FANDOM


waffleEdit

There's a whole lot of waffle here that I think could do with removing, as it will end up being put into the articles of their respective games eventually. For example, the details on what each game added to the series. I'm not sure if I should delete it outright or wait until it's integrated elsewhere. --Hob 21:30, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead, i don't think we need a summary of each game on here either. It definitly needs some cleaning up... --Shane613 15:57, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Umm... I'm not exactly sure how you want to handle this. It seems to have almost everything you wanna know about FFXI.  :/ --Mikru 17:06, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

well ours is different, we are covering ALL the Final Fantasy series, they are focusing only on one game... --Shane613 20:48, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Fans don't appreciate it enough. --Auron Kaizer 17:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

this wikia focus on 1 player game. We should create 1 article explain about FFXI in general, but we put link into FFXIonline.wikia.com if the reader want to read and have info about them.
and i read some text and realise this page must split into 3 article.. because the content are to long. if you don't mind.. please erase the wikipedia tag there. --User:Landavia 01:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

A) We have created 1 article explaining about FFXI in general - we even have articles on its expansion packs. The link you gave was an invalid wikia. B) Without detailing what the 3 article split is, sorry, the article is fine the way it is. C) If anyone can fix what the templates asks to fix, it can be removed. But not without. Bluer 04:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Mixed responses? Edit

Which aspects of Final Fantasy XII specifically received mixed responses? The game as a whole received a majority of critical acclaim, so I'm not sure what's trying to be said. Chocotard 19:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Bahamut FF1 Animado
FFTA2-SamuraiSprite

XIII Edit

Prishe ingame 4render
BlueHighwind TA

Final Fantasy XIV announcedEdit

A fourteenth game in the franchise was recently officially announced at E3 at the Sony conference. It's gonna be an MMORPG and will take place in the same word as XI. Kaihedgie 19:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Like all but two users are screaming right now. Shit.  ILHI 19:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I bet the XI fans are happy… ScatheMote 19:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Who said it was in Vana'diel? I read that they only said it was an MMO and didn't spill further details. Master Conjurer 20:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Uch, what a terrible day for me and 99.9% of all the editors and visitors to this website. None of us will ever care about this for more than the fact that it holds a title that could be used for a better game. --BlueHighwind 20:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

But wait!Edit

This article states that the original Final Fantasy might have been Square's last game if it didn't sell; but Hironobu Sakaguchi's article states that it was just meant to be 'his last game. WarxePBIconWarxePB 15:23, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

It apparently wasn't, eh? Fallen-Todesengel 07:34, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Bigs and wedge Edit

Aren't they in FFIV too as airship operators?

Yes, but only in the sense of Cid--they weren't identified until The After Years. The names "Biggs" and "Wedge" do not appear in FF4 at any point, in any version. Two nameless NPCs were retroactively dubbed that in the sequel. Dazuro 11:08, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Could this happen? Edit

~Is there by any chance Square-Enix will release the "Original" Nes versions of Final Fantasy II and III as well as V on the Wii Virtual Console as import titles?

I was hoping they would do it right after "I" but they put up the "AMERICAN II" so it would kind of tricky having two games with the same title. (Sigh.... when they put "IV" up why did they have to go backwards and call it II again? That was what Square intended to destroy when they brought out VII)

Moogleknight24 12:40, April 6, 2011 (UTC)Moogleknight24

Total number of games? Edit

The page states: "fourteen games have been released as part of the main (numbered) series, and twenty-eight games in total, including spin-offs and sequels, have been released in the franchise." Where did the number 28 come from?


Counting up from Template:Series:

14 mainline games

12 sequels and spin-offs

5 additional games under the Compilation of FF7 banner

8 additional games under the Ivalice banner (not counting the FFT remake as a separate game)

1 games under the Fabula Nova Crystallis banner (2 if we count the TBA Versus XIII)

6 games from the Crystal Chronicle sub-franchise

9 games from the Chocobo sub-franchise (not counting the cancelled Battle de Chocobo)


By my math (which could very well be wrong, I'm not familiar with a lot of the games listed there, several of which are Japan-only cell phone games), that comes out to 55 games.

Unless anyone objects, I'll change "28" to "55." Alpha5099 (talk) 07:57, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Good call. Maybe we don't need to mention the number of spin-offs, it might just be confusing what counts and some games are Japan-only etc... I'd mention just 14 mainseries games and numerous sequels and spin-offs and subseries.Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 15:47, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
True, the total number of FF games might not be especially pertinent information, although I could see if having some use just for trivia's sake (that's how I came to count 'em all up, I wanted to know how many games there were and the info here was inadequate).
As I see it, we either have to count every single game, no matter how trivial (heck, there's a Flash game among the various Ivalice titles), or not provide a number at all. Otherwise we're just back to an arbitrary number like 28; no doubt someone decided which games "really" count when they wrote down that number, but their logic in that matter is entirely inscrutable. Alpha5099 (talk) 04:25, July 12, 2012 (UTC)
I'm also guessing the number was counted a while ago.
The number of games within our scope differs from the total number of games. We cover Vagrant Story and Dive II Hunt, Crystal Defenders, and Vanguard Storm because they're Ivalice but none of them are Final Fantasy. The Choco Series also isn't technically Final Fantasy.
And the Legend series also isn't technically Final Fantasy. But some would say it is. And it's not even on that template, even though we technically give it coverage (there was discussion that said we should cover it because people would expect a game with "Final Fantasy" in its name to be covered here).
It's debatable. I think if people want to count the games we should give them our the list and let them reach a number themselves. JBed (talk) 12:45, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Theres a whole load of garbage on this page. terra is not the protagonist of ff6... in fact you are not even forced to recruit her. there are massive amounts of spoilers for each game and really a lot of this stuff is unfit for a wiki


Dead link Edit

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--intangir bot (master) 02:03, June 30, 2014 (UTC)

Dualism Edit

Do we seriously need to list literally every instance of dualism throughout the series? Can we just shove that into a separate page on the theme of Dualism and summarize it here? What we have is seriously bloated. Then again, I do want to rewrite this page drastically, from looking at it...will just need to think of a layout.--Magicite-ffvi-ios Technobliterator TC 01:25, September 27, 2015 (UTC)

This article hasn't got a big edit for a while, so who ever wants to take it up... I'd give free reign to change anything if someone wants to remodel this.Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 01:56, September 27, 2015 (UTC)
I should probably rewrite the whole thing from scratch in a sandbox and then add it here. I don't want to lose information, though, so I think making a page on dualism would still be a good idea.--Magicite-ffvi-ios Technobliterator TC 02:07, September 27, 2015 (UTC)
Story element analysis articles are fun to write and read and I would like to see them, but there's always the thing of the content being subjective. There's also Religious allusions in Final Fantasy and Nihilism and the most relevantest flower symbolism article that I didn't really know how to name (lol) at Flower (symbolism). If there'd room for more articles like this maybe they could have a category or some kind of grouping like that.
Would like to see what you come up with for a rewrite though!Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 02:29, September 27, 2015 (UTC)
Split into Dualism page. I'm beginning rewrite here. Jimcloud's helping me by peer-reviewing the page, but if you'd like to help out, Kelt (you're good at this stuff too), and if anyone else has any suggestions before it goes live, I'd love to hear it!--Magicite-ffvi-ios Technobliterator TC 02:43, September 28, 2015 (UTC)

SourcesEdit

If you're not going to go through the proper process when citing is there even any point in using the templates? Because unflagged invalid uses of the templates are worse than not using the templates--it's not immediately noticeable that they're cited wrong.

If you don't archive the page at the same time as you add the citation, I can tell because the date of the closest archival is shown to me. If someone does it later it only causes a significant mismatch in the dates, which should then require an updating of the given time. Tildes don't render inside ref tags so it's easiest for the person who archives the page to do it properly when they add it.

Aaaand don't cite videos with refwebsite when you know it won't archive the video. Even if you were too lazy to record the evidence (not an excuse), you could at least get the timestamps when you're acquiring the information. If you're just avoiding the error, there's an error for a reason.

Although this isn't exactly your fault, the uses of refbook are also wrong because they were never designed for anything besides official FF books. Because when would we ever use another book for a source about video games? Well it looks like you found that case. The citing information for refbook is designed to be minimal because data about the book is theoretically on our page about it, and also since there's a whitelist no one can be confused about what book we're talking about. JBed (talk) 03:56, October 19, 2015 (UTC)

Geez, if this is your idea of a constructive message, I really want to know your idea of unconstructive.
Yes, I didn't archive the page while adding the citation is shown. Several reasons. The first and what should be obvious is that I have no clue how to do it, tons of random instructions but I have never been shown correctly. The second and third are the more important reasons. I've worked with source templates on several wikis before - Wikipedia, J&D wiki to name a few - and not one of them has required anything like this, so not only do I not know what I'm doing, I don't know why I'm doing it. If the closest archival is shown...what's the big problem? If there is an archive shown, why create another useless one for no purpose? And why, oh why, should we genuinely worry about archives when the site works? If the archived sites go down all of a sudden, then I'm going to look up the most recent archive, and then I'm going to worry about fixing the access date. Several wikis don't even bother doing that, they assume the user will just know if there was once a site then the reference was probably fine, so honestly expecting this on this wiki is just stupid.
Yes, I used refwebsite on a website containing the video and not on the video itself. You know why? Because the site's page already contains the script and several tags on the page proving that it was mentioned. So is it fair to just force someone to use refvideo to gain a 20 second audio clip or whatever completely out of context when they have no video recording or video editing software on Linux, when they can easily just use refwebsite to give people the same information? I don't know what world you live in where it is.
And now my final point: if I genuinely wasn't concerned with accuracy, do you really think I'd go through those lengths to do my own research and find 86 sources if I wasn't concerned about accuracy? I don't think many people on the site do use these templates, or even reference much at all, which honestly leads me to believe you're only doing this to be a piece of shit, no one else is held to these same standards and there was no reason to post such a huge, unconstructive rant about it or try to make it a big enough deal that the whole wiki will notice if you weren't just doing this to make me look bad as you possibly could, over really the most trivial and stupid reason I can possibly think of, it's really pathetic.
Or if I'm going to entertain the reason that maybe, JUST MAYBE, you were being constructive, then how about, gee I dunno, doing some of it yourself. Even if it's just one time, "here, here's how you do it! Now do the other 85 like that!", that's still better than any of this useless whining here. I'm sorry I'm more concerned with actually writing the content (which took me freaking hours to do, btw) and making sure that's right than worrying about insignificant things that no other wiki requires anyone to worry about, if you think they're so important, then either do it yourself, or explain to me WITHOUT the stupid belittling and maybe I'll consider it. Until then, if you're going to use the "if you're too lazy (not an excuse)" on me...follow your own bloody argument.
Go away.--Magicite-ffvi-ios Technobliterator TC 16:19, October 26, 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, your point about refvideo is correct and I apologise. I probably misunderstood what you said at one point and then jumped the gun. The script being on the page does count as a source.
I have told you how to archive pages twice (here and on IRC at a time when you weren't ignoring me -- where you then said you didn't know how so I gave specific instructions [at least I think you weren't ignoring me, we might have had a discussion or you were just talking to no one, I can't remember how the conversation started -- I don't have logs]). So I won't take "not knowing how" as a reason for you to be excused. Okay, my memory on the IRC matter is becoming more hazy and it's possible I never told you there. I did tell you at that link, and if you still weren't sure after that you can't say the burden wasn't on you.
Regarding access dates: If the date has the date we accessed it, the capture of the web page should look like it did at the date we accessed it. The web archives don't allow us to lie because they say the date right there. That should be reason enough. And archiving a page isn't hard.
Even more important than that if no archive exists at the given date, it finds the closest archived version of the page. Which means if you haven't made the archive when you add the citation, the link to the archive may one day show a version of the page after the access date, a version that does not look like the page you were once looking at.
Worrying about it when the page is taken down misses the entire point in archiving the page. The whole point in archiving is to pre-empt the occasion when the website is no longer available. And doing it this way means we don't have to know when the web page goes down. Everything is set up so we don't have to worry about it in the future, short of robots.txt changes. Aaand if we don't do this then what's to stop people putting in fake citations? If we allow citations that go nowhere then you can make anything up and it's fine. If someone is sceptical of information they check the source to verify it, and if the link goes nowhere it's equal to saying "We're not making it up, honest, trust us".
And you don't have to understand why rules exist to follow them. If that was acceptable then that gives people free reign to ignore the rules as they choose. Though here these rules aren't forced upon you by a higher power, they were agreed upon by your equals as the best course of action. You don't know the reasons we do something but there were reasons that led people to doing it.
Finally, you're right, people don't usually use the template. I explain why I have such a big problem with what you did here in my very first paragraph. If you hadn't used the templates, what we would have is a bunch of references that clearly need to follow the citation policy. Instead we have a bunch of references that look like they follow the citation policy but don't. Deception is the thing that pisses me off more than anything.
I won't hear any of your "more important" excuses because it isn't related to the matter at hand. JBed (talk) 19:53, October 26, 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to frankly say this whole reaction is a freaking joke. Let me put it this way: I'm the first person to use these templates, and the first to make this mistake. If this was any other random new contributor, would you have treated them the same way for the same innocence? Because if you would, then that's a pretty stupidly disgusting way to treat them, if not, then CONGRATULATIONS, you've just proved my point that you're doing this to be a piece of shit! My point here? This is assuming bad faith, which is misconduct - and so I really don't feel obligated to respond with anything but my own misconduct.
Further to the whole bad faith thing..."deception"? Really? Read what I said again. Do you REALLY think I would include 86 SOURCES if I WASN'T concerned about accuracy? And really, by this line of thought, every wiki out there is also being a bunch of sketchy deceptive people who shouldn't be writing websites...they don't use this rule either!
There's a reason I brought up the fact no other wiki requires this rule: it wasn't just to illustrate its stupidity, it was to illustrate how I can read a message posted on my talk page - the one you just linked to - and go on to correct the IGN links then not follow up with the archiving: because having edited other wikis, I (think) I know what the process involves, and archiving isn't part of it...when someone suggests making an archive for each one, my assumption is "oh, okay, make an archive for pages that don't have web archives already...all the pages I'm using have archives, so I'm fine!" And yes, the more important "excuse" as you so call it, that was a reason why I was more concerned with the page and rules like this slipped my mind.
Back to the discussion part: I'm not solely bringing this up because it's what happened to me...let's be real, if I'm the first to use these reference templates, and I had no idea about this, how many do you think could come after and make the same mistake? And, if you can't immediately tell when someone hasn't archived a page...how good a rule do you really think this is? I'd really question the merits behind such a rule.
And, nope, I do have to know the reasons behind a rule, or else I'm not following it, I'm not enforcing it, and I'm certainly not going to assume bad faith and accuse someone not doing it of being deceptive on the level of just forging sources. You know what I'm going to do instead of blindly following it? I'm going to question its merits, and bring up a discussion about the use of the rule - and I'm also not going to do it on this talk page. Yes, normally my reaction would simply be "well, he's being unreasonable with me, so I'm going to respond in turn! No archives for you, and I'm purposefully going to avoid archiving when I use refs until you learn to speak to an actual human being and explain to me why, oh why this is such a huge deal that I deserved such a response!" But today's your lucky day, and I'll be bringing up a discussion about whether we should change this from a STRICT RULE HOLY SHIT YOU ARE BAAAAAAAAANNED to a guideline, a piece of advice for people who don't think the page they're referencing is likely to get archived soon, or do think the content is going to change so drastically that the source is no longer useful to back their claim.Magicite-ffvi-ios Technobliterator TC--01:36, October 29, 2015 (UTC)
I assume bad faith because I already told you what to do. If I was talking to a new user I would just fix their stuff at first and then tell them later if they decide to stick around and edit in the same way. If it's a user who has been here a while, well I'd have given a message like the one I gave you on that talk page!
You're whole thing about accuracy isn't related at all. This isn't about your sources, I never said you forged anything. This is plainly about how the templates are used and meeting the requirements.
"when someone suggests making an archive for each one, my assumption is "oh, okay, make an archive for pages that don't have web archives already"
But right there on the talk page I said "even if it was archived a month ago, we need a copy near enough to the given access date".
Most of the rest of what you wrote is difficult to respond to. Not being able to immediately tell if something's wrong makes it a bad rule how? I say not immediately obvious, but it's not hard to find out if I'm looking. Finding out is only one click away. Though equally, verifying any external link goes to a page that actually exists is also one click away. See, in the past it was kind of a rule that there's no point having a reference that goes to a broken webpage. What a stupid rule, right? Having to routinely check every URL individually to see if it's dead? This system does away with that, if a citation is fully cited then we know it doesn't ever matter if the link is dead.
Checking that a file is licensed or categorised requires you to go to a file's page individually-- we can detect uncatted files, but they won't be flagged if they get a category from their license, and we can't tell whether a file with other categories is unlicensed without seeing the license.
But you talk about all this stuff like it's hard to do. It's not. Passing a URL through the web archive-- well how long does it take you to google "web archive", and Ctrl+V a source? Less time than it takes to fill out the rest of the template. Screenshots might take a minute from print screen, to graphics program crop, to upload form. JBed (talk) 08:54, October 29, 2015 (UTC)
Actually, in more of an effort to try and ease your anger, I will admit that the tone of first post here was not appropriate. It was born from my own errors in judgement.
  1. First I see you not filling on the reference templates properly. I archive the references you have done, and I explain the things on that talk page.
  2. I think I remind you on IRC. Maybe not. I have no way of knowing. But I said something dammit!
  3. I re-check the workplace to see if you are doing it and I think that I find you are. Although you say you didn't know how, and I'm not going to say you were lying so I will just accept that as another of my mistakes.
  4. You on IRC say you aren't going to use refvideo. I raise my eyebrow but decide I'll make comment when the page is submitted if you go through with it.
  5. The page is submitted, I look at the page and see the refwebsite. Okay. I check an archive and see an access date mismatch, my eyes widen in rage and click talk page and write a response.
So a combination of misunderstandings led to me phrasing the comment the way I did. That's my bad. I thought you were using refwebsite on videos to avoid creating a citation that visibly required evidence, and since in my head I already found you guilty of shortcutting and that I thought you knew how to archive pages, that you were not doing that for similar reasons.
Sorry it started that way.
With that out of the way, let the argument about the need for this criteria on the reference templates continue.... elsewhere because here's not productive. JBed (talk) 11:13, October 29, 2015 (UTC)
I'm hardly innocent, I didn't exactly react appropriately either. I was just pissed off that I received this message right after working my ass off on the page, just felt like a dick move. It's more clear to me now why it was what it was.
I continue to disagree with the merits of this rule, and I will leave it at that. I wanted to rewrite that particular project page anyway, so I can discuss changing the rule coupled with the rewrite. I will take you off ignore on IRC and go web archive the pages now.--Magicite-ffvi-ios Technobliterator TC 01:54, October 31, 2015 (UTC)

Rename to Final Fantasy series Edit

I believe we should rename this article from "Final Fantasy (series)" to "Final Fantasy series" to get rid of the tag. Final Fantasy series still differentiates from the game name, and the title still fully explains what the article is about. The tag therefore only serves to make it more difficult to type the article name. Plus, typing [[Final Fantasy series|''Final Fantasy'' series]] is not much more difficult than typing [[Final Fantasy series|''Final Fantasy'' series]] and arguably makes more sense as a link anyway.--Magicite-ffvi-ios Technobliterator TC 13:07, April 10, 2017 (UTC)

There are other series tagged articles too, Final Fantasy X series, Type series and Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles series. Wikipedia has Final Fantasy for the series and tags the game, guess we decided to go the other way once upon a time. I don't really know if I like it better with or without the tag.Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 15:40, April 10, 2017 (UTC)
I'd honestly rename those too, and just drop "series" as a tag.--Magicite-ffvi-ios Technobliterator TC 18:42, April 10, 2017 (UTC)
I agree. We should drop the tagging and just add "series" without brackets to that type of article.—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) ∙ 18:49, April 10, 2017 (UTC)
Done for all pages. If there are any others, let me know and I'll get the bot to relink.--Magicite-ffvi-ios Technobliterator TC 00:55, April 11, 2017 (UTC)
Hi, is it possible to fix the double direct? Currently, the page goes to Final Fantasy (series), which is redirected to Final Fantasy series. Thank you Chatellerault (talk) 02:34, June 21, 2017 (UTC)