Talk:Character design of Final Fantasy

Where'd it go?

Is it possible to delay merging in the races page until this page has the relevant information for the same? - ashish.vashisht

Where did you guys decide to put Dwarves and Humans, again?

Also, Under Mascots or whatever you want to call it, remember to put Tonberries, Pupus, Onion Knights, Moombas, Cactuars, and Cait Siths (Cait Sith was originally just a cat, before it became an FFVII character). I think there's some more, but I can't remember what they are.KrytenKoro 01:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, also, at least on the talk page, could we list where to find the other race's information, at least for a short time? I don't know where to look for Al Bhed or Seeqs, since they still lead here.

You guys will need to make sure you go over all the old races and fix that.KrytenKoro 06:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

For the mascots - I'd assume that a source for these would be them being used as mascots or dolls in FFX, frequent appearances in side games and main games, and as Square Enix plushies.KrytenKoro 15:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Being used as part of the Mascot Dresssphere does not mean that they are mascots of Final Fantasy. That type of costume could be referred to as a mascot costume. Look at the Moomba, for example. It appears only in FFVIII and is referenced by the Mascot Dresssphere. It makes no other appearances, period. In order to be a "Mascot" of Final Fantasy it would have to appear in almost every game. This only applies to Chocobos and Moogles, Cactuar and Tonberry could be argued to belong in that category as well, but that's debatable. Only Chocobo and Moogle are definite. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 16:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Source? Kariteh 17:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Moombas also appear in some of the Chocobo games, and as actual dolls sold by Square, if I remember correctly. As for appearing in nearly every game - Link, Mario, and Donkey Kong were mascots for Nintendo, but appeared in only a small fraction of their games. Wouldn't it be a better test of mascotism to see if the creature is closely associated with the series (ie, it's on merchandise, or used as a mascot on the websites or something, like chocobos are). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KrytenKoro (talk • contribs) 17:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

If you pick up any random Final Fantasy game, you are almost definitely going to encounter Moogles and Chocobos. This is not true for Moombas, even more so you aren't even likely to encounter them. as far as merchandise and selling Moombas as dolls, Griever is also sold as merchandise, but that isn't a symbol of Final Fantasy in general, what makes Moombas any different? Link, Mario and Donkey Kong may have been only in a small fraction of their games, but they are mascots for the series because they represent the highest selling franchises of Nintendo, and are thus the most recognizable video game characters of their systems.

@Kariteh: Source for what statement? --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 23:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Source about Chocobos and/or Moogles being mascots of Final Fantasy. The term and the "reasoning" behind it smell awfully original-research-esque to me. Chocobos appear in most FFs, Moogles appear in a lot of FFs, so they are common themes in the series, but that's about it; I don't think we can really say that they are the "mascots" of the series. Kariteh 14:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can call them "Staples" if you want, but how do we prevent that from growing to include a large number of recurrant creatures, such as Goblins? I figured "mascot" was connotative enough to prevent cruft and keep the section small an limited to only the absolutely most notable creatures. If you have any alternative suggestions I'm all ears. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 16:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We could put "Chocobo" and "Moogle" as subsections in the "Recurring elements" section. To prevent that section from being invaded with Goblins and the other recurrent creatures, we could rename the "Creatures" subsection to "Monsters", and the corresponding article to "Monsters of Final Fantasy" (without Chocobo in it). Additionally, I think we shouldn't put the plushes and merchandise here since they're not really common themes (in the sense that they are external products); we could put them in the main Final Fantasy (series/brand/franchise) article. Kariteh 16:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea, and I went ahead and did it. And I agree, plushes and merchandise don't belong here, but they aren't here anyway. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 18:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"http://www.square-enix-shop.com/jp/list_product.cfm" - go to "Final Fantasy Series, click on the second page. Cactuars and Tonberries are also mascots of the series.KrytenKoro 05:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So there's merchandise of them, so what? There's merchandise of the magus sisters, are they a mascot? Is Ifrit? Is Sister Ray? You need a WP:RS if you're going to claim anything definite. A reliable poll of fans, a review article, something. But you can't make a claim just because there's a product, however you can say that there is a product in their respective articles' subsections. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 06:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That was an EXAMPLE. There's lots of cactuar and tonberry merchandise, and you find them in almost all FF games. They are also present in a lot of the Chocobo games, which revolve around the mascots. Hell, if anything, I would say crystals are the mascots of the series, since they appear in more of the games than Chocobos and Moogles. (I think)

"That type of costume could be referred to as a mascot costume. Look at the Moomba, for example. It appears only in FFVIII and is referenced by the Mascot Dresssphere. It makes no other appearances, period. In order to be a "Mascot" of Final Fantasy it would have to appear in almost every game." - Oh, hey, I just realized what to say about this - being part of these dresspheres is Square outright saying that these creatures are the mascots. Sooo, yeah. I mean, unless Square can't identify their own mascots.KrytenKoro 07:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Moogles and Chocobos both appear in more games than Crystals.
2. There's lots of merchandise, okay fine. But it is OR for us to say that they are mascots because they have a lot of merchandise. We need a source of someone else saying that they are mascots because they have a lot of merchandise.
3. For all we know, without a source, those dressspheres are a parody of sports mascots and disney costumes and restaraunt mascots, etc., and not actually mascots of FF, especially in light of the fact that they include the Moomba and Pupu which are rare in FF.
4. What does this matter? The article no longer makes any claims about what is or isn't a mascot. This entire discussion is moot and purposeless.

--—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 15:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's do it correctly

This article has the potential to become infested with original research. Since the article is brand new, I believe we should develop it in the most correct way we can, by adding things only if a source is provided at the same time. Kariteh 08:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Where'd it go, pt. deuce

The old Races page leads to Spira. Or, alternatingly, to this page. Neither has information on the races, and it's still not clear where to look for information on the Seeqs or Shumi.

The old links to Races need to be cleaned up and fixed, and somehow (probably just on the talk page for this article, or even Races' talk page), it needs to be made clear where the old sections went.KrytenKoro 17:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

All races were moved to their individual world/game articles. Shumi was moved to Final Fantasy VIII, but it was deemed too trivial to appear in the game article, as were many of the races in many of the games. However, it may appear in World of Final Fantasy VIII when it finally gets created. Seeqs similarly can be found in Ivalice. The old Races page only redirects here, but individual races that used to have their own articles I redirected to the new locations (Hopefully I got them all). The old links, if we missed any, will just have to be cleaned up as we encounter them. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 17:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I found the problem, Al Bhed was still linked to the old races article, and someone noticed that and (incorrectly) redirected it to Spira, I fixed it. Now, Races leads to Common Themes, and Al Bhed (and the other Spiran Races) lead to Spira. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 17:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Plot Elements

What is listed as plot elements tend to be characteristics of RPGs in general, no specifically the Final Fantasy series. Perhaps this could be deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ngaskill (talk • contribs) 03:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

It needs to be rewritten, not deleted. Many of FF's Story themes are direct inspirations from Star Wars with the concept of Evil Empire and a small Rebel band. I read this somewhere in an interview, so I know sources for this can be found. This is just one example of the things that need to be mentioned in this section. There are elements that are unique and/or characteristic to Final Fantasy, we need to find sources for them and insert them. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 16:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Pendants and Necklaces and Wings, oh my!

I noticed that you added the Pendants section immediately after I added the Wings section and that you are comparing your inclusion of the Pendants section with my inclusion of the Wings section. Please remember WP:POINT, which you have violated in very similar circumstances before.

(1) The wings section is only OR if I say what the wings represent. Since I don't, I merely report that the wings are there, there is no OR. (2) The wings are not an incidental character design. In fact, most instances of the wings have a specifically "angelic" or Deific symbology. FFVI: Kefka's wings accompanied his god-like state, and his special attack was called "Light of Judgement". FFVII: Sephiroth's comparison to an angel is just blatant and is the easiest to source. Helletic (Heretic) Hojo, Bizzaro (Rebirth) Sephiroth, Safer (Sefer) Sephiroth, even "sephiroth" itself refers to the tree of Sephirot, the ten attributes of god; not to mention his nick-name the "one-winged angel" and his theme song "one winged angel". FFVIII: Rinoa's wings appear when she uses "Angel Wing" limit break, the heavy use of white and black feathers in the opening sequence paints a very prominant symbolism. FFIX: Kuja gets red feathers when he enters trance, and he is explicitly titled an "angel of death". FFIX is unique in that it demonstrates feathers and not full wings, and FFX is unique in that it has no apparent connection to angelic symbology and is perhaps the only instance of wings possibly being a merely incidental design. (3) There was implied consensus by no dispute that this was not unattributable nor trivial back when it was a section in Final Fantasy (series), the only reason it was ultimately removed was because it was deemed to belong in another article that went into more detail. Well this is such an article that goes into more detail.

Pendants, on the other hand, (1) may not be OR but they are trivial as they are not displayed as a prominent theme anywhere other than FFIX. (2) Pendants are an entirely incidental character design as none of them have any common symbology or meaning.

You are a very intelligent editor, and I cannot believe that you honestly feel that Pendants and Necklaces are a worthy inclusion. Based on this, and your past history (1 and 2) I am finding it difficult to assume good faith and can only conclude that you wrote this section solely to make a point. Instead of making edits designed to illustrate your point and forcing me to start a discussion thread, you should have started a discussion thread yourself and voiced your concerns. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 21:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There's definitely no WP:POINT violation. There would be one if my goal were to ultimately remove the Wings section, and it's not. My only goal is for things to be coherent; if the Wings section belong in the article, so does the Pendants section; if the Pendants section doesn't belong, then the Wings section doesn't belong either.

(1) and (2, same point?) is irrelevant. You're stating that you don't say what the wings represent, yet you're precisely doing it on this talk page and you're using it to assert that the wing design has meaning and is symbolic! By all logics, this whole (1)(2) argument, which is based on what the wings are supposed to represent, should be ignored. The Pendants section also doesn't state what the pendants represent. And as a consequence and from a totally non-OR perspective, there is nothing less trivial about the wings than about the pendants. From a non-OR perspective, they have the same notability.

(3) is hardly a justification. As proven with the recent move of the article Seiken Densetsu to Mana (series) following this discussion, new arguments can have the potential to totally negate previous consensuses if they are valid and hadn't been brought previously. Kariteh 22:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"if the Wings section belong in the article, so does the Pendants section; if the Pendants section doesn't belong, then the Wings section doesn't belong either." That type of comparison leaves every indication that your ultimate goal is to remove the wings section. It is also interesting to note that this is the third occurance of such a comparison from you, one of which you admitted to being WP:POINT. If this truly isn't your intention, and you truly feel that the pendants have a meaningfull symbology, then I'm sorry for misunderstanding, but I don't think that my misunderstanding is unreasonable.

(1) that it is not OR is a response to one of the comments that you made in the edit summaries. It is not the same as (2) which is that there is an underlying theme behind the symbol, which is a response to one of KrytenKoro's comments, but it has direct bearing as to why wings and pendants don't meet the same criteria. The assertions that I make in (2) are OR if I don't have a source, and I currently don't have a source in the article, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a source. The fact that none of these assertions are in the article to avoid OR does not invalidate them. The only reason behind that is that I'm on a computer at work, and for whatever reason it blocks most websites that I can use to provide proper sources which I had access to but never got around to when I first wrote this section so many months ago for Final Fantasy (series), hence why I revived the section but did not source it nor add assertions that require sourcing. As per WP:STUB it is perfectly acceptable to create a section that isn't yet but can be later sourced and attributed. I have every intention of doing so when I find the time to work on it on a computer that allows access to the proper websites and search methods.

(3) is not meant to be a justification. It is meant to be a response to your comment that Pendants is just as attributable as Wings is. I feel that by no one arguing the attributability of Wings then implies an existing consensus that it was attributable even though it wasn't sourced yet (yes, I understand that consensus can be changed with new people expressing new concerns). However, I do not feel that the pendants are attributable at all. What are you going to attribute, that they were there? That's not meaningful content. The point is, while not included as of yet Wings does have meaningful content that is attributable, and Pendants does not. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 23:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Kariteh, at least on that your logic for why wings should be included is hypocritical - you say that it's not OR if you don't try to claim what it represents, but then claim it's not trivial by trying to claim what it represents. As the wings have only appeared in what, four games, associated with main characters, I'd have to say that they are not common themes at best, and trivial at worst. It needs to be removed, and as soon as someone else will endorse my suggestion, I'll go ahead and do it. "Common Themes" should be THEMES and should be COMMON - not sporadic character details. For Kefka and Sephiroth, for example, the wings were not anymore part of the theme than the halos were - that they had attained godhood. For Rinoa it is important. For Yuna, IN THAT ONE SCENE, it is important ("I have wings!", idiot child). That's two characters where the wing is not merely incidental. Out of about 500 or so.KrytenKoro 04:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've included an INCOMPLETE wings section, because I have not yet gathered the sources, this is acceptable as implied by WP:STUB. My argument is that the Pendants section CAN NEVER be complete. Arguments that wings are trivial is a perfectly valid discussion point, and I won't push that they aren't trivial if consensus is against me. However, my edits/arguments are NOT hypocritical. Sourcing and attribution can be found for wings, and wings do share a common meaning across the games. None of this is true for Pendants, regardless as to how trivial or prominent either of them are. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 14:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Woah woah woah. I'm away for a couple weeks, and chaos ensues? :) I suggest we leave this article alone for now and work on more tangible goals, such as getting the rest of the main series to Featured status. — Deckiller 14:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"and wings do share a common meaning across the games."

Really? Out of the four times they happen prominently, twice they are incidental - part of the symbol, not the symbol itself. In VIII, Rinoa is in not ascending to godhood in any way (though I guess you might argue that as a sorceress, she has a divine heritage), and the FFX has nothing at all to do with ascending to godhood - if at all significant, it has more to do with escape from a cage.

As well, sourcing and attribution can be found for the pendants - as the argument often used against me goes, "just because it's in the game doesn't mean it's worth mentioning/in any way significant".KrytenKoro 05:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You are arguing things to death that aught not be argued at all. FFVI was ascending to godhood, thus showing divinity. FFVII was Angel, not Godhood. Sephiroth never became a God. FFVIII was Angel. Final Fantasy IX was "Angel of Death" (Kuja, not Eiko). All angels, except maybe Kefka, however divinity as a god and divinity as an angel are very similar concepts, though I can easily understand how someone could dissagree, and I won't argue (and haven't argued) that point. I never once argued that FFX was angelic, in fact I said it was the only one that was probably an incidental character design, so I don't know why your still arguing that point which I never dissagreed with. That's One for Godhood, and Three for Angel, and One incidental. What are we arguing about?

"sourcing and attribution can be found for the pendants" - really? Enlighten me, sourcing and attribution for what exactly? Sourcing that they were there? There is no common symbology for pendants to source.

"just because it's in the game doesn't mean it's worth mentioning" and I totally agree. Which is why I said in my last post "Arguments that wings are trivial is a perfectly valid discussion point, and I won't push that they aren't trivial if consensus is against me". Wings has a common symbology and meaningful content, Pendants doesn't have either. However, the real issue is whether or not wings are trivial. If consensus says that wings are trivial, then I won't fight to keep it in. If you read my previous posts, you will find that I've been saying this all along. Now why exactly, are you arguing to me about things that I never dissagreed with? --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 16:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• To reiterate: "I suggest everyone leaves this article alone for now and work on more tangible goals, such as getting the rest of the main series to Featured status." — Deckiller 17:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, the thing that really bugs me is that the article treats wings on the same plane of thought as the music, Chocobos, or the airships. I think it shouldn't. "Wings" are not separate, independant entities, they're parts of something else. If sources can be found for their relevance, they may be mentioned in the article, but IMO only in a broader "Character design" section or subsection. We don't make a section for each song or musical particularity, we have a broader music section. Wings alone are definitely not notable; wings as part of the series character design recurring style would be much more fitting. Kariteh 20:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've actually been considering that very idea myself. Only problem is, I don't know that we would have enough to say on that subject. Maybe we should take Deckiller's advice and revisit the issue later after we push out a couple more GA's and FA's. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 23:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good idea; pages like this and the main series page are so difficult to figure out, so if we save them for the end, then we'll be so far ahead of the game that it might be much more easy. — Deckiller 23:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Draconic

(Discussion copied from my talk page and replaced here. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 15:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

Since I don't want to get into a revert war, I'll discuss it here.

For why it can't be mammalian - because mammals with wings don't have the joint spike like that. For demonic - maybe, but in almost all cases where demons have wings, they are draconic, since dragons and demons were once equated. For why it's draconic - part of the above, and because nothing that does not have dragon wings (including demons) has that spike, and because it is much more specific than "demonic".

While I agree that demonic would work better (non-feathered doesn't do it justice), demons don't necessarily have wings, and it is actually uncommon for them too. If you can get some sort of consensus that everyone understands what you mean (for example, some famous demons have peacock wings, not draconic ones), then by all means, put demonic in. I'm just worried that it's not technically correct.

But it's definitely not batwings.KrytenKoro 05:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, it's a fantasy game. Since there isn't enough level of detail to determine whether it is skinned or scaled, then we simply don't know. Just because it's mammalian doesn't mean it has to be a bat's wing, this is a work of fantasy after all. But again, since we can't tell whether it has scales or not it could just as easily be a reptilian wing. But if it is a reptilian wing, what makes it draconic and not reptilian in general? A dragon is a VERY specific type of wing, and we simply don't have anything to suggest a dragon. Yes, Dragons and Demons were once equated with each other (and still are), but only by Judeo-christian mythology. No other mythology refers to devils and demons as dragons. Japanese demons are better approximated as Ogres and Goblins, for one example. It is fair to say that the fantasy version of a dragon IS NOT based of off the judeo-christian, so saying draconic for a demon's wing in a fantasy game is incorrect. It is better to say a demon's wing, really (by the way, Demon wings may not be common in mythology but they are VERY common in fantasy). Sephiroth is an angel symbolically, and as fans we know that Cloud therefore is a demon symbolically to create a contrast to Sephiroth. But also consider that cloud only had the wing in Kingdom Hearts, also consider that Cloud's character design in KH was a combination of Cloud and Vincent. He had Vincent's shawl, he had Vincent's Claw, etc. Also consider that Vincent is designed after a vampire (sleeps in a coffin, flys, can transform into a monster, dark demonic motif, seemingly immortal, etc.) So being based off of a vampire Cloud's wing can easily be argued to be a bat's wing as it is easily argued to be a vampire's wing. "The spike on the wing looks like a dragon's wing" just isn't enough to go on, especially in an encyclopedia. See, we have every reason to believe that it is a bat's wing (the spike could just be a stylization) as he is a combination of Cloud and Vincent, and we have every reason to believe that it could be a demon's wing as Cloud is the antithesis to Sephiroth, but what is there to possibly identify it as a dragon's? Nothing, there is nothing to suggest that Cloud has anything to do with a dragon, except a spike that you think looks draconic. Whatever the wing may be, we don't know for sure without a source. I agree that "non-feathered" just doesn't do it justice, but until we have a source we cannot say reptilian, we cannot say mammalian, and we most certainly cannot say anything so specific as draconic. "Non-feathered" is about all that we can say without a source.

And for the record, that spike is not just draconic. Diabolos in FFVIII has that wing spike as well, and he's not a dragon. I've also seen that wing spike in other fantasy outside of FF on vampires, succubi, other demons, gargoyles, imps, etc. I've also seen a lot of dragons without that wing spike. So saying that the wing spike is uniquely draconic, is also incorrect. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 15:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Some minor corrections of mistakes that I made in that discussion. Vincent is modeled after Horror in general, which includes but is not limited to vampires. And Fantasy dragons are based off of Judeo-christian dragons (among other mythologies), especially in basic appearance, but have taken a very different path and are no longer associated with demons in fantasy. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 15:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"IS NOT based of off the judeo-christian," - the Sephiroth thing? You know, the Jewish tree of life? and Japanese demons almost never have wings.

"Nothing, there is nothing to suggest that Cloud has anything to do with a dragon, except a spike that you think looks draconic. "

- draconic wings are a subset of demonic wings - asian dragons don't have wings, remember? Demon wings can come in a multitude of varieties - demonic, batlike, and insectoid, and only one of these fits Cloud's wing. If merely "demonic" was enough, then fine, but demons with the appropriate wingtype have draconic wings - because draconic wings are almost always treated as limbs and have the claws - like bats, but more accentuated.

"Diabolos in FFVIII has that wing spike as well, and he's not a dragon" - yes, but his wings are draconic. It's a subset.

"See, we have every reason to believe that it is a bat's wing" - how? It looks nothing like a bat wing, except that you think that it should be vampiric.KrytenKoro 15:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you completely misunderstood my entire point. Let me simplify: you need a source. Fantasy has dissassociated demons and dragons, they are no longer the same thing in the fantasy genre, and FF is a member of the fantasy genre. A demon, is not a dragon. Most demons are not displayed as reptillian, and thus have bat-like wings because they don't have scales. Neither bat-like nor draconic is a good descriptor because it uses a specific creature to describe the wing, we can't create any associations between his wing and any one animal without a reference so we have to use general descriptions. The "draconic" general description is reptillian, and the "bat-like" general description is mammallian. The spike doesn't mean jack, it's just a stylization that I have seen on both reptillian and mammallian wings. The only problem is, we don't know if his wing is scaled or not, because we can't see that level of detail. So we don't know whether it is reptillian or mammalian, so the only thing we can say is that it isn't feathered. "Draconic" is associative with a specific creature, to use it you must provide a WP:RS that explicitly associates Cloud with a Dragon. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 17:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't figure out where you would have seen the spike on mammalian wings, but okay. I understand.KrytenKoro 18:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example: [1]. Please note, that this character is explicitly associated with bats. Here ([2]) you can see the same character with the bats drawn on her clothing. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 19:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a good bit different from the spike, but it's no matter anyway.KrytenKoro 20:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If that one is too dissimilar for you, then compare Cloud's wing spike to Sephiroth's, whom definitely does not have a draconic wing. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 20:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging Airship

I think we can merge the airship article now, especially since we've found a format where we limit game-specific information and provide external links to the Final Fantasy Wikia, where people can study the topic further. — Deckiller 18:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Good thinking, I was going to propose it myself. Judgesurreal777 21:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Just lending my humble vote: I agree with the merge proposal. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 08:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes yes yes! That's a perfect idea. Kudos to the deckiller. -ScotchMB 02:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That's way too much space to one subsection - and a good bit too much detail to be part of "common themes". Either the section needs to be gutted, or un-merged, because, frankly, it clashes with the rest of the article.KrytenKoro 06:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The merging process typically involves de-crufting, it won't be too long when the merge is completely trimmed. For past examples of merges that decruft, just see any character article. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 15:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

So, uh....What remains of the merge? It looks exactly like it did before the merge, but now we've lost all the information that was in the Airship article.KrytenKoro 02:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and reread the old Airship article. Now keep in mind that information that only pertains to one game belongs in that game's article and not in a general FF article, so remove all of that information. Now use Occam's razor while reading what little remains. After you remove the redundancy and cruft, this information is all that's left. If you find any details that you feel are important that apply to more than just one game that I might have missed, you are free to reinsert them. But this is all of the salient information that I could find. If this is almost identical to what it was before the merge then so be it. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 15:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"(...) information that only pertains to one game belongs in that game's article (...)"

Then why did you delete that information instead of moving it in each game's article? Kariteh 17:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly? Because I got distracted with things other than Wikipedia before I had a chance. Not very cool of me, I know, and I apologize. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 19:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually taking a second look at it, all of that information is Gameguide, cruft, redundant plot summary, indiscriminate list and trivia. What isn't any of those is already present in the Story synopses. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 20:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is still concerned, perhaps the Final Fantasy wiki can be checked to make sure it still has the information so nothing is lost. Judgesurreal777 07:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying the information needed to be there, I'm just saying that it doesn't look like anything was actually merged - instead, an article was roundabout deleted/blanked without actually putting it up for AfD, which seems kind of, well, sneaky, to me.KrytenKoro 07:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It was done in that way as a method of double checking information. (1) put everything into the article. (2) Delete info that doesn't belong. (3) copy-edit. If the end result is nearly identical to the beginning, then you at least now know that you have all of the important information. The redirect is also important to do instead of AfD because it preserves the edit history and talk page comments as a record. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 18:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Also this is why Template:R from merge should be put in the redirected merged articles. Kariteh 17:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Meteorological names

"The protagonists of the Nomura-designed Final Fantasy games usually have a name alluding to or directly related to meteorological phenomena or celestial bodies." I propose that this sentence be removed. It's not a common theme of Final Fantasy, but a common theme of Nomura. This theme exists in Kingdom Hearts for instance, with Sora ("Sky"). Kariteh 08:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Which could be a reference to the Final Fantasies that it is derived from. Does Nomura use meteorological names in any games that are not related/spin-off/gaiden to FF? If not, then it is a theme of Final Fantasy, just like the moogle. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 14:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Shiki's name in It's a Wonderful World (video game) means "four seasons".[3] Kariteh 15:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

So it does. If that's the only example, I would be hesitant to jump to conclusions. I think it should stay here, but we can mention that it is a quirk associated with Nomura if we can find a source for it. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 17:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Adventure is not a Final Fantasy Game

The reason I removed "Final Fantasy Adventure" from the "Common Themes of Final Fantasy" is because "Final Fantasy Adventure" is actually not a Final Fantasy game. It is originally "Seiken Densetsu" in Japan (a part of the Mana series) and was renamed Final Fantasy only to use the brand's name recognition in North America.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Seiken Densetsu is just a shortened title. The full title of the game in Japan was Seiken Densetsu: Final Fantasy Gaiden. Check Final Fantasy Adventure, check gaiden, and just check your facts next time. Kariteh 21:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kariteh. Final Fantasy Adventure is a Final Fantasy, if only a Gaiden. The Seiken Densetsu series came after FF Adventure and is based off of it, not the other way around. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 15:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that I am more in line to link a page about the "Common themes of Final Fantasy" to what the Final Fantasy series is in its present, rather than trying to link a game that is now currently regarded as the predecessor to its own flagship series of games. Seiken Densetsu resembles Final Fantasy only in name, and virtually every other aspect of the game, from its design to its character themes, do not reoccur in other games in the Final Fantasy series. In any case, thanks for the polite correction, Nicholai. 24.69.96.108 07:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC) A

Similarity of an episode to the rest of the series is totally irrelevant. "Final Fantasy" is a brand, and FFAdventure has been released under that brand in both Japan and America. Besides, FFAdventure definitely has tons of similarities with FF, from the sprites to Chocobos and weapon and armor names. This is an article dealing with common themes of the Final Fantasy, so all notable themes which are common in several Final Fantasy games have to be mentioned. FF:The Spirits Within is an FF, and so is FFAdventure. The fact that FFAdventure is also the predecessor to a distinct series doesn't change the fact that it was an FF game, is an FF game, and will continue to be an FF game. If you had read the links I've given you above, you would have seen that Seiken Densetsu: Final Fantasy Gaiden was recently remade for mobile phones as part of the World of Mana series. Yes, the game still has Final Fantasy in its title and is part of World of Mana at the same time. And unlike Sword of Mana, this new version of the game totally keeps all its Final Fantasy themes and references (Chocobo, item names, etc.), and even actually added more similarities to FF (the hero now looks like an FFI Warrior). Kariteh 12:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Kariteh, please don't WP:BITE the newcomers. Polite corrections should suffice. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 16:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Merged info from my sandbox

I had been preparing an article entitled User:Deckiller/Gameplay of Final Fantasy a few months ago, but it's not something we need for a while. Thus, I merged relevent info (the recurring gameplay elements) into this article so that we can redirect the abysmal Final Fantasy items; that'll keep the information preserved in the edit history so we can start from scratch with a Gameplay of Final Fantasy article in the future. — Deckiller 18:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Chocobo article

I've split Chocobo into its own article as per the latest WP:FF consensus. The remaining section needs to be trimmed a little more to be shorter a different than the article. Kariteh 07:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

?

Why does "Races of Final Fantasy" redirect here if this page has nothing to do with it?

"Races of" would be a common theme, however there are no common races beyond Humans and the occasional dwarves, unless you count moogles which are already detailed here. So this is a logical redirection spot, though it does need some sort of explanation, probably a Demography section that briefly outlines the info? Also, this page is actually a product of fixing the old Races article, even if it has gone into a completely new direction. --ΔαίδαλοςΣ 15:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Continental Circus

It doesn't look like there is anywhere to put this now, but it turns out that the Continental Circus is also called the Fahrenheit.KrytenKoro 05:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)