This template is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Square Enix, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Square Enix-related merchandise and video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Really? The bootleg? I don't know, it's neat and all, but I really don't think a bootleg should be included in this template, listed along with official games in the series, no matter how impressive it is. There are thousands of unlicensed products based on the Final Fantasy series, ranging from dinky rom hacks and doujinshi to action figures and posters, and I really don't think that this deserves to be included, anymore than say, the episode of Robot Chicken with the spoof that has the cast working in a fast food joint.
There may be "thousands of unlicensed products" based on FF, but this one is the only notable one, along with Voice of the Lifestream. It was recently nominated for deletion and Delete was not the result of the discussion. The article exists, so it's included in the template. Nowhere in the template is it implied or claimed that it's an official product. FightingStreet (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to side with WtW on this one. The scope of this template is "FFVII", not "FFVII and unlicensed media". If it were, the latter, then VotL would be included as well, making it needlessly cluttered. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The scope of this template is FFVII, not "official FFVII products". VotL is not included because it's a subarticle of Music of Final Fantasy VII. FFVII Famicom is a subarticle of the main article only, so it's included. The template is definitely not cluttered; you just seem to have some sort of irrational dislike of this article. FightingStreet (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Axem. There's no point in adding unlicensed products to this template. Only the official and important items should be included. The Prince (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The "point" of adding this in the template is the same point there is to add Before Crisis or whatever else. And there is no guideline saying that unofficial products should not be linked in templates. FightingStreet (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
But you're the only one who thinks it should be there. The Prince (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
But my argumentation is solid and yours is so shaky that you have to pull a "we're right because we're many" argument to try to force your view. FightingStreet (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Do I have to repeat myself: It's unofficial, therefore it should not be included. The Prince (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no guideline saying that unofficial products should not be linked in templates. FightingStreet (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You can't refer to guideline for everything. Some things need consensus, and in this case it is to not include this article. The Prince (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Consensus means nothing when the arguments consist in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Besides, the article survived its nomination for deletion and you seem to be the ones to try to go against the (no-)consensus of that nomination. FightingStreet (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't want the article in the template because it's unofficial, not because I voted Delete in the AfD. The Prince (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
A bit late to the party here, but the whole factor against listing unofficial content is being argued as if there are several articles on the subject. There aren't, that I know of. However unofficial content should be viable in here in some form even as just "list of unofficial related items" or some similar hubub...which would still be a very short list given the articles on wikipedia.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
the article doesn't necessarily have to be about official products of FFVII. it was nowhere implied that it has to be, plus there is also the unofficial famicon version. So if voices of the lifestream were to be removed, so would unofficial famicon. Or we can leave them as they are and if more unofficial products of ffVIII appear then we can make a separate section in the template listed as "legacy". a good example of a template that has unofficial media is Template:Tron (though it was originally called "fan-made games, i changed it to "unofficial" due to them having publishers).Bread Ninja (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Editors User:FightingStreet and User:The Prince of Darkness, you are both in danger of breaking Wikipedia's WP:3RR rule on this template. Please stop reverting each other. Edit warring to get your way is not looked upon as constructive or civil. Please work out your differences here. I recommend also getting a third opinion regarding the inclusion of "unofficial" things in the template, as it is clear that some want it, some don't. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)