section. It is explained in detail in the sections below. — Deckiller 20:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it isn't; I went ahead and removed it. Ryu, why did you add that line anyway? Was it the literature teacher inside you? It seems the rest of the objection is the usual fare; the primary source issue is something that has not been objected before, as it is the only way to source a plot without going to "fansites" (besides, a lot of fictional FAs don't even use sources for their synopsis sections at all!). — Deckiller 20:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Must have been said literature teacher inside me. As far as objecting to the use of the script references, echoing Deckiller, no one has objected to these before, especially on the grounds that they're not reliable (a secondary source would have a more reliable quote than the game?). Anyway, I'm going to see to those image issues now. Ryu Kaze 21:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- By the way Angr, I'm confused by your objections on the character designs. How are the main characters not important aspects of the game? Ryu Kaze 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I've made several changes for the images. See my response to A Man in Black just below. Ryu Kaze 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- By the way Angr, I'm confused by your objections on the character designs. How are the main characters not important aspects of the game? Ryu Kaze 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Must have been said literature teacher inside me. As far as objecting to the use of the script references, echoing Deckiller, no one has objected to these before, especially on the grounds that they're not reliable (a secondary source would have a more reliable quote than the game?). Anyway, I'm going to see to those image issues now. Ryu Kaze 21:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it isn't; I went ahead and removed it. Ryu, why did you add that line anyway? Was it the literature teacher inside you? It seems the rest of the objection is the usual fare; the primary source issue is something that has not been objected before, as it is the only way to source a plot without going to "fansites" (besides, a lot of fictional FAs don't even use sources for their synopsis sections at all!). — Deckiller 20:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Weak object- I don't usually agree with Angr on most of these objections, but the battle example does need a rationale and source, and I'm not sure what purpose the meteor image serves. The Aeris's death scene is iconic, but it would probably be better replaced with an image of Sephiroth actually killing Aeris. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)- You know, this is a full-on objection; he's right about several of these. I'll handle them one by one.
- The cover in the infobox is fine, but it needs a caption and the source image needs to be reduced. I've tagged it with {{fairusereduce}} as such.
- Hey, I added the caption and series functions to the infobox for a reason; why not use them?
- The town image could stand to be moved down; on narrrower resolutions, it makes the beginning of this para unreadable.
- The battle image needs a source and rationale.
- How is that map at all fair-use? It's a substantial reproduction of one of the major features of that strategy guide. That's a map that someone is trying to sell.
- Why do we need a separate image of Midgar? This one is right on the cusp IMO; it illustrates both the cinematics and the city itself, but it needs a better caption.
- The cast image needs to be shrunk and has been tagged as such. It's okay other than that because it's illustrating both Nomura's art style and the plot summary (showing what each character looks like).
- The Sephiroth image seems gratuitous. We already have a Nomura character design image, and if the Aeris picture is switched, we'll have an in-game image.
- Not sure what the meteor image is there for; yup, it's a meteor.
- The Cloud/Aeris image isn't the iconic scene; where's Sephiroth killing Aeris?
- Why is there an image of Midgar covered in greenery?
- The logo of Compilation seems fine to me; this is the article for Compilation (and thus the image is useful for identification), and it's a significant departure from previous FFVII marketing materials.
- I think about four of these images (indutrial Midgar, green Midgar, Sephiroth, Cloud/Aeris) could be ditched, and replaced with the Sephiroth-killing-Aeris image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'll address these issues. Some of the fair-use rationale problems are more a result of me worrying about so many different aspects of the article at once that I slipped up there. Thanks for the advice. Ryu Kaze 21:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, here are the changes I've made:
- Shrunk boxart image. By the way, Angr, this isn't a decorative piece. It's identifying the subject of the article
- Shrunk town image and moved it down some
- Got the fair-use rationale for the battle image
- Shrunk the map image considerably
- Changed the caption on the image of Midgar to identify it as an overhead shot of the city
- Shrunk the image of the main characters substantially
- Removed Nomura's design of Sephiroth
- Removed the image of Meteor
- Replaced the image of Cloud putting Aerith's body in the water with one of Sephiroth killing her. By the way, Angr, as MIB said, this is an iconic scene from the game. Please read the article for an explanation of why
- Removed the image of Midgar covered with greenery
- Is this sufficient to address all image concerns? Ryu Kaze 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm still unhappy with the map image. That's not fair-use, it's just copyvio. It needs to be replaced with an image that isn't a substantial reproduction of a for-sale work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've gotten a non-for-sale replacement for it. Ryu Kaze 22:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Where did this map come from? Did FF Compendium scan it from somewhere, or make it themselves? Can you contact them to ask them to release their work under the GFDL? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll ask them. Ryu Kaze 23:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I tell you what: until we can get a map under the GFDL, I'm just going to remove it altogether so there's no concern over fair-use for it. Ryu Kaze 23:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll ask them. Ryu Kaze 23:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Where did this map come from? Did FF Compendium scan it from somewhere, or make it themselves? Can you contact them to ask them to release their work under the GFDL? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've gotten a non-for-sale replacement for it. Ryu Kaze 22:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm still unhappy with the map image. That's not fair-use, it's just copyvio. It needs to be replaced with an image that isn't a substantial reproduction of a for-sale work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, all of my concerns are resolved. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Cool. I've sent a request for the GFDL of the image to the maintenance guru at FFCompendium, so hopefully we'll be able to use it later. Ryu Kaze 23:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: There are two sentences in the article with a whopping five citations lined up in a row (one is the end of the first paragraph in "Characters," the other in the first para of "Compilation of Final Fantasy VII"). I appreciate the desire to properly and conclusively cite sources, but it seems a bit overcrowded and hard to read. Might both of these cases be properly cited with, say, no more than three footnotes each? Alternatively, if you feel that all of the sources are necessary, you might think of putting some of them into the markup, commented-out ("<!-- Further details on such-and-such can be found in Authorname, Book Title, pages 10-12" and so on). Andrew Levine 21:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - It's fairly obvious that you never read the article before it was turned into an FAC. As stated above, FF7 is the most cruft-attracting game ever. For an article that has historicaly been a bloated plot summary to be submitted as a ~100kb FAC, there needs to be almost epic levels of referencing to show that that is not the case here. I also disagree with putting references in markup- what's the point of references if you can't see them on the article itself? it defeats the purpose of having them in the first place. I dont' feel that they are distracting, even the 5-in-a-row ones. --PresN 21:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that there's no point in references that can't be seen, but I'll go ahead and just reduce the quantity to three each for the sake of readability. Ryu Kaze 22:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - It's fairly obvious that you never read the article before it was turned into an FAC. As stated above, FF7 is the most cruft-attracting game ever. For an article that has historicaly been a bloated plot summary to be submitted as a ~100kb FAC, there needs to be almost epic levels of referencing to show that that is not the case here. I also disagree with putting references in markup- what's the point of references if you can't see them on the article itself? it defeats the purpose of having them in the first place. I dont' feel that they are distracting, even the 5-in-a-row ones. --PresN 21:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Weak Oppose/comment The compilation section has a dizzying amount of links. Between the wikilinksand the footnote links, it makes the section rather difficult to read. Kevin_b_er 02:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)- Thanks for your input. I've fixed it up. Ryu Kaze 04:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak support. I have several complaints, but they're rather weak ones, mainly the fact that often the character section rambles on a bit about the characters' design. This is all subjective though, which is why I'm supporting and not objecting. You guys did a good job again. (When you're done, I'd like to work with me on FFIV next, and I've done a bit of starting it up, and plan to work on it a bit more, mainly because this November will mark its 15th anniversary). Sir Crazyswordsman 03:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support. I'm probably going to be pretty busy in the offline world soon, by the way, so I may not be able to help. :( Ryu Kaze 04:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'll definitely be around, but not in full swing once college rolls around next month. — Deckiller 04:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support I can't really say much except I read it, it is really good, and it seems to pass FA standards with flying colors. RN 07:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you! Ryu Kaze 12:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)