Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy/Archive/11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
   WikiProject Final Fantasy Archive    This discussion page is an archived page of a WikiProject Final Fantasy page,
so its contents should be preserved in their current form. Please direct comments to the main discussion page.

Massive translation now complete[edit]

I apologize if this is shameless self-promotion, but I thought I'd let you guys know that I've gone ahead with translating a bunch of the important stuff from the UOG and compiling it into an FAQ. With all the references and such I've added, I had a good bit of interesting stuff translated already and it didn't take me long to finish. The FAQ I made has translations of the notable stuff from the Story Playback section, as well as a complete translation of the The truth of Final Fantasy VII section. For now, it's only on Neoseeker, but I've also submitted it to GameFAQs and IGN. Here it is.

I hope you guys will like it. And, hey, it does have Wikipedia relevance! I'm informing my fellow project members of the official explanations of FFVII's story! Haha! Loophole! XD Ryu Kaze 02:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if there's anything specific any of you are wondering about that's not mentioned in there, let me know; I can probably translate it pretty easily. Ryu Kaze 02:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way again, that includes character info you may be wondering about, as well. There's tons of character profiles in there (though only 10 of them are in-depth). Ryu Kaze 02:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, I've added bios for Ifalna, Johnny, Zangan, Bugenhagen and the Turks to the FAQ. Ryu Kaze 02:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm building up a collection of rare Amano Art[edit]

If anyone is interested in uploading some of these rare pictures (mostly of FFI-VI bosses and summons, FFVII and IX player characters, Kuja, Squall, Rinoa, Yuna, and Tidus), just let me know. Crazyswordsman 20:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I own quite a few of Amano's books, but I don't have a working scanner. :( I'd recommend uploading some yourself and placing them in articles. Make sure it's Wikipedia:Fair Use though! --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Most of the images I find are from image archives which are linked to directly from the pages that have them, so I'm assuming that they're public domain. Is there a way we could cite the source of the images? Crazyswordsman 05:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I know for a fact that none of Amano's art is public domain. They must be licenced under fair use. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia policy looks non-violated to me if we're uploading Amano art. Most Final Fantasy databases have them, so they MUST be under Fair Use. We'd honestly be seing more legal trouble, if any at all, with the original hosting site than Amano himself. Crazyswordsman 02:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
You have confused me now. There should be no problem uploading his artwork as fair use (so long as that use conforms to Wikipedia:Fair use.) But in your first reply you said "I'm assuming that they're public domain". Fair use is different from public domain. None of Amano's art has been released to the public domain, not matter what website uses them. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Collaboration of the Fortnight[edit]

How does everyone feel about me starting up a Final Fantasy Colloboration of the Fortnight? I think this would be great way to further improve our FF community and get more FF articles up to Featured article status and further expand those FF articles that are lagging behind. What do you think? -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 00:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea—it'll be a more efficient way to increase the number of FF articles in GA and FA status :). —Mirlen 00:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, especially considering that we've had a recent surge of GAs (FF, FF4, Mythology, Spira, FF8, FF9, and so on). This may help us get 'em up to FA status. — Deckiller 00:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll start working on it today. -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 01:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
If you need a hand Chanlord, feel free to tell me so. I feel like I have to do something more as a member, since everyone seems to be taking the larger share of the workload. —Mirlen 01:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
None needed. Just finished. Have a look. -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 03:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks great :). —Mirlen 22:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Good work. Has inspired me to get working on the WPSW MoS page :) — Deckiller 22:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Do we have the Fiends in the bestiary?[edit]

I don't think there's enough to warrent an article for them, but I think the Fiends should have a place in the Bestiary (I mean like Kraken, Kary, Timiat, Lich, Milon, Rubicant, etc), as they are an important enough to the series to at least have a proper paragraph or two somewhere in this project. Crazyswordsman 05:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The Elemental Fiends (Lords) of Final Fantasy IV can be found in List of Final Fantasy IV characters. The fiends from Final Fantasy should probably be placed in List of Final Fantasy characters if the article is ever downsized for the first game in the series only, which is something I've been planning to do myself for quite some time now. ~ Hibana 12:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed overhaul for the Final Fantasy magic page[edit]

I've finally gotten around to making a proposal for it with prose descriptions instead of a list. See what you think of it here. Ryu Kaze 20:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I haven't touched the Summon magic page yet. I figured we'd go over this first and then I could maybe see what we could make of that. Ryu Kaze 20:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. I just worked on it a bit, and I think it's ready to be transfered to the real article. — Deckiller 21:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your help with that, Deckiller. Quality edits. Ryu Kaze 21:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, the magic article draft is already of high quality in general. Nice work! — Deckiller 21:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
It's appreciated, man.
Well, if there's no objections, I'm going to go ahead and update the magic page with the work from the sandbox. We all agreed a while ago that we should condense that thing. Ryu Kaze 00:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see you already beat me to it. XD Thanks again. Ryu Kaze 00:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I would just say that... oh. Too late... >Gamemaker 12:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Summon Magic inclusion[edit]

Alright, I've now got a proposal for how to include Summon Magic into the Final Fantasy magic page. With some help from Deckiller, this is what I've come up with. I know that the Summon Magic section is longer than the other sections, but as the fact that Summon Magic has had its own page would attest, there's a little bit more to say about Summon Magic in regard to the stories of the series as a whole than there is with the other magic classes.

I hope this proposal's to everybody's liking. Ryu Kaze 19:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Great job of using prose instead of lists. — warpedmirror (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks to Ryu for being proactive about this issue! — Deckiller 22:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Warpedmirror, and any compliments concerning the idea of using prose should be given to Deck. That was all his idea; he was just too busy to focus on trying it out, so we made it a collaborative project, me prose-ifying things and then passing them on to him for additional input and editing. It's worked out really well so far.
I've not been quite as proactive about this particular issue as I'd wanted to be in all truthfulness. I kept getting sidetracked on adding references to tons of character pages, and then making the Final Fantasy VIII page into a Good Article and then translating The truth of Final Fantasy VII segment of the Final Fantasy VII Ultimania Omega... so, yeah, I've finally gotten to it, but I can't claim that I did it in any speedy manner. XD I appreciate the compliment nonetheless, though. XD Ryu Kaze 22:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The only reservation I have here is the loss of information regarding the commonly summoned creatures. Considering that summoning is such an important Final Fantasy game mechanic I'd like to see the subject given a little more coverage than proposed; maybe moving the current list of creatures from Summon magic (Final Fantasy) (which I assume will be set to redirect) to a List of Final Fantasy summonable creatures or suchlike might be a good step. >Gamemaker 12:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd actually already planned to copy it to the Final Fantasy Wiki at Wikicities, and then put a link to it from there saying something like "For more information on individual summons, see... etc." I'm going to do it with the other spells too. Does that sound okay? Ryu Kaze 16:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Here, I went ahead and added the links to the second paragraph of this section. See what you think. Ryu Kaze 16:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Before adding ANYTHING to the Final Fantasy Wiki on Wikicities, make sure it's not already there. I'm an admin over there, and I'm already working on a summons project, with a page for each summoned monster. Also, I went ahead and broke up a paragraph pertaining to both FFIV and FFVI on the article here. Crazyswordsman 02:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll check to see if it's redundant. Ryu Kaze 02:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, but it still leaves scant coverage here on Wikipedia =/ >Gamemaker 21:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Hm... I guess I see your point there. What would you suggest? A Cultural references section? Ryu Kaze 23:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd have to say put in a list of notable summmons, the games they appear in, and their attacks. I'd say limit it to Ifrit, Shiva, Ramuh, Titan, Leviathan, Carbuncle, Odin, Alexander, Phoenix, and Bahamut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyswordsman (talkcontribs) 02:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Lists are what we're trying to avoid, though. As it stands, we've already made mention of nearly all of those summons you mentioned (along with their attacks), and mention of the summons' notability for each FF. Saying that these are some of the more prominent summons establishes that they appear frequently, don't you think? Ryu Kaze 02:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
We're trying to avoid lists? A large proportion of WPFF articles are lists =) As I suggested above, I think a List of Final Fantasy summonable creatures or suchlike would fit in well with similarly themed articles. >Gamemaker 09:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I meant in this particular case we were trying to, as per the discussion from the beginning of the month. The Final Fantasy magic page, for instance, was originally intended to hold only a few spells, but as time went on, because of how simple it was to do with that format, editors kept adding more and more spells until we had a huge list of spells that were absolutely daunting to even FF fans, mustless the uninitiated.
As far as having a list of the creatures goes, if it's only going to feature the more prominent summons, then that's already covered by the last prose paragraph in the Final Fantasy magic page (from which I'm removing Alexander and adding Carbuncle and Phoenix; Alexander's only got 4 appearances while the other two have 7 and 6, respectively); if it's going to be a list of all of the summons, then that's -- if I may so -- a bad idea for several reasons, as Final Fantasy VI alone would turn it into a massive list that general interest readers would have little interest in. That's not even taking into account all the "special" summons that only have one or two appearances (like Ixion). We'd have a laundry list of names if we didn't put in descriptions, and if we did, we'd have something that looked like it came from the FF Wiki. Ryu Kaze 15:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, we can copy the External links from the summons page to the FF magic page, as one of them already links to a complete list of summons at a fan site. As you can see there, it's a huge list that -- if we were to attempt justifying with a description for each one of them -- would make general interest readers say "Screw this" if it was the first thing they were introduced to. Ryu Kaze 15:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone be opposed to us going ahead with redirecting the Summon Magic page now? Ryu Kaze 16:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, this project's been in effect for a week now, so I'm going to go ahead with the redirect. If anyone has a disagreement with it thereafter, bring it up here or on the talk page for the magic article. Ryu Kaze 17:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Premature "Era Clash" article[edit]

In case anyone isn't aware of it, someone's gone ahead with making an article for "Era Clash: Final Fantasy VII," the as-yet unverified "new entry" in the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII. I personally think that its creation was premature and could potentially mislead many readers. View my reasons on the "Era Clash" talk page and let me know what you think we should do with it. Personally, I think the article should be deleted or redirected until the subject matter's validity can be determined. Ryu Kaze 23:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Well Google brings up nothing, so it very well may be a prank. But no need to cast it off as nothing so early, have a laugh, and give it a few days until we know for sure. The tag that disputes the articles truthfulness is enough to flag it as possible BJAODN. — CuaHL 00:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Alright. Sorry if I seem riled up about it; I just don't take too kindly to things that mislead people, especially with all the work I do on a daily basis to try to teach people the truth as best we know it (both in my professional and hobby lives). I am going to keep mention of it off of the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII page and off of the Final Fantasy series template (it had been added to both of them already) until we know for sure, though. I hate April Fool's Day. Ryu Kaze 00:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
It's all in good fun. Plus, people need a little more than an article on Wikipedia to need convincing. Prod the guy to get a little citation or then we'll go about sorting out the article deletion. Although I must say, if I was going to do an April Fools joke based on Final Fantasy I would have thought of something much funnier. I wish I had now heh — CuaHL 00:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I wish people needed more than a Wikipedia article to convince them. 7 years later, people are still asking "What happened to Final Fantasy VIII Gaiden'?" even after the creators of that hoax said it was fake. XD Ryu Kaze 01:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't be drawn in by this. The individual (Visual planet) has listed a Final Fantasy online forum as the article's sole link/source. Forums are generally not considered to be reputable sources on Wikipedia. Even people on the forum in that particular post are passing it off as joke. I think this should be removed immediately, which is why I'm nominating for deletion. ~ Hibana 01:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
That's what I wanted to do, but I wasn't sure if I was being too cranky about the whole thing. XD I do like pranks and stuff, but not of this caliber. April Fool's Day can be good if people keep it tasteful. A little joke like turning an entire talk page into the declaration that they're going to take it over is easily reverted and non-harmful (and can be clever depending on how it's carried out; I'm not pointing my finger at anyone here, but you know who you are XD); the spread of inaccurate information, however, is like a contagious disease. Ryu Kaze 03:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Case closed.CuaHL 11:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

April Fool's isn't a day to trust fansites, but I agree with Ryu Kaze. —Mirlen 14:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
A little (read: large) part of me is breathing a sigh of relief.
Now let's get rid of that damn article. XD Ryu Kaze 16:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, we've got to get rid of the Era Clash redirect page too. Ryu Kaze 16:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Both are listed for deletion and speedy deletion. Ryu Kaze 17:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Materia page: Good Article worthy?[edit]

I've been trying to work on the materia page and get it up to Good Article standards. Does anyone think it's there yet? Ryu Kaze 17:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs some introduction work. Materia, Lifestream, and Mako (Final Fantasy VII) were all at one time their own articles, and they were eventually merged into one. Therefore, I think there needs to be appropriate (i.e. non-fancruft) connections between the three topics throughout the article, especially, as I started with, the introduction. ~ Hibana 22:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I've gone over it and made many changes. See what you think. Ryu Kaze 02:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I've also added several new images.
Excellent work. That's exactly the way I pictured it should be. ~ Hibana 18:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
It's decent, but I'm a little concerned that it focuses too much on the fictional backstory and not enough on its role in gameplay. If it were me, I'd say that the sections on Mako and white/black materia should probably be condensed quite a bit, and the "colors and usage" section moved up closer to the top of the article. Just my two cents, though. – Seancdaug 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback, Sean. I disagree that the focus is misplaced because of the fact that materia factor so largely into the backstory, plot and world mechanics across all of the Final Fantasy VII titles (except On the Way to a Smile and Last Order as they are narrow in scope). But now that you've brought up that up, I do think that a larger distinction between gameplay and plot elements should be emphasised, and that it's kind of out of order in how it's presented at the moment.
How about we move the colors and usage thing up to the top, emphasise where and how it figures into the game mechanics, then mention the plot-related aspects, and then let it go into the other story related stuff from there? Ryu Kaze 22:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've changed the formatting, added some more references, changed links where necessary, added bold and italics where needed, etc. and let's see how you guys feel about it at this point. Ryu Kaze 23:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the reasoning, per se: I don't dispute that materia is important to the story of the game. It's just that I've recently become concerned that we're spending too much time describing material from an in-universe perspective, which I'm increasingly inclined to view as rather unencyclopedic. It's not policy or anything, of course, and I'm not going to fight for this one, but Amcaja has described this phenomena fairly well here. I'm specifically thinking of the point "exposition framed as the history of fictional locations or organizations." Under these circumstances, I'm not convinced that it's really "good article" material. But I'm not gonna get into any protracted arguments about this, and I humbly bow to whatever consensus dictates. – Seancdaug 02:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this is something we should strive for a little more, but I have to wonder if we took it further than the materia page has done (which, as far as I can see, does it as much as any of the articles Amcaja offers as examples) it would result in us omitting lots of notable material just so as to avoid constantly using "in the game's world," "in the fictional setting," "the character [does this or that]" and other such detached phrasing that would be required in order to consistently preserve this "out-of-universe" point of view. I say I can picture that happening is because we'd literally have to use it in every sentence or two if it needed to do it more than this, and it would quickly become very laborious to try reading something written that way. It should be assumed on the reader's part that they're reading about something fictional. We would have to be very careful in how we went about it, and on some of the larger articles (take Cloud's biography, for instance), it would be next to impossible to do. Either the reader gets bogged down by being constantly reminded that they're reading about a fictional character or -- on the off-chance that they don't read the opening sentence of the article -- they think it's all real for a few seconds (which isn't really that likely anyway).
To give you an idea of what I'm trying to say here, imagine reading the article on Napoleon while consistently sifting through flags like "the real-life person," "the actual location," "the historically documented battle" and other such phrases. It would be painful.
Also, from what I have seen of people making attempts to apply real world perspectives to articles on fictional concepts, it typically becomes what all of us call "irrelevant fancruft," such as when people start bringing analogies to the Metropolis anime and Akira into the Midgar page, or when people start drawing analogies between fossil fuels and the Lifestream on the materia page. These are things that could happen a lot more and would actually become perfectly valid if we were forced into taking a completely out-of-universe approach.
I disagree with some of Amcaja's conclusions on this subject, because when we're touching on something from a mostly in-universe perspective, we can just detail the facts and actually avoid most of the fan-speculation that he's talking about. Also, when we're saying things like "in the game," "later in the story" and "within the world of [insert title here]," we're adding in points of out-of-universe perspective, but we can't take it much further than that without it being a hindrance to reading. I don't think either 100% in-universe or 100% out-of-universe perspective is the way to go. As a fellow mergist, I'm sure you can understand the importance of a middle-ground, which I believe we've achieved with most of our articles. I would, however, not be opposed to us -- at some point in the future -- going through all of the FF articles and ensuring that they maintain this middle-ground approach.
And did we get thoroughly off the original train of thought or what? XD Ryu Kaze 02:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
That's the thing, though: we shouldn't be talking about "facts" in this context at all. Napoleon's career is fact: he's a real person who really lived. Cloud Strife's career is not: he's a fictional construct. It's a given that, unless explicitly stated otherwise, Wikipedia articles are relating fact, not fiction. It is therefore necessary to point out when this is not the case: we don't need to continually point out that Napoleon really existed, but we do need to point out that materia really doesn't. If we're getting so immersed in the fictional details that it becomes a hindrance to write from an out-of-universe perspective, then we're doing something fundamentally wrong: we should providing a basic-level summary of the fictional elements of the game, and even then, that summary should be contextualized in the real world circumstances of the game's release. Things like discussion of why the developers inserted a given plot point, or what effect that plot point had on the critical reception of the game, provided we have good, verifiable sources for all such claims, are substantially more important than the plot point itself. Moreover, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be written as a scholarly work, and writing from an in-universe perspective is manifestly unprofessional. This isn't really something that can be "patched" by adding a few signifying phrases into the text at key points: it would probably necessitate a more exhaustive rewrite. I'm not convinced that seeking a middle ground between an intrinsic and extrinsic perspective is a good idea, honestly. But again, I'll argue the point, but I'm not going to do anything beyond that barring a genuine consensus. It's a well-written and excellently presented piece, certainly, I'm just concerned that it may be somewhat... misguided?... in it's approach. That probably sounds a lot more harsh than I intend it to, though. – Seancdaug 03:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your concerns and respect your opinion on the subject, Sean, but we do have the audience to consider. What are they going to be looking for when they look up "materia" -- or anything else for that matter? Information on what it is, what it does and how it comes to be, or information on why the developers decided to incorporate it into the game? Obviously, most would want both if they could have it, but if they had to choose one over the other, I'd say it would be the former. The entire reason the article is named "Materia" in the first place (rather than "Lifestream") is because it was agreed that "materia" is what readers are most likely to be running a search for.
Furthermore, if only things like why the developers chose this or that necessitate notability (I recall also when the Spira page was temporarly a Featured Article candidate that we ran into the issue of some people suggesting that we provide information on why the developers chose to make this or that location be where it was and have this or that climate, stuff we have absolutely no way of knowing without asking them), then we'd all have to go on an FF Wiki genocide mission and delete about 95-99% of the information in the FF articles. Things like that are not things we can reasonably find out about. Even the Ultimanias don't go too far in-depth on things like that. There's a section in Final Fantasy X's Ultimania Omega on ideas that they didn't use, but still, it's not that relevant in regard to what they did use.
I'm not saying that it's a bad philosophy by any stretch of the imagination, and especially not for encyclopedias that are limited in scope by necessity (God help me, it sounds like I'm saying "Wiki is not paper" despite how much I loathe hearing it), but Wikipedia gets millions of hits a day right now because of just how much information people are aware that they can find here. That's what sets it apart from any other encyclopedia, paper or electronic. I'm not convinced that the inclusion of information like what we detail is non-encyclopedic or unprofessional, as Wikipedia itself is not within the same vein of other encyclopedias. Obviously it shares the constraints of notability and bears certain standards of quality in presentation, wording, cited sources and, of course, the information offered, but we need not compromise the information that most readers are wanting to read in order to live up to an ideal that is really only a standard of encyclopedias that are inferior to Wikipedia in what they can offer in the first place. Ryu Kaze 04:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I don't think your use of "misguided" sounded harsh, as I understand what you're trying to say. I just disagree with the reasoning for arriving at that conclusion, so don't worry. However, I do feel that some of the ideas you and/or Amcaja are "misguided" (I mean this in the same way you do; just can't think of a better word).
And thanks for the compliments on the article. I really do appreciate them, as I quite respect you and your opinion. Ryu Kaze 04:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
P.P.S. I also would consent to a general consensus if it were to rule in favor of what's been proposed by Amcaja. I'd think it a terrible idea, but I'd consent to it. Ryu Kaze 06:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

FFVII and FFVIII templates redone[edit]

I redid the FF7 template to conform to the FFX one (especially now that FF7 goes beyond one game, much like FFX).


Deckiller 00:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Nicely done. Ryu Kaze 02:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I like it a lot. But should the compilation titles be italicized? – warpedmirror (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Fixed :) — Deckiller 03:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
This gives me a checklist of the story-related pages that still need references. Only 11 to go. *sigh* Ryu Kaze 17:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
10 now. Tifa's good to go. Ryu Kaze 18:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
And now 9. Red XIII's ready. I'll let you guys know when they're all finished. Ryu Kaze 19:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I might go through and revamp the other templates as well, now that we have a general system down for each game's section.


Deckiller 19:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks good, but is there any particular reason why the main characters' names are small too? Ryu Kaze 20:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and remove the last names from the characters. Tilmitt takes up it's own line (at least on my browser). If everyone else prefers the last names, feel free to add them back in. – warpedmirror (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks good, and per Ryu Kaze on the small font. —Mirlen 21:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Small font has already been taken care of =P — Deckiller 21:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Looking even better. Nice work, guys. Ryu Kaze 22:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that Last Order was missing from the box. I've gone ahead with adding it in. Ryu Kaze 14:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII references project complete[edit]

Alright, guys, I've finished adding references to all of the story-related FFVII pages (I think; I'm not counting the character and location list pages, but I will be taking care of those, as well). I've also corrected errors in them, clarified the information and added extra links (such as to the translations from the Final Fantasy VII Ultimania Omega) where appropriate. Here's a list of all the pages I've worked to completion so far:

Next, Final Fantasy X's story pages need to get the same treatment. Over there, the following pages have already been taken care of:

Be aware that I've not even looked at the Final Fantasy VII or Final Fantasy X pages themselves, but when and if I complete the other pages, I'll try to give them the same treatment as the Final Fantasy VIII page if they still need it. If there's any suggestions or things that I've missed, please put them forward. Ryu Kaze 17:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. When and if I complete both of these projects, I hope that no one will hold it against me if I take a WikiVacation. XD Ryu Kaze 17:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Alright, now all of the FFVII story-related pages are done, including the two list pages. Please let me know if I've missed anything before I move on to the 8 FFX pages I've got to do. Ryu Kaze 00:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh hell. Now it occurs to me that I've got the character list pages for X and X-2 still to do, as well. So that's 10 more pages. Oh well. I'll just have to get started as soon as I can. Ryu Kaze 01:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah hell again. There's still the List of Final Fantasy VII terms page to do. Oh well. That one's not too bad. Ryu Kaze 01:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Alright, the List of Final Fantasy VII terms is done. Still leaves 10 Final Fantasy X related pages to go, though. *sigh* Ryu Kaze 17:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Wakka's page has been completed. I started with it first since it's short. From here I'll move on to Lulu, then Kimahri, and then go to Yuna Tidus, Seymour (the three biggest pages), Jecht and Paine. Then the character lists. Still a while to go. I'll add them to the list above each time I complete one. Ryu Kaze 20:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Great job, Ryu Kaze! See if I can do for the rest later. —Mirlen 20:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment, and, yeah, if you'd like to help out you can. Just let me know which page you're going to be working on so we won't be trying to edit it at the same time. I just finished Lulu, so Kimahri's my next target, then Tidus, Yuna, Seymour, Jecht, Paine, list of X characters and list of X-2 characters (in that order). Just leave me a message here or on my userpage. Ryu Kaze 21:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy X & X-2 references project complete[edit]

Alright, everyone, now all of the Final Fantasy X story-related pages are good to go:

From here, I'm going to be taking a huge break. I'll still be regularly keeping track of the edits people make to the site and monitoring them for validity and an appropriate presence, but this may be the last big project I work on for a while. I'll probably take a look at the Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy X-2 pages to see if they need any work to look like the Final Fantasy VIII page, but this is going to pretty much be it for me for a while.

Between all the VII, X and X-2 pages (a total of 34), I'm downright burned-out on editing, especially where references are concerned. However, the process is much more lengthy and involved than just that, as -- by necessity -- it requires you to go through every last sentence and make sure that the information's valid, if it should be sourced and if there's a need to add/remove/fix any links. So, at this point, I'm darn well tired. XD Thanks go to Mirlen and Deckiller for their continued support -- and compliments -- during this project. It helped more than you think, guys. Ryu Kaze 04:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)