Final Fantasy Wiki on Gamespot Edit

I'm reposting the below as last time it didn't really go anywhere:

Wikia has partnered with Gamespot to let them link to our some of Wikia's game wikis. This is a great way to promote our wikis to Gamespot's readers and recruit new readers and editors. We launched four of them in November (Halo, Call of Duty, Mass Effect, and Tabula Rasa) and we are planning to add a bunch more in February, including Final Fantasy Wiki. They are interested in adding a Final Fantasy Wiki tab to their Gamespot Final Fantasy gamepage. This tab would look identical to the Halopedia Tab. The content (Featured articles, Recent Changes, Popular Articles) is generated via a content feed that Wikia sets up.

For this to work for Final Fantasy Wiki, I would need your help setting up a Featured Content templates similar to how Mass Effect does it. This allows the Wikia feed to send Gamespot featured content snippets and images. There are instructions for how to do this on w:c:inside:Featured Article System.

This is slightly urgent, and would be very beneficial to the site! Kirkburn (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I will see about setting up examples to help. Kirkburn (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

		BlueHighwind Q? TALK - This Land is Made of... LOVE AND PEACE!! LOVE AND PEACE!! ツ:
		I'm interested. However I have no authority in this area. If you want to talk to people in charge of selecting featured articles go to User:Diablocon and of course speak with the wiki Bureaucrat User:Crazyswordsman. I hope that this goes somewhere this time.

I spoke to them previously, but it didn't go anywhere :( Kirkburn (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

		Diablocon - No, the question is; who art thou, ham planks? Shanks! I meant shanks TALK - 15:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
		The problem is, I don't really know that much about coding and the like. That's really Hecko's department.

See Final Fantasy Wiki:Featured content. This is the generally preferred design for Gamespot to "harvest" it, though the excerpts would likely have to be smaller. In order to use it on the Main Page, you could have the border area separate to the content, and put the writing inside that? There's more info on Featured Article System on Inside Wikia which should be able to help. Kirkburn (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you also don't have to convert every page over, that's up to you - there just need to be enough for Gamespot to show a relatively good selection on their page. I think you can also change the X on the Template:FA/X to an article name, so long as it's listed on Final Fantasy Wiki:Featured content. Kirkburn (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

		Diablocon - No, the question is; who art thou, ham planks? Shanks! I meant shanks TALK - 16:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
		Alright, I've started to edit it. To make things easier, I will start with the Featured Articles from 2008. Also, I'll protect it so only admins can edit it. EDIT: In the process of cleaning this up, I must say I'm not too keen on it. It looks a little messy.

		AzureDrake TALK - What the Christ {{{time}}}
		How about we feature something no one would expect? The last few articles were all, if not every single one of them, main characters of the games. How about we feature something like a weapon? Just a suggestion.

This Week's Featured Article Edit

		BlueHighwind Q? 21:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC) TALK - This Land is Made of... LOVE AND PEACE!! LOVE AND PEACE!! ツ:
		I brought this up a million years ago, but nobody seemed to do anything about it. So I guess I'll start up again. Since this is Diablo's thing, he should fix it. All the little monthly Featured Article boxes are incorrectly named. The pages they are on are called "Final Fantasy Wiki:This Week's Featured Article/Yo Yo Ma" or whatever. That's clearly wrong because 1) they should be subpages of this page, and 2) we don't even have weekly featured articles. Its openly misleading.

		Diablocon - No, the question is; who art thou, ham planks? Shanks! I meant shanks TALK - 13:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
		No excuse other than laziness I'm afraid. I'll go through the templates in a while and put them all under the correct sub-page. EDIT: Done. And it was only late into my moving spree, in the 2006 era, that I realised there's a "Don't create redirect" tick box. >_<

Weekly or Biweekly FA Edit

Diablo has agreed on making the FA a biweekly thing.

I personally think we're more than equipped to make it a weekly thing, like the FI.

This allows for removing that constricting rule of one game per year.

What do you guys think? Fëasindë ^Peth 23:29, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

Support. Doreiku Kuroofangu 23:30, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a very good idea. With all the articles we have, we'll never run out of them. KujaRhapsodos 23:32, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The one game per year is a bit of a drag. Koharu Nami 23:33, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I can't see why not. With over 14,000 articles out there, we're not going to run out of articles to feature any time soon. Jeppo (Talk | contribs) 23:35, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Though this might make the voting process difficult as the FA will come and go quickly. Maybe we can have a "big" FA that Diablo updates once a month and people vote on and a "small" FA that some group of admins pick. ScatheMote 23:44, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

I won't go either way on it, but, really, I'd like us to take a look at what kinds of articles are feature-worthy. Characters are pretty much a go, as are recurring weapons and maybe even spells at a stretch, but a chunk of our content lies in stubs, articles that could use a lift, and archives, which generally manifest as a buttload of tables. Also, we only have so many games to work with in the first place, so let's not go overboard on those. I know the first thing people will have the urge to do is burn through them all.

I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad idea; only that we should break things down a bit and examine them before we dive in. Bluestarultor ^BSA 23:48, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

We could of course eliminate the process of voting. All is good in SovietFFWiki! We get an average of 6 worthy articles every month, 5 of them are rejected. The year has 52 weeks.

Even if some of the rejected articles got chosen after they were initially turned down, we have more than enough articles to feature for the next four or five years. Fëasindë ^Peth 23:55, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

As another possible effect, if people know that we have more FAs, they may be more motivated to clean up and improve an article they like to try and get it featured. Doreiku Kuroofangu 23:58, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

Why jump straight into weekly FA's? Can't we make it a calmer transition to a biweekly update for a couple of months before going into full force mode? Even though we're perfectly fit to do it, we don't have rush it and make updates four times more frequent right off the bat. - Henryacores^ 00:07, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

Why do we need a "calm transition" at all? Doreiku Kuroofangu 00:09, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

Diablo's responsible for it and he's first thinking about making it biweekly. I agree with him, and I also believe it shouldn't stop at that. Besides, I don't think that the one game per year should be abolished, but more mild. There should be still some sort of control, even if minimal, so as to prevent the reasons why the rule was lifted in the first place. It's natural the problems won't be the same, but there's no harm in keeping them away. - Henryacores^ 00:13, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

Diablo alone wouldn't have to handle it. Haven't we got at least 8 active admins to cover his rear? Besides, there is harm in keeping the restrictive rule of one game per year, there are loads and loads of very interesting articles which should be featured that can't because of it. Fëasindë ^Peth 00:17, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

By loosening the rule, I obviously meant that the number of articles per game would have to be increased, otherwise it would be absolutely impossible to feature 26 or 52 articles in a year. We only have 14 main series titles and probably not much more than a dozen spin-offs. That means that at least half our articles would have to be generic\series-wide in the best case, which is idiotic to propose. - Henryacores^ 00:21, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me and how is that "idiotic"? And if you read my original message, there was included the proposal of dropping that rule completely. Fëasindë ^Peth 00:24, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

Henry, we could just remove the "one article of each game per year" rule. Its already horribly inconsistent. How come FFVII counts as the entire Compilation but you can have a FFX-2 article with FFX? --BlueHighwind 00:27, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT: It's idiotic because it's stupid to feature one article from one game per two or one week when there isn't a number of games big enough to support a ratio greater than 1. And I'm well aware that you support the abolition of that rule. I believe that there should be a great liberalization of that rule, because it originally had its reason to be adopted. And I don't see why we should drop votings. - Henryacores^ 00:29, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say Henry, and I'm beginning to grow annoyed at the liberal use flames to attack an argument. The math is simple: we have tons of very good articles, and we can make it irrelevant whether all of them belong to VI, VII, X or XIX (though of course we would not encourage such behaviour). That would be all that matters: that the article is good. Fëasindë ^Peth 00:36, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

I would favor initially starting with a biweekly system. There's no question that we have enough articles to be featured, and the "one game article per year" rule could be abolished, but I'm wondering if the weekly swapout may be a bit too fast-paced. The Featured Articles are partly intended to present a high quality example of what this wiki has to offer to new or casual users. Cycling through articles too quickly may have a neagtive impact on both the article's reception and on the nomination process, which I think would feel very rushed.

I'm not saying a weekly FA would not work at all, but I support easing into it by starting biweekly for a while and evaluating how the process is working. 8bit 01:01, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT DX< The FA isn't only meant to show the quality of articles, but also the quality of the wiki in general. In the past, similar pages, both in field and game, filled the FA archives while eclipsing the rest of the scope. These articles were nominated by users as now. Since the rule of the "One article per game", this changed dramatically. I repeat: it's impossible to apply that rule if you want to change the FA every week, or every two weeks, or every holiday. However, if the voting system is kept, and I will vehemently oppose its elimination, it should be controlled in a similar way, even if mildly (note that there is no rule about featuring 12 character articles in a row), because it only directly contributes to a more diverse FA feature, which is only positive.

While I'm saying it should be controlled, I don't mean it with a restraining approach. I mean it with an intent to maintain the diversity the FA has gained through time. Also, for example, I would find fun to select commemorative seasons in the near future to celebrate the anniversary of some releases (i.e., this year it's FFX's 10th anniversary. We could select a special month\number of weeks to feature our best FFX articles as an homage.). This could be applied to, for example, FFTA or FFX-2 two years later or something like that, who knows? It's a good way to promote some titles and our coverage of them, since FAs are among the first things seen on our homepage. Another example: We could celebrate the release of XIII-2 by using the FA in the same way: select our very best FFXIII articles and feature them.

I'm out for tonight. Peace. \m/- Henryacores^ 01:05, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

This was brought up on the IRC that we get over 2 million hits a week (a lot more than I thought). This does suggest that we get enough viewers for a weekly FA. Also suggested on the IRC was that the nomination system could be like the DNC (which is technically a weekly thing). We could have a big nomination page and a shortlist.

While maybe the weekly thing means we would have a lower quality of articles featured, but it means we can do themes for a month (best FFIV articles for its 20th anniversary, for example) and show off more of our articles. It's a bit of a tossup. ScatheMote 01:22, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe "lower quality" isn't the right term...but maybe some smaller/shorter articles would have a better chance. Still, 52 articles a year is a big jump from just 12.Keltainentoukokuu 01:36, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

The voting system should remain as it is. It works and there's nothing that points that it would fail if we adopt a faster pace. To be honest, the DNC voting system was crappy and flooded with nominations, and in the end, one of the most popular was picked at random by the responsible admin. I have absolutely nothing against the structure, but we shouldn't use the DNC as an example for an organized feature in any way possible. - Henryacores^ 09:49, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

I can understand that making the FA a bi-weekly thing sounds like a cautious thing to do but, based on Scathe's figures, our sheer number of articles, and the great many excellent ones amongst them, I think that might be a cautious measure we need not take. I propose the following:

• A weekly FA, of which the responsibility might cycle between the current active admins who step forward and assume the position.
• Abolition of the One Game per Year rule (OGpY). Judiciously selecting the article would be the responsibility of the admin in charge, who will not favour any particular game over the rest.
• A continuous nomination list, similar to the one we "use" at the DNC. Users would nominate any article they want, other users would vote and comment on its quality and the responsible admins would chose the weekly FA from the pool of worthy articles.

What do you guys think? Fëasindë ^Peth 17:23, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

Since Henry and a few other people are worried about such a huge jump, I'd say its probably best to keep it bi-weekly, and thus only 21 articles per year. Also, its probably best that this whole nomination thing look nothing at all like the DNC, whose nomination page is a giant mess. Does anybody monitor that page at all? You'd think two years later it would be better, but no. I like how the nomination page here is extremely orderly and entirely free of DNC-style insanity. Finally, no universal sufferage, edit counts should remain in place.

Oh, I know nobody suggested this yet, but I think somebody should say this - definitely no voting system for Featured Images. There's no real judgment of quality for a Featured Image like a Featured Article. That really would open the floodgates to full chaos. --BlueHighwind 18:12, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

I agree that DNC style voting system is not good. Either we keep the same voting system in place, or the staff will pick the FA without userbase input.Keltainentoukokuu 18:31, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

Keep the same voting system in place for FA, DNC-style has proven to be a bit chaotic. I would also sway away from it being totally staff picks without voting; less input from our regular userbase is exactly what we don't need. - +DeadlySlashSword+ 19:17, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with retaining the current voting system, as the nominations would be fresh every cycle. This and the removal of the OgpY (YES I LOVE YOUR ACRONYM) would encourage users to nominate without as much concern towards backlogs of past nominations. 8bit 19:23, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the OGpY and keeping the normal voting system.

So, as I understand it, Diablo has accepted to do the FA bimonthly and we will revamp the voting system to accommodate for this. So regarding this voting system, I think the rule regarding the fact that there should be 5 articles nominated before we start voting should stay in place. These accumulate very quickly (usually within a day or two) so that's shouldn't change. Also we probably should keep the rule about the transition period where articles can only be nominated every other month. We only might want to amend it to every other two week period. ScatheMote 21:03, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why we should outright remove game per year restrictions, just increase to 2or4 per year. The rule was introduced for a reason, and just doing it more often doesn't change that. Nor do I believe that "lots of views" mean that we should shift to a weekly thing. I think there is nothing wrong with sticking to monthyly to be honest. I don't see how switching to anything less is really "progression" for the wiki. We'll probably just end up with lots of "blegh" articles, and more articles that suit the current moment in time rather than good, quality articles. 79.69.199.141 21:14, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

I am also a bit at the fog as to why this change is taking place. The arguments I have seen so far is "then more articles can be featured" and "we have so many articles we can afford it", neither of which really have much to do with why the FA exists. It's not there so articles "get" to be featured after all. Having a featured article more often might make visitors check in more frequently?Keltainentoukokuu 21:29, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

Same here. Just because we have 14,000+ articles means we can, so we must? I'm not so sure it'll draw in new visitors as much as it might keep them here longer, but that's about the only real plus I see unless I'm being massively farsighted. It will also take much less time for us to run out of great articles and have to move onto the good and mediocre. Featuring more articles devaluates the entire idea of being featured too, also? - +DeadlySlashSword+ 00:47, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think we're going to run out good articles to Feature if the rate is only 21 or 52 per year any time soon. Especially since SE never stops making new Final Fantasy games. --BlueHighwind 00:54, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

The idea of featuring an article from our database is precisely to showcase the quality of our pages. More worthy FAs means we get to showcase more of this quality, as proof of the overall high standards of the Wiki. I honestly find it baffling that I have to explain this.

For those of you that think we might end up watering down the quality of our articles, I believe you have not thought things through: take a look at the nominations from the FA nomination page. Keep in mind that currently we cannot nominate an article from a game that has had a previous article chosen and that we cannot nominate an article twice in a row should it not be picked for featuring: you are left with literally dozens of high quality articles that have simply never been selected because of our current situation.

Moreover, their chance of ever getting selected in the nearby future is small because of this same restriction, as all it takes for the article to be banished for a year is that another article from its own franchise is selected. Just how many FA might we get from the excellent work we have on FFX's world? How many from the excellent work we have for FFIV's characters? How many from the astounding quality of our Ivalice Alliance pages? We have hundreds upon hundreds of pages that show the FFWiki is a jewel amongst Wikia's branch of Gaming. I do not think it is fair to keep its glimmer to ourselves. Fëasindë ^Peth 01:09, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

The point of the FA feature isn't that some specific articles get to be featured. It's not a trophy or something, where some deserving articles not getting it would be unfair. It doesn't matter if such and such article cannot be featured right now, if we still have another, just as good, article that we can feature instead. If we really have so many brilliant articles as you say, then we would not run out of good articles to feature even with the one game per year restriction. The more often you have a new featured article, the less special the event is. We should not look at this from the point of view that "this article deserves to be featured but can't because of rules, so let's change the rules" but how it would improve the mainpage to have a FA more often. Your theory now is that the FFWiki visitors don't get an optimal impression of our content, because the same FA stays for too long? Just trying to clarify.Keltainentoukokuu 01:27, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

You're beginning to lose me Kel. The point of a Featured Article is precisely to be featured amongst the rest. You say that "the more often you have a new featured article, the less special the event is", yet immediately before that you said that being featured is not a trophy; why then is it relevant whether the even is special or not? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you (though I do actually believe being featured is an award of sorts) I'm just pointing out what confuses me about your message.

Removing the restriction and having more FA is, in fact, a way of improving the main page to have a FA more often; I'm not saying it is the only way, but you seem to be implying that increasing the number of featured pages is not a way of doing it. "Not increasing the FAs in order to have a FA more often" seems contradictory to me.

Indeed, I do believe that the current setup of OGpY and a single FA per month makes for no optimal impression of our content. That is quite the reason why I think we should change this frame. Fëasindë ^Peth 02:24, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

(Killing the indent because getting too narrow.) What I mean is that having a weekly FA may reduce people's interest in the whole concept of FAs (=making it less of a special event), because hopefully people would, if not read all of it, at least look at the article that is being featured. If there is a new article rather often, and you may "miss" some FAs because you may not visit every week (if you're just a reader then you don't visit here every day like we do, couple times a month is already being a loyal FFWiki fan), I think it is possible that it will garner less interest on the whole, no longer having the "I wonder what it is this month" feeling. I remember I used to like checking up on the monthly features before I became contributor, but I have never had much interest in the Wikipedia article of the day thing, even if I love Wikipedia as a site and visit it frequently. It is just quite a lot to read to read one article a day, so you look at it only if the subject already interests you. But with the monthly system I would find myself reading articles here that I didn't initially find "interesting", something I may not have searched myself with the search option, just because the FA is like a "thing".

I don't mean "special" as if from the article's itself point of view, because I don't think it should be an "award" exactly. If an article is featured then that is good of course, but hopefully all the other articles are also good; the ones not being featured should be about the same quality too really if you think about it. What we should strive for anyway!

Thank you for clarifying about the purpose of this change. I support all changes that make visitors like the FFWiki more. ;) I don't know does having more than one FFIV character article on the mainpage in a year do it, but it's good to have this discussion.Keltainentoukokuu 03:04, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

ResolutionEdit

So what is it going to be? Some users think it should be bi-weekly, some users think it should be weekly. Shall we have a vote or should the admins decide on the matter? Fëasindë ^Peth 18:46, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

		Xepscern - It's Morphin Time!! TALK - 18:51, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
		I believe the admins should decide, since they are the ones who will be changing it every week/two weeks, whichever you decide on.

Make a poll on the front page and let wiki visitors decide. The FFWiki is planning to revamp the featured articles feature. Would you like to see a new featured article updated every day (lol yeah right we're not doing that ;)), once a week, once every two weeks, once a month (keep it the same). Other good market research polls: do you read the featured article always/if it seems interesting/never, and how often do you visit the FFWiki every day/once a week/few times a month/ever 2-3 months/few times a year/this is my first time. Then let me make pie charts with psychedelic gay parade colours and we can put them in our yearbook. *nodnod*

Either we run this baby like a business or you admins can just decide whatever on whatever whim, it doesn't matter then. It's "your" front page.Keltainentoukokuu 20:14, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

Polls are infamous on this wiki for not working. I say we all suggest some models and we vote on them, as done in Forum:Lack of admin activity#Method Proposals. We have to admit: it worked very well when it came to deciding how to elect admins - Why leave that model to die? - Henryacores^ 20:20, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion 1 by Fëasindë ^Peth Edit

Weekly FA with the current nomination system and riddance of OGpY.

• We change the FA every week.
• We select the weekly FA in the exact same way we currently do, except...
• We get rid of the OGpY rule and instead we appeal to common sense - or admin intervention, whatever the case might require.

Support. The Wiki has hundreds and hundreds of really good articles, quite worthy of being showcased to our viewers who, in turn, are basically 2 million people per week. We have enough admins that could handle the process, so the responsibilities would not fall just on Diablo's hands. Fëasindë ^Peth 20:39, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

Support, the OGpY could be changed to One Game Every Five/Four Weeks (ie, once a month) if it becomes a problem again. Doreiku Kuroofangu 20:45, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion 2 by Henryacores^Edit

Transitional stage of biweekly FA during 2011. Weekly FA as of January 2012. Use of current nomination system and control reocurrance of FA content monthly

• We use biweekly FAs until the year the world ends.
• Starting with January 2012, we use Weekly FAs, if all goes well(*)
• We keep the same voting system, and so as to prevent a redundant, popularity-based FA feature we control the nomination of FA's monthly instead of yearly.
• We launch special themed months every now and then as a sole exception to the point above.

Support. I don't think we should rush into weekly FAs immediately. The change can be done perfectly well gradually, and it shouldn't be carved in stone. If eventual changes are needed, they should be done when they're needed. Also, only because the Wiki has tons of great articles, we should forcefully feature a wide diversity of our coverage. If we find a control of the content of articles restraining in the future, then we should definitely remove those same restraints. - Henryacores^ 21:01, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

Support. A transitional period would really help us in determining potential problems or positive points in making our Featured Articles more frequent. Also, I like the point of converting the OgPYear rule into a OgPMonth rule - because "common sense and admin intervention" sounds a bit vague. It would be best to accompany the acceleration in FAs with a similar set of rules that keep it running as smoothly as it is now. 8bit 04:28, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support. This way, if it sucks, or Dia and the other admins have a hard time keeping up, we can go back to monthly. I don't like that idea much, but hey, if it's most practical, do it. Otherwise, go to weekly. ~Shadow Catuse's great risks 15:14, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion 3Edit

Do nothing.

• Remains monthly.

Support. I see no problem with how it is currently run, and don't see how changing it will end up being beneficial for anyone. More frequent FAs means a reduction in the quality of articles. You may argue that we have many quality articles (something I would disagree with, but not the point) but more frequent FAs means we're more likely to choose situational FAs. By that I mean during the week of halloween, we'll choose a scary enemy, on the week of the anniversary of a game's release, we'll get an article about something from that game. And that is what leads to low-quality FAs being selected. The subject will be far more reason to pick something that the content of the article. 79.69.197.149 23:43, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I'm sorry. I completely disagree with such a cynical view. A lot of our articles are excellent and amongst the best we can find within Gaming Wikia. I dare you to find four, nay, three Wikis amongst Gaming Wikia with standards as high as ours. Also, saying that we would favour theme over quality of content without any evidence is just outright calling the would-be people in charge incompetent (or worse, just stupid), and I take issue at being called that. Fëasindë ^Peth 04:05, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

No, it would be a natural change. When you have longer time-frames, people in that time would think of quality articles that would be good FAs. The more frequent the FA is, the less people would look for quality, and the more they'll think about the time of year and find something to vote based on that-- said article may be of some quality, but it would have been chosen because of the time, and not because of the quality. And since when did the people in-charge choose the nominations and who votes for which article? Why would it be at insult to you?

As for our "quality" articles, there is no perfect article currently up for FA. Leviathan is probably one of the best choices, but it has no info on the Mysterious Dungeon games, XII's section is too brief, and little info for Before Crisis. Our joint highest voted option, the Garlean Empire is a good option... but maybe it's just me, but the list of NPCs should be expanded into short paragraph entries for each of the characters. And then there's our other joint-highest voted, Tonberry, and I've voiced my concerns for it on the VotesforFA page. 79.69.197.121 12:36, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose "By that I mean during the week of halloween, we'll choose a scary enemy, on the week of the anniversary of a game's release, we'll get an article about something from that game. And that is what leads to low-quality FAs being selected." I dare saying that this statement is absolutely false. We have never featured a low-quality article just because they feature content that alludes to a certain event taking place during the time it's featured. If we ever picked articles for that reason, they were definitely good on their own. - Henryacores^ 13:19, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

I realise I said "low-quality", when that's not really what I meant. I mean the nominations would likely see an increase of articles voted with theme in mind over quality in mind. Since timeframes are smaller, things occurring in those timeframes are likely to be more in mind when nominating articles. If situation over quality in mind, then we're likely not choosing the highest quality articles. And if you want to tell me the statement is unfounded, and the reasoning for nominations won't change from the current situation, then I hope so. But even Scathe said above "but it means we can do themes for a month (best FFIV articles for its 20th anniversary". 79.69.197.121 13:31, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

If you read above, I pointed article control per month with themed months as exceptions. In my point of view, "exception" is not a synonym of "frequent". - Henryacores^ 15:43, November 2, 2011 (UTC)