Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy/archive/26

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Roll call: August

Please sign your name below.

— Bl ue 。 00:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC) active somewhat.
— Greg Jones II 00:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
— Anomie 01:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Bonked, but still here for some reason
— Melodia 01:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
--ΔαίδαλοςΣ 19:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC) On Wikibreak, but have not abandoned project.
— Axem Titanium 23:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Busy with Kingdom Hearts FACs but I'll be back soon
when the roll is called up yonder. — Deckill er 23:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
— PresN 05:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC) - I'm back from Europe!
— Judgesurreal777 18:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
— Hibana 18:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Picking up speed.
— Teggles 06:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
— Gavin Scott 22:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)hopefully merge most the FFVII character articles tonight.

Bahamut

Resolved

Can someone, anyone, please help fix the mess in Bahamut. The FF VII entry was mentioned like at least 3 times through out the whole article, and is very unorganized. MythSearcher^talk 17:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole article seriously needs a revamp. But concerning the FF entries, other FF summons did not get such treatment as Bahamut (the mentioning of its recurrence in FF titles, abilities, powers and the like), so something should be done about the whole section dedicated on unnotable FF entry. — Blue 。 18:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We need to clean these articles up fast so they are notable. グレグジョーンズ二世 20:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Notable how? Did you see the FF section for Bahamut? It could not exist as per Ifrit (Final Fantasy) and Shiva (Final Fantasy), so I removed it. — Blue 。 21:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected Bahamut towards Behemoth. The subject is hardly mentioned outside video games, which are all trivial at best. — Bl ue 。 21:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC) If there's anything wrong with what I did, please revert it and do what is best. — Bl ue 。 21:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be merged in my opinion. It's trivial as an article, but a few sentences in Behemoth would definitely not be trivial. Bahamut did appear in D&D and other fantasy works; and even though there are unreliable sites claiming dubious stuff about Bahamut, I doubt these sites totally fabricated it (surely it must have originated somewhere in myth/literature). Kariteh 22:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing what is best. I've opened a merging discussion there as procedure. — Bl ue 。 22:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems like this one is going to be deadlocked. — Deckill er 21:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICT rewrite

Resolved

WP:FICT has been updated significantly. One of the huge issues that will be mentioned by users (coming from the writer) is the sub-article concept; people will want to split off articles that are entirely plot summary and want an exception to the rule because of size issues. The only advice I can give is to trim; allowing entirely in-universe subarticles is a slippery slope. — Deckill er 11:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Almost as if on queue, a rewrite to lower the standards is being proposed. But let's be realistic; this was to be expected. I might propose wikiproject-specific notability guidelines that can be as strict or more strict than the "central" FICT. — Deckill er 20:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

FF FA drive

Resolved

I will be launching an FA drive for FFV, FFII and FFXI. By all means, join me!　おねがいします。 Greg Jones II 18:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm in! I already started working on FFXI!! Judgesurreal777 19:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now requested peer reviews at Wikipedia:Peer review/Final Fantasy II/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Final Fantasy V/archive1. Greg Jones II 19:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This message is for every one who wants to join me: good luck and no turning back! Greg Jones II 18:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC) (may the force be with you...)

Anyone else who wants to join do so now. :D Greg Jones II 13:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Bringing FFVI stuff back to the spotlight.

Resolved

After thirteen years, I'm finally getting what is a rough translation of the FFVI Ultimania. So far, I've gotten Kefka's profile. It's actually some pretty interesting stuff; gives some info on his childhood (he's Thamasan actually, and was raised as an orphan and was routinely the outcast and was made fun of). Also, I didn't do the translation, an FF Wiki contributor is doing it. He's working on Celes' right now. --Sir Crazyswordsman 23:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That's awesome. Is the translator going to post it on the internet somewhere when he's finished? Axem Titanium 20:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I am not sure, Axem, but the translator might. Greg Jones II 21:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VI doesn't have an Ultimania. That started with Final Fantasy VIII. ' 22:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Before FFVIII, apparently, it was called "Master's Guide" or something (see here). I assume this is what CSM is talking about. Axem Titanium 22:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed one for Final Fantasy IV for sale here. Sounds intriguing - I just wish I knew more Japanese. ~ Hibana 23:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about the FFIV one, there's already a translation for it here. Axem Titanium 04:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the FFIV one has lots of interesting information (all in-universe though). It's probably the 75% of the plot that Tokita said was ommited in the original versions but that will be readded in the Nintendo DS remake. Kariteh 08:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

How is this proceeding? — Deckill er 21:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Navbox proposal

Resolved

Hey everyone, I finally got around to this idea I had a while back. It basically involves nested templates to combine the bottom navboxes on each game article into one. You can take a look at it in my Sandbox; the constituent templates are User:Axem Titanium/FF navbox and User:Axem Titanium/FF navbox individual. What do you all think? Axem Titanium 17:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It is good, although the User:Axem Titanium/FF navbox needs FFXIII in the list however as per the previous consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy/archive/24#WP:FF stance on including unreleased games in navboxes for including FFXIII in the list (like it has been done with the MGS template for MGS4). Greg Jones II 18:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Navboxes page have been debated for quite some time and are no longer active. Greg Jones II 18:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

And I have now updated the FF navbox template to include your ideas, Axem Titanium. Greg Jones II 02:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to do that yet, let some more discussion happen. Axem Titanium 02:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that Axem. Greg Jones II 02:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to let anyone know, the consensus for putting FFXIII back in the Template:Final Fantasy series is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy/archive/24#WP:FF stance on including unreleased games in navboxes. Greg Jones II 02:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I prefer the older one; it has the title and the nice blue color scheme. Can that be reintroduced? — Deckill er 09:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It could be reintroduced, Deckiller. Greg Jones II 16:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried fiddling with some of the parameters but I couldn't figure out how to get the right color. Maybe I'm not well-versed enough in template lore. Axem Titanium 16:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Any luck with the format so far? — Deckill er 21:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but it seems to be a browser issue; the colors look fine on the computer I'm working on right now and I haven't done anything. Another issue is that I can't seem to get the tnavbar (the thing with the view/edit/discuss) to align properly to fit with all browsers. Anyone better-versed in template syntax is welcome to help. Axem Titanium 17:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What advantage does this have over the current templates? Kariteh 14:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

FFVII characters

Resolved

I thought they shouldn't all be merged? Kariteh 09:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No Not all, that was my mistake to type that, just the ones that dont deserve their own articles. The standard for a lone article was set my Deckkiller I believe. Gavin Scott 11:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

With the new WP:FICT, it might change slightly. But I'm fairly certain there is enough real-world info to warrant articles for Cloud, Sephiroth, Tifa, Aerith, and most likely Vincent and Zack. I recommend searching critical reviews, interviews, and that flaregamer article used on Characters of Final Fantasy VIII; there's probably a boatload. — Deckill er 13:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Various translations

Resolved

I was wondering, since it doesn't seem to be covered in this project's MoS, which translation to prefer in articles. This mainly applies to older games such as II, IV, V, etc. which have been re-released and re-translated many times (Firion/Frionel, Reina/Lenna, Barbaricca/Valva-whatever-it-is). Axem Titanium 17:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

For FF1, the current article uses the original NES translation with alternate names parenthesized for the first use, and any particularly notable translation differences are mentioned in later sections discussing the remakes along with mention of the other changes. One version needed to be chosen instead of the random mishmash that was there previously, and as the "base" version that was the one that made sense to pick.

A similar case could be made for FF4 and 6; I'm not sure how the articles currently stand, as I'm not familiar with the different translations of those games. FF2, 3, and 5 were not released in an original English version, although all three have been fan-translated, so I'm not sure how to choose a version for those games. Anomie 18:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that FF6 has only one translation for the names; they decided not to change them for the GBA version. The opposite reasoning would be that each new translation is the new canonical translation (God knows that some of the older translations are not the highest quality ever) and the newest version should be used. Axem Titanium 18:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, FF6 has three different translations: the SNES one, the PS1 one (mostly similar, although it has a few corrections like Biggs instead of Vicks), and the GBA one (Tritoch becomes Valigarmndarmanayarrddjmslgsgar, Madonna becomes Madeline, the goddesses change names and sexes, etc.). I think putting the original names with the newer ones in parentheses is fine. Kariteh 20:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I meant that the main characters (ie, the ones who would actually be mentioned at all in the article) did not get name changes in FFVI. Anyway, next point of business, should the old or the new translation appear first? And what happens if there are more than 2 translations? Axem Titanium 01:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, I would think we should primarily use the new (GBA) names since retcon happens for a reason. Those're the names they want to adhere to now.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 01:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Aerith > Aeris, and all that, though that has already been resolved with regards to use in the FFVII article. Anyway, any ideas about >2 translations? Axem Titanium 01:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess we would just mention all the names in a real prose sentence? I.e. (I'm really just BSing here) "He is also known as Vicks in the SNES translation and Bicks in the PlayStation translation." I just think after awhile mentioning all the names in all the translations in parentheses right after the first mention of the name starts looking unwieldy and ugly. (Oh, and that retcon thing I said was about the FF6 thing. >.>;)—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 02:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we should not use the new names in the main articles. The main articles deal primarily with the first release of the games (and the re-releases are contained in their small subsections), so we should use the original names. The new names can appear in parentheses, but the original (English) ones must be there first for consistency. It would make no sense to describe FFIII SNES with the FFVI Advance names. As for when there are more than two names, I think we can perhaps use the original one and mention only the most recent one in parentheses, and save the other inbetween names for the "Characters" and "World" articles (these exist to give more details right?). Kariteh 09:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kariteh, (although FF1 doesn't have enough characters or world to have "Characters" and "World" articles). I also am concerned that using "new" names would lead to removal of much of the information on the original and inclusion of information on the remake's added content in the main section rather than in the remake section where it belongs. Anomie 16:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if the FF1 characters and world are not notable enough to have separate articles, they're probably not notable enough to have all their translations mentioned either. The original NES names and the most recent ones (PSP) are probably enough. Kariteh 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject logo

Resolved

I've created an SVG version of the logo, what does everyone think? Also, is there any particular reason why we use Image:Gamepad.svg instead of Image:FF project logo.png in a lot of places in this project? Anomie 16:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's good, better to use SVG since it's a more versatile format. Axem Titanium 17:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Versatility doesn't seem to be necessary for this icon, since it's never used at more than 40px of width. I think the PNG should be kept because it's less heavy in terms of file size. Kariteh 14:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the image use policy recommends SVG for icons and there have been no major objections, I'm going to change the image soon. Anomie 16:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Spira GAR

Resolved

Spira has been listed for GA review. Comment, fix, etc. at Good article review. Kariteh 22:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Also notified at WP:SE. Greg Jones II 00:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ffvii worldmap new.png IFD

Resolved

Image:Ffvii worldmap new.png is up for IFD here. Axem Titanium 18:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Release dates

Resolved

Release dates in many Final Fantasy articles are not referenced. I once added references to Final Fantasy IX, but not many (any?) others have them. Is there a reason for this? The release date should be the one of the most important things to reference. --Teggles 08:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

How is this going, Teggles? — Deckill er 21:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII#Story

Resolved

This section has been updated to reduce the length.[1] It has reduced 4,000 characters (from around 11,000 to 7,000). The problem? It has more paragraphs, no wikilinks, no references, is ambiguous, and is poorly written. The previous revision has less paragraphs, valid wikilinks, has references, and better written. I would say well-written content is more important than length. This is why I have reverted it. An updated story section can still be worked on, but only until it is actually better (not just shorter). --Teggles 07:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyway, story sections are such a pain to write though; when you think it's perfect and you come back several months later, you want to change it completely. It needs a good massage. — Deckill er 10:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

irritating, yes, but agreed. lets hope someone is willing to do it. i dont have the time anymore Kiran 11:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a Featured Article with a stub section at the bottom, so the rest of the article has be topnotch for people not to contest its FA status. The reverted story section was not up to FA standard, while the current one is; and I don't think it's too long. Reducing it by 75% was highly, highly unrealistic anyway. Kariteh 11:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It still needs reducing, and that's no lie. We aren't here to duplicate the game's entire plot. The plot is very intricate, but I'm sure some of the less important stuff can be cut out. I really need to do some work myself on Wikipedia, so I'll try to bother. :( --Teggles 11:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Besides, here's a list of RPGs with more in-depth plots: Xenogears, Xenosaga Episode I, Xenosaga Episode II, Xenosaga Episode III, Suikoden III, Suikoden V, Final Fantasy VIII, Final Fantasy IX, Final Fantasy X, Final Fantasy Tactics, Ogre Battle 64, and Star Ocean: Till the End of Time. — Deckill er 11:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Did I miss any? :) — Deckill er 05:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably, but who's counting? :) Axem Titanium 17:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(reset) Me :) It's unfortunate that Final Fantasy will never have a plot as good as Xenosaga :( — Deckill er 23:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Woah; the summary still needs trimming by at least 40 percent. It's almost 1,900 words when it should ideally be approximately 1,000. I'm taking the resolved tag off. Is anyone interested in trimming that summary? — Deckill er 21:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy V FA push

Resolved

It's getting there. With some polishing and a final sweep for references, it can probably go to FAC fairly soon. — Deckill er 12:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I'll head over for a copyedit sometime soon. Axem Titanium 13:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The article looks nice, but the development section definitely needs expanding. At this point I'd oppose to FA, but I'm very pedantic, so it'll probably pass anyway. It's disappointing that sources for this are hard to obtain. The only sources are old, from magazines, in Japanese, and are hard to obtain. I can't imagine anything harder to research than (relatively) old Japanese video games. :( Anyway, there's some comprehensive Nobuo Uematsu sites, so I'll look through them for something. --Teggles 08:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

How is this going? — Deckill er 21:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ummmm... unfortunately on hold, for me; I've been working on Kingdom Hearts related stuff (I'm a blood traitor, so sue me). I'll get on it as soon as I'm done, which should be no later than tomorrow or the day after. Axem Titanium 01:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. — Deckill er 16:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Showing Wikipedia what we're made of

Resolved

We've come a long way since the beginning of last year (2006): nine featured articles, two featured topics, and a featured list (although the latter needs an update). Twenty-five Good Articles, with several on the threshold. I start the fall semester September 5; until then, I'll have a fair amount of time. I'm sure many of you have several weeks before you start your school year.

I think we should end this summer with a bang. Final Fantasy V and Final Fantasy XI are quite close to FA status. If we can get those nominated ASAP, then we'll be ahead of the game for sure. You've all seen how amazingly fast the Kingdom Hearts articles have improved; let's show that we're not merely role models of the past, but of the present as well. I challenge this WikiProject to get three more FAs/FACs (FFV, FFXI, and another) and three GAs/GACs by the end of August! — Deckill er 21:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Everyone, let's do it! Good luck! Greg Jones II 16:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC) May the force be with you....

Nice to see some zest and flare coming from the WikiProject. If I have some free time by the weekend, I'll sure to drop by. — Bl ue 。 16:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Good articles....lets see... Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles should be one...what about the other two? Judgesurreal777 17:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing what's already written in Ivalice could make it a GA and paves the way to a Featured Topic (FFT, Vagrant Story, FFTA, FFXII, and FFXII:RW are already GA/FA, and the other Ivalice games don't count since they're unreleased). That would be a wonderful bang. Kariteh 18:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Tactics/Tactics Advance are in varying shapes of readyness for FA... Axem Titanium 18:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

By varying shapes, can you point out the ones we can reshape? — Bl ue 。 19:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, War of the Lions is out in Japan, so we might need Ivalice and War of the Lions to be GA...Judgesurreal777 22:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ivalice is pretty much good for GA; some citation in the Demography and Mythology section and expanding the Reception section, and some trimmings no doubt, can earn it a GA already. — Bl ue 。 10:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ivalice has achieved GA status. For the record, the article hasn't been edited at all during the process (apart from adding the word "Ivalice" in some pictures' FU rationales); this means there are still energy to spend somewhere else! Let's spend it on Final Fantasy Tactics: The War of the Lions; if it gets GA status, the "Video games set in Ivalice" Featured Topic is guaranteed. This will be a huge bang to compensate for the 14 Good/Featured Articles/Topics that the non-FF Square Enix WikiProject has produced this summer. Kariteh 21:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've been taking a break from Final Fantasy-related articles, but it sounds awesome. I know I said I'd help out with these articles more, but when keyboard god Derek Sherinian and his friend give me a personal request to make his article great, I cannot refuse :) — Deckill er 23:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Judgesurreal777 says we might be able to nominate Ivalice/FFT/VS/FFTA/FFXII for Featured Topic without FFXII:RW or FFT:TLW, since these two are not yet out long enough to be made GAs. Thoughts? Kariteh 09:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's pretty logical; the two games haven't received significant critical reception, and there might not be as many sources. We can definitely add them later. — Deckill er 14:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so far every nomination has been getting seriously owned with oppositions... I guess it's no use to push and hasten things when there's no motivation to begin with. Kariteh 21:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, 3 of 4 Good articles have passed, but the topic and the featured article have stalled. Perhaps we should come back with a tactics and F12 topics seperately, and keep fixing up the XI and V for a try in september. Judgesurreal777 20:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Also 2 Good articles have been delisted and the "List of FF media" Featured list seems like it's going to be delisted too. The latter will unfortunately directly provoke the fall of the "Final Fantasy titles" Featured topic, since the FT criteria are that the articles must all be at least GA, and the Good list status doesn't exist. Kariteh 21:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

D'oh, this is really bad news for us here. I have a bad feeling about this. Greg Jones II 21:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am hazy on what exactly has been so hard to fix up about the final fantasy list...Judgesurreal777 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that I noticed that the article Music of Final Fantasy VIII was a Good Article. I don't know if it deserves that status, if it was gotten a long time ago or whatever. Anyways, what I wanted to bring up is that articles Music of Final Fantasy VII & Music of Final Fantasy X are NOT Good Articles, yet MoFF8 has NOTHING on them( well MoFF10 doesn't have a "Reception and criticism" section, but that can be fixed easily). Shouldn't those two other articles also get Good Article Status? I recently changed them to comply more with WP:ALBUMS (track listings & infobox). I'm not too familiar with FA and GA nomination, so I'm sorry if what I'm saying is stupid, but since were talking about showing wikipedia what we are made of, aren't these two articles GA freebies? Shouldn't we nominate them? happypal (Talk | contribs) 23:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same articles here? MoFF8 has a good-sized influences and creation section, a good-sized reception section, and a lot more information about each album/single then just "it was published [date] by [company] and re-released by [company2] on [date2]," which is what MoFF7 and MoFF10 are, though 7's a bit better than 10. MoFF8 was also GA'd only a few months ago, as well. --PresN 00:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll grant you that MoFF8 has a better "Reception" section, and that it has a slightly larger "influences and creation" section. However I can't agree with "a lot more information about each album/single", unless you are referring to "Adam Corn of SoundtrackCentral.com claims that..." or "A total of 11 user-created reviews on Amazon.com reached an aggregate of 95.5%". If we need an in-article criticism of each albums in the other two articles, then it can be fixed.

Anyways, I wasn't coming to start an argument, or bad talk GA articles, and I'll agree that MoFF8 is slightly better, but just that much. I thought I'd just bring to attention that I think that if MoFF8 is GA, then so should MoFF7 and MOFF10.happypal (Talk | contribs) 01:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject-specific notability

Resolved

If consensus is reached for WP:FICT to be scaled back, then we might want to propose WikiProject-specific notability guidelines that can introduce a variety of notability standards based on the group consensus of the WikiProject (as long as it's at least as strict as the main). This will help us maintain a high standard even if such a standard cannot be met across Wikipedia (since not everything has as much real-world info available as Final Fantasy). We'll see what happens. Thoughts? — Deckill er 19:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Why should FICT be scaled back at all? I wouldn't object to our project-specific guidelines to be a carbon-copy of the current FICT. Axem Titanium 21:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to make it very clear, Deckiller, that I and probably many others would agree that the guide to writing about fiction should not be loosened for anyone. I and many others have merged or moved content (many times that we wrote!) out of wikipedia because it was not encyclopedic, and we shouldn't have people changing what "encyclopedic" means because they want their cruft to stay. Judgesurreal777 21:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Woah woah woah. I don't want to scale back WP:FICT (I wrote the current version that raised the bar), but many others have expressed an interest in rewriting the rewrite. If you have thoughts, post them in the bottom thread at WT:FICT. — Deckill er 22:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL I know YOU don't want to do that, I meant to express a kinda "don't give up the fight" sentiment. I think we should keep the bar high, and let those who want it changed to know that too, on behalf of many of us. Judgesurreal777 22:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Anthology Release date

Resolved

I would like to double check this game's release date, as 50% of the sites I go to credit september 30, and the others october 5. The page doesn't source this info. Is there any official source that could clarify which one it is? Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy/Release dates also says September 30, but it could just be a copy paste from the anthology page, for all I know. Thankyou.happypal (Talk | contribs) 17:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This official press release implies that it was shipped on October 5, 1999. --Teggles 03:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks. In that case, the two above pages need to be modified. happypal (Talk | contribs) 04:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)