Talk:Squall Leonhart/Archive 1

Archive 1

Amano?

The article states Squall was designed by both Nomura and Amano. Where is your source for this? I don't believe Amano did any designs after VI, therefore, shouldn't it just say Tetsuya Nomura? Yoshitaka Amano is credited as "Illustrator," this doesn't mean he designed any characters. --Feidian 07:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Article needs attention

Although this article does contain some truth, most of it sounds quite POV. A glaring example of this is: "he is visually based off of Japanese singer Gackt". Unless the character designer specifically said that he or she has actually done that, that statement cannot be made in the article. Nearly everything in the "Psyche" section sounds like a psychoanalysis made by a fan (or fans).

While the article is not very encyclopedic, I didn't delete anything because a lot of it makes sense. Even if the article is not factual, we must remember that this is a ficticious character we're talking about. It's not as if some high school student is going to do a report on Squall.

With all that said, if some sources can be added, the quality of the article will be drastically improved (even if the sources are just links to forum discussions).

Someone42 14:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey I woul ilke to request for an article about emotional defence mechanism and about silent type boys with cold behavior [edit on 02:21, 11 October 2005 UTC by user Highbreed ]

Can you clarify on exactly what you mean by this? I assume you're referring to an article listing apathetic male video game characters. In that case, I'm not really sure what the purpose of such a list would be, since details of emotional defence mechanisms are inherently speculative.

By the way, remember to sign and timestamp your posts with four tildes: ~~~~. I've added the relevant information to your post here to aid other users. Someone42 10:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear god, who the hell wrote that! It has to be changed now. Wait is this page meant to be about Squall? I know lots about FF VIII - just ask me! For example; do you know why they began fighting in the first place? Hint: Blue Fields, get my meaning? Someone42 if you’re such a know-it-all; why don’t you handle the article. Jinu 19:36, 17 January 2006 (GMT) xenosagaus@yahoo/hotmail.com

Whoa, no hard feelings there. I didn't intend to come across as a know-it-all. It's just that Wikipedia has different goals from that of say, Wikicities or GameFAQs, and so it should have different content. I really should have referred to Wikipedia:NOR as the policy I was following when I reverted that change.

In particular, there is no way to verify the psychological state of a fictional character. Any one of us may claim to be the world's expert on FF VIII, or Squall, or video games, but if a claim is not verifiable, then it shouldn't be included.

With that in mind, why don't you join Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy? You seem to be knowledgable about FF VIII, and there are certainly articles related to FF VIII that need improvement. No-one "owns" or "handles" any article - everyone who wants to does. Someone42 13:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

River Phoenix?

While I admittedly see the resemblance (it's quite striking), anyone have a source for this assertion which also appears on Tetsuya Nomura's article? UOSSReiska 23:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Squall's birthdate is the same as River's, and River has a sister named Rain. Nomura explained this in a few interviews, including an English one here: http://ps2.ign.com/articles/085/085275p1.html Sheila 70.49.117.139 (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The Trivia Section

I think this whole part needs to go: "Squally is an extremely popular final fantasy character. If ranked based off of the gamefaqs tournament he'd rank 4th behind Cloud Strife, Sephiroth, and Vincent Valentine respectively." That is completely speculatory as this matchup has evidently not taken place even by the standards of whoever edited it in, it refers to Squall by a nickname, and finally I don't really think that part is necessary as it seems more like some fan trying to boost Squall's status. I would just delete this, but I'm still learning the do's and do not's so I'd rather someone who was sure about it fix it up.

Secondly, I have a problem with this part: "Due to his popularity, Squall plays a much larger role than the rest of the Final Fantasy characters in the Kingdom Hearts Series." Again, Squall's popularity is mostly debatable, and it's arguable over whether or not he plays a "much larger" role. But I'm not the best at wording things, so I'd rather hand this job to someone more experienced. Eternal Trance 01:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and just removed both of those two and the recent addition about the Lion King that was nonsensical and looked like vandalism. --Eternal Trance 20:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

End of FFVIII

I've wondered for a while (for thoses who played and saw the ending of FFVIII) did Squall die at the end of the game? Please respond in a timely fashion please.--Lionheart Omega 01:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Squall did NOT die at the end of the game. The penultimate cut-scene shows Rinoa gesturing to somebody off screen, and if you wait until after the end credits, there is a cut-scene showing that Rinoa was in fact gesturing to Squall with her finger in the same way she did when they first met. I missed this final part in my first play also, it's quite common for people to miss it. I personally feel that this final cut-scene should have been left out, but i guess Square thought otherwise. Plebmonk 00:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I played the PC version of the game. I don't know if it's much different, but in the very last ending sequences Squall is definitely alive and well. The last scene is with him and Rinoa locking lips then it zooms out and shows them all on the flying Garden then it says "The End." He's definitely alive.

And if you're really a skeptic, think, would they have a party if the leader of their organisation died? ;p Zerocannon 08:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur, after all FF8 is a love story if Squall died it would be pointless. -Eileen-

I would like to point out Eileen that Romeo and Juliet was a tragedy and by the end most of the interesting characters were dead just a point of information.Squall1991 04:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Squall's birthplace

To stop people from putting in speculative birthplaces like "winhill" birthplace should probably put as "unknown" to make the point that it is unknown rather than just not putting it at all. Plebmonk 23:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Considering that Raine and Laguna are very, very strongly implied to be his parents, and Raine stayed in Winhill while Laguna was out and about, its safe to say that Winhill is where he was born. Peptuck 14:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned in another discussion, while Squall's parents are heavily implied to be Raine and Laguna, it's never explicitly stated. Furthermore, it's not impossible for Raine to give birth elsewhere, even if she usually lives in Winhill. So while Squall was most likely born in Winhill, we can't say he was definitely born there. Bhamv 14:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

I'm going to modify and hopefully remove the trivia section. It's unencyclopedic and unnecessary.--TheEmulatorGuy 04:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Forget it, I can't find appropriate places to put the information.--TheEmulatorGuy 04:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I know, something really needs to be done about it. I'd like to first off say that we don't need any more garbage about his popularity. This is entirely opinionated and not necessary. Also, it needs to read more like an encyclopedia, and have more facts and less fanbased opinions and observations... --Trance 18:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

And keep Gackt off the page as well, too many fanboy/girls these days Zerocannon 08:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Improvement possibilities

Some suggestions:

• Wording seems clumsy: "most of the game centers around Squall's perspective." "Squall sparks... a growing romance" "a distinct rivalry"
• More explanation would be helpful on the gunblade ("given a damaging vibration feature by use of the gun mechanism")
• Doesn't make sense: "especially when they wish to understand how he is feeling."
• Borderline not encyclopedic: "yet to be vanquished"
• Remove spaces before citations, and watch location with respect to punctuation
• Rename "Overview" section; perhaps a video game equivalent of "biography"? Or maybe just "Final Fantasy VIII"? That would make sense given the following section, which could be renamed "Other appearances".
• Citations for last paragraph of "Kingdom Hearts" section and the "Other" section?

Not bad overall though. Maybe some more perspective from the creators if that's possible; otherwise, if this is comprehensive, it's approaching FA status. Needs a good copyedit though, and the prose needs to be tightened. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 00:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

GA thoughts

Someone beat me to the punch, but here is my take;

• images need fair use rationales.
• some sentences repeat themselves in the Kingdom Hearts section.
• the section on the ending of Final Fantasy VIII needs more explanation; I haven't played the game, and it wasn't all clear; how was he in his fathers body?

Overall, GA status is deserved. Give it a good copyedit before FA! :) Judgesurreal777 16:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think fair use rationales are satisfactory now, the only picture that didn't have it very good was Squall as he appeared in Kingdom Hearts series, and I've corrected it. ILorbb 09:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Squall is in his father's body because Ellone is trying to find out about the past and so sends Squall into Laguna's body to accomplish it.

LIMIT BREAKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think people should be aware of Squall's (ROCKSOME) Limit Breaks.

The article contained description of Squall's limit breaks, but it was removed. The reason for this is that Wikipedia is not a gameguide.ILorbb | Talk 07:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Laguna IS the father of Squall

Something everyone seems to miss is that, Kiros said that "You look alot like your mother". Now, let's say Laguna ISN'T Squall's mother, how in the hell would Kiros know how Squall's mother look like? It is then further proven that Ward says "At least you don't look like your father" Now regardless, Ward MUST know Squall's father in order to make such claims. There we have it, read between the lines ;D And, this is more like a discovery of concrete proof, instead of uh "Oh, you JUST found out?", lol But ya, i guess that little speculation section will have to be removed? Zerocannon 10:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they didn't put any solid proof that Laguna is Squall's father, so that entire section needs to be removed as OR. — Deckiller 15:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you read what I just wrote? Lol This is concrete enough, if everything 'solid' must go by verbatim, I do believe everyone in the states wouldn't be holding onto firearms right now ;p Zerocannon 05:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I did read what you said; I'm saying that the OR policy won't let us synth those quotes and situations without a scholarly source to back up the claim. — Deckiller 06:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Squall's gunblade as a gun in FFXII

Aside from Gilgamesh using it, it appears as the Ras Algethi as a gun weapon. Don't know why this keeps getting removed. -Badass McGreat

Picture

I'm sorry but I like Squall's other picture than his official one, and so do a lot of other people and since no one owns Wikipedia and its open to the public, in my opinion since he's not used the official picture until recently when a small clique of people have forced their opinions, we should go with the majesty. So get rid of the official picture for all FF8 characters, they are so old we need new ones. -Eileen-

What the hell are you talking about? Both of them are official. The sketched one is artwork by Tetsuya Nomura, and the rendered one is publicity artwork by the modelling team, which was likely sketched beforehand by Tetsuya Nomura. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I will stop reverting the pictures back to the one on the pages originally for now as I do not want to get into an edit war. I think the sketch should be used for the reason being the pictures in the info boxes for FF8 characters can appear in the body of the article easily and the sketch is something different, which does contribute to the article. And the person who keep changing the pic is from IP 67.142.130.xx which I suspect to be the same person. Furthermore, I think any changes to the picture used in info box should be discussed first before it's changed, as there is no official rule on which picture to used. I reverted the changes based on this argument. Furthermore, the picture in Squall's article is too long, which means the info in the info box cannot be read without scoring down, which defeated the purpose of info box, and it is sigificantly different from the pictures used in other articles. I would like to see some standardized format across all FF8 characters pages if possible. Any comments? --Cyktsui 05:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. — Deckiller 06:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think to make everyone happy we should cycle the images every once in a while. People still have to score down because Squall's picture still is too big. What does everyone think? I didn't have the intention of pissing off anyone, I liked the previous way better. I understand your reasoning for the Squall article but what's wrong with doing it the old way for everyone else? Up until the past two months no one minded.So here is what I think we should do for all articles, cycle the pictures between the old and current versions every two weeks or so. That way everyone can get what they want. What do you think? -Eileen-

That's probably not a good idea. In my opinion the drawn concept artwork shouldn't be there at all, it's not even in the game. The rendered artwork is too long to place in the infobox. A screenshot (probably FMV) of Squall seems to be the most suitable. --TheEmulatorGuy 03:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the drawn concept artwork does, in fact, appear in the game. The character portraits in the game, which you can see when you go to each individual character's status or junction screens, are the drawn pieces (admittedly a trimmed version, with just the head and face) Bhamv 07:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the articles for FFX characters, they are using artworks in the info box too. --Cyktsui 05:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you totally EmulatorGuy, but apparently we are in the minority, maybe we should pose this question to Deckiller and Cyktsui. How about it? -Eileen-

I have a great idea to settle the image dispute. It is to keep both but put the official Nomura stretches next to the paragraph about development or overview of the characters so people can see what the characters look like in development and the picture what they look like in the game at the top next to their name and other info. Does anyone object? If no one does, could someone make the change? By the way, could we get a new image of Squall, to replace the render which is kinda large. I suggest maybe a FMV from the beginning of the game. How about it? -Eileen-

KH Section

I edited the KH section some. I just changed a few things, and added a paragraph for Sora's keyblade homages. Lionheart08 00:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ultimecia

Why does someone keep reverting that Ultimecia is the antagonist to "main antagonist". I think that there's no one else that fits the description. Any thoughts? Does anyone mind if I revert it? I'd really appreciate feedback. -Eileen-

If we're pedantic, it would be more accurate to call Ultimecia the main antagonist or primary antagonist. Seifer, Raijin, Fujin, Edea (to a point), NORG, President Deling, etc are all antagonists at some point in the story. Ultimecia is the primary antagonist because she's the driving force behind the challenges in the story, the challenges that the protagonists have to overcome.

Personally, I have no opinion on whether the article says "antagonist" or "main antagonist", since both work and it seems like a minor detail. But perhaps "main antagonist" isn't really that wrong. Bhamv 13:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your reasoning but can we leave it as antagonist? I'd really appreciate it. -Eileen-

Hero - NPOV?

I wrote silent hero in reference to the game manual's description of Squall as "the taciturn and reluctant hero." -Eileen-

What was wrong with "main/primary protagonist", which is what he is? His characteristics are described later in the entry. — Deckiller 02:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Silent hero" is incorrect. He is not a silent protagonist. Peptuck 07:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote it to be taciturn hero. Is that ok? Frankly I think he is a silent hero otherwise how would he get the nickname lone wolf? -Eileen-

"Lone wolf" refernces his tendency to remain apart from others and work on his own. "Silent hero" implies silent protagonist, which he is definitely not. Peptuck 20:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Taciturn hero. Is that ok? -Eileen-

I believe everyone agrees that was fine how it was. GA analysis didn't have a problem, nor did editor consensus. Wikipedia must operate on consensus. — Deckiller 23:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The word "taciturn" in "taciturn hero" also doesn't sound very NPOV, as it requires subjective judgement. My feeling is to change it back to "main protagonist," because readers can read the description of Squall in later sections and decide for themselves whether he's taciturn or not. Bhamv 14:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The article currently still says "hero." After thinking about this some more, I believe "hero" is POV and should be changed to "protagonist."

A protagonist is the main character in a literary work or drama, or in this case a video game. A hero is a person of great bravery who carries out extraordinary deeds. Thus, "protagonist" is an objective description of a character, while "hero" requires subjective judgement on whether the character posesses great bravery and performs extraordinary deeds. Clearly, then, "protagonist" is more suitable for an encyclopedia.

(By the way, I'm paraphrasing Wikitionary for my definitions, in case anyone's wondering)

This is why I think the article should say protagonist. I'd be interested in hearing the other side, though, so if you'd be kind enough to tell us why you believe "hero" should be used, Eileen, we could possibly come to a consensus. Bhamv 12:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The consensus is already against Eileen anyway. I'm returning to the appropriate phrasing. — Deckiller 21:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thirding this notion as well. I'll adjust any future changes; while "hero" sounds nice, Wikipedia is a neutral resource. Peptuck 02:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for asking for my opinion. Here it is: I just wrote hero because I think it fits Squall and it simplier to write. I don't have anything against protagonist but it seems long and overused. Hero is also the more common word, Nomura even uses it in an interview. I'd say regardless of whether a person likes Squall or not he is brave enough to go out into space to save the woman he loves, isn't that extraordinary and what about fighting a sorceress that is more powerful that you are? I am dedicated editor like you all and I have been taught a great lesson about writing that is "Experienced writers use simple words to explain complicated ideas". I like you all but I think you all look too deeply into the "encyclopedic proper language" instead of the vernacular which in this case is hero. (You could argue that we should Latin instead of English with that argument). I've read alot about main characters on professional sources and 3 out 4 sources refer to the protagonist as "hero". While it is true and important that Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia, it is informal since anyone can edit, and that is why the easy four letter word --hero--should be used. However, if I was writing an English paper I'd use protagonist. "Experienced writers use simple words to explain complicated ideas" should be everyone's principle in my opinion. One more thing, I'd like to add is that this "objective" idea is a myth. Everyone has proved the very opposite. If we were objective then we wouldn't be discussing this. (Everyone has an opinion and a world view which we look through to judge what is important and what is not). I think we should replace "objective" with fairness to all parties. How about this: if can't agree let's cycle the words. (For example keep it as protagonist for 2 weeks then switch it to hero for the other 2? I won't revert if not else does. What do you all think?) -Eileen-

Irregardless of your personal opinion, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a literary work. "Primary protagonist" is an objective label that is direct, simple, and just as easy to understand, and defines Squall as exactly what he is: the primary protagonist. "Hero" is a potentially loaded word, and is partially ambigious, while "primary protagonist" defines exactly what he is. Additionally, if Squall is "the" hero of the story, where does that leave the rest of the cast? They themselves are heroes of the story as well. "Primary protagonist" defines what he is. Its simple, its objective, and it carries only that definition, and nothing else. even mor eimportantly, it sounds more objective and professional than "hero."

Though I'm seriously wondering why we're arguing over something like this in the first place. Perhaps we should simply do what the Link article did, and use hero? Peptuck 22:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No, because the consensus here is to use protagonist, so we should honor that. Only one person is complaining, and that person is relatively new to the systems of Wikipedia, so s/he may not understand how we work. — Deckiller 05:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your views, Eileen. A few points I'd like to address though:

The word "hero" is shorter than "protagonist," this I do not dispute. However, it is detrimental to the article if you choose to believe that "hero" and "protagonist" are complete synonyms. They're not. The definitions I posted above clearly indicate this. Experienced writers use simple words to convey complicated ideas, but not at the expense of the integrity of the idea.

Therefore, should we use the word "hero" or the word "protagonist" in the article? As as been repeatedly stated, "protagonist" is an objective description of Squall's role in the game. I strenuously disagree with your assertion that objectivity is a myth, because the evidence you posted (that this argument is going on at all) is unfortunately a straw man. The statement that Squall is a protagonist is not colored by opinion - would reasonable people argue that he's actually the antagonist of the game? That he's actually a bystander? You yourself stated that you do not disagree with calling him a protagonist, so it's clear we have a consensus on "protagonist" being a suitable word to use in the article.

"Hero," on the other hand, has a clear consensus against it, though I note you disagree. You stated that you feel "hero" is a suitable description for Squall because he went out into space to save Rinoa and fought a sorceress more powerful than he. But I can play devil's advocate and come up with arguments disputing your evidence: Rinoa went off alone to confront Edea with the Odine Bangle, are we to call her actions heroic? Laguna fought off a Ruby Dragon with nothing but an unfamiliar gunblade, is he heroic in this example? Or do we say that many characters in FF8 tread the fine line between heroism and foolhardiness? Furthermore, when Squall can junction up to sixteen GFs to himself and boost his stats to 255 each, coupled with invincibility magics and repeated Renzokukens, can you truly call him weaker than any sorceress in the game?

Please note that these are not my personal opinions. I, personally, agree that Squall is indeed a hero. What I do not agree with is that the word "hero" be used to describe Squall in the article. The fact that I can easily come up with arguments disputing his heroism shows that calling him a hero is subject to a person's point of view. On the flip side, can you come up with any arguments disputing Squall's status as the protagonist of the game?

Finally, please note that Wikipedia is not based on fairness to perspectives. It doesn't produce articles based on all points of view, or even the majority view. Articles are written based on editor consensus and Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Your idea that we cycle the word based on our preferences (something you also proposed during the picture debate) is interesting, but inappropriate; firstly because the consensus is already to use one specific word, and secondly because it places extra and unnecessary stress on the Wikipedia servers and databases. Minor stress, to be sure, but it's still there. In addition, just because Wikipedia is open to everyone doesn't mean it's informal. The language used should be neutral and formal, and should not tell the reader someone is a hero. It should describe this person's deeds, and let the reader decide if the character is a hero or not. Please see WP:PEACOCK.

For the above reasons, which I'm sure have been far too long, it is clear "hero" is inappropriate while "protagonist" is better. Thus, the article should describe Squall as a "protagonist." Bhamv 06:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Peptuck just solved the problem for us. He's written hero but according to protagonist terms hero. Is everyone ok with this? I think it is a good solution and is it short like I wanted but is also protagonist which is consensus. PS. Deckiller, I am a girl. -Eileen-

To be honest, I'm not happy with this solution, as I do not believe the word "hero" should be used to describe Squall in an encyclopedia. My reasoning has already been stated above. I feel it should say "protagonist" and link to "protagonist." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bhamv (talk • contribs) 14:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

I am also not happy, because there was a majority agreement; compromise is unnecessary. — Deckiller 15:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is not exactly what everyone wanted can it stay as it is now please? (As primary hero.) I have to go. I'm celebrating Chinese New Year. -Eileen-

We'll have to see what the consensus is, I guess. Bhamv 05:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The hero/protagonist phenomenon has spread to other pages, including the Rinoa and Tidus articles, where the word "hero" has met with resistance and resulted in edit warring.

Eileen, can you not see yet that the consensus is CLEARLY against using hero and for using protagonist? Wikipedia is not built around acceptance of and fairness to all available points of view, because otherwise we'd have to describe these characters as protagonist/hero/playable character/tragic character/possible antagonist/etc etc. There are dozens of additional nouns that could be applied to video game characters. Wikipedia works on editor consensus, to determine the one best term to use. And in this case, the consensus is clearly for protagonist.

Yes, "hero" is shorter and possibly easier to understand. But "protagonist" is the more encyclopedic term and thus it is the more appropriate word to use IN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA.

I apologize in advance if you find I sound unduly harsh, but this debate has gone on long enough and has always been, in my view, entirely unnecessary. It's time to end it and change the articles back to "protagonist".

(On an unrelated note, perhaps you should register for an account, Eileen. Virtually all the annonymous IPs you have posted from have a history of vandalism, which can make it hard for editors to take your edits seriously)

Bhamv 09:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• This entire "debate" is being posted on WP:LAME for, well, obvious reasons. And to be frank, I am sickened that this amount of time and text wasn't spent on, say, finding reliable sources and improving other aspects of this article or others. We're all at fault for that, including myself. — Deckiller 12:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you have consensus because Peptuck and I agree on this and it appears to be split half in half. Why is anyone complaining because your getting both: hero (the colliquial word) linked to protagonist. (Is encyclopedic since it is linked to protagonist and is short and is what we both want. Let's just do it like the Link character on Zelda. Also some people like me have never heard of protagonist and it is nice for the general public to see a word people can relate to linked to the less common protagonist. That's why I believe it although it doesn't satisfy everyone, it is best, and I will revert it back to Peptuck's version if changed.) It is sort of misleading to say that the whole hero/protagonist idea is being shot down, because it has not, other editors agree with my changes too. I have also convinced other people of this idea I'm referring to as well (Tidus and Rinoa's pages have accepted the new hero, it not like they didn't like the idea, some didn't understand why I changed it because I forgot to tell them, others didn't reject the idea but they didn't want the other characters appear to be shoved aside which I have since solved, so this problem is no longer true. I've talked to other editors and it has been met at first with critque and then I have changed minds. In conclusion, please give Peptuck's change a try and if more than 10-20 editors (to create more consensus than just us 4) disagree, (after I explain my reasoning, excluding you both) I'll agree to revert it. As a sidenote, I'm thinking about getting an account, I haven't because I have no internet experience and don't know how to make a user page and a talk page. If someone can guide me along, I can create both. -Eileen-

Protagonist is encyclopedic; hero isn't. I'm with Deck - I can't believe there's even an argument to be had here. The point of Wiki isn't to write in the nicest possible terms that the general public will like, nor to appeal to the lowest common denominator - it's to be factual, accurate, and neutral. "Hero" has definitely biased connotations. -RaCha'ar 12:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

While I cannot speak for Peptuck, I admit to being skeptical regarding his agreement to this solution, because he reverted the hero thing on the Rinoa page, and his proposal to use the method from the Link page appeared to be a way of compromising. Thus, from where I'm sitting, it looks like you're alone in promoting this solution, though I say again I cannot speak for Peptuck.

Perhaps a straw poll wouldn't be out of place if we want to determine editor consensus.

I don't believe Wikipedia should pander to the lowest common denominator, truly I don't. I don't believe the word "protagonist" is unnecessarily advanced. I don't deny it's probably more advanced than the word "hero," but it's not on the level of, say, "defenestrate," which appears in the Mace Windu article. If a reader really is confused about what protagonist means, the word is linked to its Wikipedia article.

The reason I'm pushing so hard for the word "hero" to be removed from the article is because I believe it seriously damages how encyclopedic the article is. Heroism requires subjective judgement, and Wikipedia demands objectivity. The relative lengths and complexities of the words become irrelevant. For example, the article on AIDS includes the line The late stage of the condition leaves individuals prone to opportunistic infections and tumors. If readers don't understand what the phrase "opportunistic infections and tumors" means, is it better to change the sentence to The late stage of the condition leaves people sick a lot? And have "sick a lot" link to something? Or, perhaps, is it better to leave the formal, objective language in the article and allow readers to click into the appropriate article when they encounter something they don't understand?

You never addressed the points I made in my really long post, regarding the encyclopedicness (is that even a word?) of "hero" and "protagonist," but never mind. I don't think it's appropriate for me to continue this debate further, because I don't believe you're willing to be convinced. And, as Deckiller pointed out, our time and energy could be better used elsewhere.

By the way, creating a userpage is not necessary for having an account, and user talk pages are used for leaving messages to one another. Knowing how to make them is not needed to create an account.

Good day. Bhamv 12:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

While I cannot speak for Peptuck, I admit to being skeptical regarding his agreement to this solution, because he reverted the hero thing on the Rinoa page, and his proposal to use the method from the Link page appeared to be a way of compromising. Thus, from where I'm sitting, it looks like you're alone in promoting this solution, though I say again I cannot speak for Peptuck.

-I changed my opinion on this matter because while I initially offered it as a compromise, I realized that it went against Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Peptuck 14:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, is it just me or is this discussion reaching the height of absurdity? Maybe its just because I'm running on two hours of sleep and no caffine, but I don't seem to be getting why someone is so stuck on the difference between a four letter word versus an eleven-letter word that means the same thing, is more objective, and is backed by general consensus and Wikipedia policy. Why is "protagonist" bothering you so much that you insist on removing it?

We all have better things we could be doing on Wikipedia. Peptuck 14:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

....okay, this is getting ridiculous. You are ignoring WP:Consensus and WP:NPOV. You are acting like you personally own this article - I know you probably do not feel that way, but you are acting like it, considering that you've constantly and repeatedly gone against the very consensus in this discussion with something that is POV, both of which are against Wikipedia policy. In a paraphrase of your own words, "articles are not owned by anyone." Yet you continuously remove what has, by consensus thus far, been added to this article and replaced it with something that is not from a neutral point of view. Please....stop. This article is not yours alone, so please stop applying your POV to it. Peptuck 19:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WOW... just wow! I can't believe this is even an argument. "Protagonist" is descriptive, "hero" is normative. Both words apply to Squall, but only "protagonist" is appropriate. Not knowing a word is not an excuse to use a base euphemism. Bhamv hit the nail on the head with his comparison to replacing "opportunistic infections and tumors" with "sick a lot". One may be more advanced, but the simpler is often cruder, more normative, and inheritently innappropriate while not necessarily being incorrect. This is the same scenario with "protagonist" and "hero". Squall could be described as a "hero", but he is definitely a "protagonist". --Daedalus 20:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Peptuck, sorry, I accidently reverted it because I liked the phrasing in one of the paragraphs of his article. Anyway, I promise not to revert it back if you leave Rinoa's page as it has been for the past several months, not your most recent edits. Agree? -Eileen-

"Heroine" is as POV in her article as "Hero" is in this one. And why are you asking me? This is a question of consensus, not an argument between two editors. Peptuck 04:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking you because you made the change. Anyway, will you do that? -Eileen-

• Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not about back alley "I claim ownership of this article, so any edits to it will require deals". We have policies to follow, and guidelines to uphold. One of those is WP:NPOV. — Deckiller 05:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I won't. Why would I suddenly change my mind about what is obviously consensus and following Wikipedia policy? And even if *I* were to choose to stop, what about everyone else who keeps reverting your edits? Peptuck 06:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is getting old. I'm won't change it, because I'm going after some vandals on Final Fantasy wiki. Why do you guys think some people vandalize? Is it for attention or a reaction? -Eileen-

I notice, Eileen, that you have very kindly refrained from changing Squall's article over the last few weeks. I also notice that you've not extended this same level of restraint to other Final Fantasy articles, and have added the words "hero" or "heroine" to them. And, I might point out, they have all been swiftly reverted.

Without meaning any disrespect, I cannot help but wonder if you are making these changes out of spite. I've been doing my best to assume good faith regarding your edits, but assuming good faith involves choosing to believe you're capable of determining and following consensus. And, to be brutally honest, right now you're showing you're either incapable or unwilling to follow the consensus against using the word "hero." I do not believe you are incapable, as clearly you are not a stupid person. Therefore, it would appear you're deliberately ignoring consensus in order to insert your own personal opinions into the articles.

If there are additional arguments in favor of using "hero" over "protagonist" that you feel have not been adequately addressed, please feel free to bring them up for discussion. Otherwise, your ignoring consensus is a violation of Wikipedia policy and may lead to some editors choosing to treat you as a vandal. Bhamv 10:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I second this sentiment. As I've said before, Wikipedia is an encyclopdia, not a fan site. "Hero" does not fit in a fictional character's article, as it does not follow NPOV. If I have to, I'll watchlist every FF character page to keep things neutral, just like I have many of the FFVIII pages already. Peptuck 23:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I would strongly suggest you look at Wikipedia:Ownership of articles page. You areexhibiting the characteristics of article ownership by pushing this viewpoint. Peptuck 23:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but despite the "hero-protagonist" schism discussed here, the initial sentence "...is a primary protagonist" is very clumsy, so I'll change it to "main protagonist". ILorbb | Talk 11:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As a hopefully-objective commentator on the situation, since this, the first time I've ever looked at the page, is the result of seeing the war mentioned on the Lame listing, I will state the literary distinction that I myself have been taught about heroes and protagonists: heroes are always protagonists, but not all protagonists are heroes, or even "anti"-heroes. A hero has qualities of the majority of the given tale centering on them. FFVIII, by contrast, sought to identify the group, as a whole, as the focus of the story (such as it was, but this would be subjectivism on my part, so nevermind). Therefore, Squall, Rinoa, Quistis, et al, are the heroes, plural, of FFVIII. Squall doubtless has certain heroic qualities, but this does not (necessarily) make him THE hero, as others could be argued (and doubtless have been) to be just as important to the group. Being -A- hero doesn't necessarily require -THE-. Without a doubt, though, Squall is THE principle protagonist, because he is the character through whom the player sees most if not every last part of the actions of the story. There is Laguna, but he obviously secondary to Squall's primacy. Therefore, protagonist is the better phrasing, grammar wise. That said, if by vote everyone DEMANDED that he be called The Hero, that is perfectly fine. Choose, then, which is preferrable. --Chr.K. 09:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Eye color

I would like to request that the anonymous editor who keeps changing Squall's eye color to gray to please stop adding inaccurate information. They are clearly blue; in fact, if you were to save and zoom in on the character portrait for this very article, you would see that his eyes are blue. If need be I can probably dig up in-game cutscene images that support this as well. Please stop adding inaccurate information. Peptuck 04:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at Squall's FMV's his eyes are not blue. Besides we had this discussion before and settled on gray. If you can find in game evidence that his eyes are actually blue, I will stop reverting it. -Eileen-

Here's the old disscussion that supposedly settled the issue that his eyes are gray and is also why I changed it:

Squall's eyes?

I always thought Squall's eyes were GRAY, not blue. Anam 13:28 (EST), 9th July 2006 (UTC) Squall's eyes are really blue. In the game, there are a lot of situations where you can see him so close that you can spot the color (for example graduation ball, escaping the X-ATM092 cutscene), so there's no doubt about it. ILorbb 09:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Well, I think they're gray, and in those situations you've named they don't look at all blue to me. I don't think the colour of his eyes should be confirmed as blue until there's more proof. Anam 13:28 (EST), 9th July 2006 (UTC) I'm sorry, I've checked those FMVs myself and they're really not a satisfactory proof. So I was looking for another (the best would be from official site, of course). On the official site [1], though, the colour of his eyes might be either blue or grey. Finally, I found this site [2] - it contains screenshots from all FMVs in the game. The proof that Squall's eyes are blue is on the fourth line of pictures, the first one. It is the moment where Seifer Almasy slashes his Gunblade and Squall widely opens his eyes. In that instant, there's a close shot on his eye and we can clearly distinguish the color, blue.ILorbb 10:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Yes I was going to suggest watching that FMV carefully as well. If you watch the opening FMV of the game, the close-up of his eyes clearly shows they're gray. The screenshot you speak of is too dark to make a definite descision over. If you increase the brightness of the image slightly, you will see his eyes are distinctly gray. I don't believe it should be firmly stated his eyes are blue on this page because I and many other people have always believed they are gray. It should either be undisclosed or written as "gray, blue, or gray-blue". Anam 13:28 (EST), 9th July 2006 (UTC) After I've brightened the image and carefully checked the color, it really turned up to be a distinct shade of gray, so I apologize for my above statement that Squall's eyes are blue. But, to make sure no argue about this matter will occur in the future, I suggest removing all information about this topic from the article or creating a pool about which color should appear there (the latter is more "democratic" solution).ILorbb | Talk 11:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In-game FMV screenshots of Squall's blue eyes: [1][2][3][4][5][6]

Official render of Squall (not very big, but blue eyes are visible): [7]

Official drawing of Squall by Nomura, again with blue eyes (which appears in-game, on the character select screen): [8]

Wallpaper-sized in-game FMV image of Squall with blue eyes: [9]

In fact, the only thing I haven't been able to find is a screenshot of Squall during in-game gameplay. But I think the above links are pretty conclusive in showing Squall's eyes are blue.

In addition, I'm starting to think maybe we should just remove the line about his eye color if it's really that controversial. Bhamv 08:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah. I think the above pile of screenshots filled with what are obviously blue eyes (including two neutral CG renders blatantly showing them) proves what color they are. Controversy or not, its clear fact with these screenshots and renders. Thanks. :D Peptuck 08:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I did some examinations of the primary artwork we're using for this article,a nd I checked the colors of his eyes while blowing it up. Turns out there's both blues and grays in his eye color on the character portrait.

I'd prefer it if we had a CG render with neutral lighting (specifically, that one where he has the gunblade over his shoulder) but the only ones I can find are too small and get hyper-pixillated when I zoom in to check his eyes. Regardless, I don't trust many of the cutscenes precisely because the lighting throws off eye color, but its obvious from the character artwork by Nomura himself that Squall's eyes are supposed to have some blue in them. Peptuck 08:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This what you mean? [10] Bhamv 08:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Google-fu is clearly superior. *bows* Peptuck 08:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How about we just call his eyes gray-blue? Can everyone live with that? -Eileen-

I don't think that'd be appropriate, because the only times his eyes appear gray are when there are special lighting conditions. Under neutral lighting conditions, his eyes are clearly blue. Bhamv 06:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about accuracy. The screenshots, including neutral renders show his eyes are obviously blue, and are not gray at all. Peptuck 07:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with the special lighting conditions mentioned by Bhamv. I was one of the members in the discussion copied above and I clearly didn't take these in consideration. The renders and also the profile screenshot during the Dollet mission clearly shows that the color of Squall's eyes is not gray but blue. I think further discussion regarding this topic is thus not necessary, because the only actual screenshot that might be proposed as an evidence (the one during the intro sequence) of his eyes being gray can be disregarded because of the "non-standard" lighting of the scene. ILorbb | Talk 10:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the "special lighting conditions" argument. What counts as one of these "special lighting conditions"? Where's the special lighting in [6], where his eyes look very, very gray? Compare this to [1] and [3], where his face has light thrown on it - and again, his eyes look gray. Out of the many links given above as evidence of Squall's blue eyes, only the last two, [8] and [9], can be undoubtedly called blue. I verified these conclusions by opening up all of the above pictures in Microsoft Paint. After zooming in, I used the pipette tool several times on his iris, then filled in a rectangle with the colour extracted. Save for the last two, the rest invariably produced a gray colour, with a few shades of what could be described as gray-blue/blue-gray in between. Also, out of the nine links given above, his eyes in [1]-[7] looked indisputably gray to me, which left me surprised as to how you were using them as evidence of them being blue. As such, I feel it's merely a matter of individual perspective; like how people argue over whether turquoise is a shade of green or blue. I would have to agree with Eileen here, and say it's perhaps better for now to describe them as "gray-blue/blue-gray", until further proof can be found on the subject. - Anam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.196.85 (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy necro-thread, Batman.

Okay, the problem, I think, is that the line between blue and gray is not exactly set in stone. What appears blue to one person might appear gray to another. Since this is probably going to be impossible to resolve to everyone's satisfaction, I'm officially proposing we remove the part about his eye color. The article won't suffer from its absence, and we can finally put this issue to rest. Bhamv (talk) 12:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've been reading and re-reading this argument over eye color since 2007, so I'll go ahead and add my voice to this. For starters, what further proof do you need apart from the screenshots and official artwork provided? Are we saying that Square was inconsistent in their final render of the character and went against what Nomura designed? Secondly...of course you're going to pick up other colors when zooming in on low-res JPEG images; zooming in on or enlarging something that small makes the image fuzzy and causes the colors (obviously the blacks and the blues) found in Squall's eyes blur together. Lastly, if Squall DID have gray eyes, why would Square-Enix bother making his eye color blue in his other incarnations (i.e. Kingdom Hearts, Kingdom Hearts II, and Dissidia)? All in all, I'd have to say that I agree with what Peptuck said over a year ago: "Wikipedia is about accuracy. The screenshots, including neutral renders show his eyes are obviously blue, and are not gray at all." --SilentAria ^talk 13:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that in the screenshots his eyes are very very gray, but it's weird that in the official artwork, they're very very blue! It's really obvious in the Dissidia and KH artwork too. But I've played FFVIII many times, and I've never once thought his eyes were blue. They've never looked blue from any angle at any point in the game to me. Maybe it's an insignifant discrepancy between Nomura's designs and the final production of FFVIII? Consider: in FFVI, Terra's hair is green, but in the FMVs of the PSX/PSOne port of FFVI, they made her hair blonde. What should be said about Terra's hair-colour then? Is it blonde or green? In the game it's green, but in Amano's artwork it's blonde. And from what I've seen of Dissidia, it's... blonde! Now I have a headache! What's the answer??? Drunktroll (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

About Squall's eyes I remember a phrase of the game about a female character saying something like, "When he was looking me with those blah-blah-doggy-blah-blue eyes" It's been a long time I've played the game so maybe I am wrong. I've been a fan of Squall many years and this is the first time i hear about his eyes being gray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neo001010100 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to the game script at Gamefaqs, the quote is, "I remember those eyes. You just looked at me with the same eyes you had when you were little. Those curious, innocent, puppy dog eyes. I loved those eyes." The quote's from when Squall's about to leave the escape pod to rescue Rinoa, and said by Ellone.

So... no evidence from this quote. Bhamv 07:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Other appearances

It has been said that section needs the most improvement. I have copied it to my personal sandbox and will begin working on fixing up certain parts, adding sources, and other things. But I want to make sure that I have consensus to do this. The work-in-progress is right here. AR Argon 20:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, what the Hell? I'm gonna implement my changes to the article right now. If you have any problems, contact me at my talk page. Thank you. AR Argon 00:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please check spellings and use the {{cite web}} templates correctly. Kariteh 09:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You should mention the upcoming game Dissidia: Final Fantasy in the appearances article. Squall is set to appear in it. EDIT:Oh, this is a little old... Noj r (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If the appearance is confirmed and sourced, I think it'd be ok to boldly add the info. Bhamv (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup?

This article, and Rinoa's were recently tagged for cleanup. I'm wondering what aspects of the articles need cleaning? Bhamv (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The user doing the tagging seems to be going around tagging every article relating to videogames for cleanup, even when its obvious they don't require them. Peptuck (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Randomran why they tagged Aki Ross for "game clean up" even though it's not even a game-related article; apparently some of these tags are meant to be {{refimprove}} rather than {{gamecleanup}}. This article here arguably has a few unsourced sentences, but they're not controversial and it did pass GAC so... Kariteh (talk) 07:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Rearrangement of Critical reception section

Anyone mind if I rearrange the Critical reception section to have the positive reviews for this character mentioned first? It just seems better to me in this case, since the character is one of the more popular and recognized Final Fantasy characters. Having the negativity come first downplays that in my eyes. Flyer22 (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess it could be good although most of the good comments have also something negative about the character.Tintor2 (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't find the positive comments too negative; they are more so noting the obvious -- that Squall comes across as "cold and inhuman" quite often within the game (though he is later changed). I went ahead and rearranged the section to this. If you feel it needs tweaking, go for it of course.

Also, are there any reliable sources about what fans in general think of this character, like there is for Cloud Strife? From my experience, both characters are favored by most gamers. Flyer22 (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I searched, no.Tintor2 (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah well. It seems the favorite character listings he makes will have to suffice for now regarding that front. Thanks for the replies. Flyer22 (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No prob. I'll sure add something if I find it.Tintor2 (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and I like this add. Flyer22 (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Potential for Featured status?

I don't know—this article is pretty borderline, but I think it could pass FAC given a bit more work. Anyone have their thoughts on this matter? — Deckiller 00:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hero/protagonist

I am trying to improve the article as best as I can, but I am being shot down by an editor Tintor2 who thinks he is the author on english language and semantics, despite the fact that his main language is spanish. He also seems to have trouble being civil, and personal attacks have happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.13.172 (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

People need to discuss the wording issue here, not edit war in the article. As I have indicated on those editors' talk pages, further reverts from either editor will lead to a block. Pending consensus, I have restored the version of the article that was in place before the edit war started, per Wikipedia guidelines.

As for my two cents, I believe "protagonist" is more neutral and encyclopedic than "hero". It looks like something related to this issue was discussed above a few years ago. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a friendly tip for the future, if you see something like this happening, go to the talk page sooner. You seem to be vaguely aware of Wikipedia policies since you cite WP:NPA. Perhaps you'd be interested in registering an account so you can communicate more effectively with other editors? Axem Titanium (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing a notable reason to include hero rather than protagonist other than "I'm bad at English" and "per wikipedia rules". I already gave the reasons for including protagonist in the anon's talk page as it is meant to be his role in the game rather than his actions (moreover, videogame critics have often called him antihero rather than hero like Cloud Strife).Tintor2 (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

To the IP editor at 84.231.13.172, please don't obfuscate or outright lie. We're smarter than that, and so are you. Tintor has not posted any personal attacks against you, you posted personal attacks against him. Furthermore, his reversion of your edits has nothing to do with his native language, but rather the consensus to use "protagonist" rather than "hero," which was established in the discussion further up this talk page. Thus, your edit summary of using "hero" in accordance with Wikipedia rules is completely backwards; if anything, the Wikipedia standard of using consensus would dictate using "protagonist."

If you feel there are unexplored reasons for using "hero" rather than "protagonist" please feel free to raise them for discussion. But please stop it with the snide attacks. It's not fooling anyone. Bhamv (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ehh, I'm not sure what to make of this. Tetsuya Nomura himself has said that he is indeed a hero. And for the sniding comment from Bhamv, for a person who opposes personal attacks you sure seem to contribute a lot to them. And as for the obfuscate and lies comment, I leave them to their own worth. It is not unusual for things to suddenly disappear from here, do you need a history lesson on certain editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.31.140 (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

And yet every edit leaves a record on the edit history, so it's quite obvious who's making personal attacks and who isn't, who's been trying to hide their edits and who hasn't.

So, to the matter at hand, first please provide a source for Tetsuya Nomura saying Squall is a hero. Then we can further discuss whether it's appropriate to make the change. Personally, I feel that even if Nomura has stated he feels Squall is a hero, it would still be inappropriate to change the article, as "hero" is not nearly as encyclopedic or objective as "protagonist." The creator of a game or another creative work does not necessarily get to dictate the descriptions of that particular work. An example would be Activision calling Modern Warfare 3 "the most anticipated game ever." Would it be appropriate for the Wikipedia article on MW3 to begin with "Modern Warfare 3 is the most anticipated game ever?" Bhamv (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. "who's been trying to hide their edits and who hasnt..." please provide supportive evidence for these secret edits which have been hidden. A link will do.

"personally, I feel that..." luckily, this encyclopedia isn't a subject to your personal feelings, for it would be no more.

"creator of a game or another creative work does not..." No, of course not. But that doesn't mean their honest opinion should be left unheard.

All in all, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here, attacking me? Your userpage says you are here to build an encyclopedia, but your actions prove otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.69.128 (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but nice try there. You're the one implying that some edits have been hidden, with the quote "It is not unusual for things to suddenly disappear from here," so you asking me to provide evidence for something like that happening is rather backwards. As for the rest of your post, I believe there is no need to respond in kind any more. All editors here will able to see what's going on and decide for themselves who's been contributing and who hasn't, who's been making attacks and who hasn't.

I will, however, respond to places where you actually address the issue at hand. When it comes to writing an objective encyclopedia article, we cannot simply blindly follow Tetsuya Nomura's opinion, instead we need to find the most objective and neutral language to use. This does not mean that the creator's opinions must automatically be disregarded, but if it does not conform to the objectivity requirement, then we cannot attach much (or any) weight to it. Bhamv (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to invite other editors to weigh in on this issue, so as to avoid this turning into a two-way argument. This would help mitigate any possibility of WP:OWN occurring. Bhamv (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the opinion of Tetsuya Nomura is not to be blindly followed. But I also agree that you are trying to turn this issue to the old joke about WP, "The human hand has five fingers (citation needed)"

Anyone who has ever played the game will agree that he is indeed a hero, his actions prove this.

"I would also like to invite other editors to weigh in on this issue" It is nice of you to pave the way for your cronies and sockpuppets, so as to save them the trouble. What are you even doing here? You contribute nothing except ill will towards editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.69.128 (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You would not find many people who disagree that Squall is a hero. Where the problem arises is whether we should call him one in an encyclopedia article, which must be objective and neutral. Bhamv (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"Squall is a protagonist" is a 100% irrefutable statement. "Squall is a hero" is a statement that requires evidence and judgment to evaluate. The former should appear in the lead while the latter should be made evident through the course of the article and its description of his actions. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess if consensus dicks it so, it can't be helped. BTW who is the buck toothed white chick on the donation drive banner? Personal preference of mine would have Carolyn Bothwell Doran on there, nicer smile if nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.211.201 (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverted another edit that changed the term by an User:80.186.149.152.Tintor2 (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Squall's height

I'm just going to quote the Final Fantasy wiki here:

In the original game's release, Squall's height was listed as 173 cm (5'8"), however, the game's Ultimania, the latest edition of which was released seven years later, revised the height to 177 cm (5'9"). This difference is due to a misconception of height conversion. 177 cm, Squall's original height is 69.68 inches. There are 12 inches in a foot and if 69.68 inches is divided by 12, the result is 5.80, leading to the false conclusion of 5'8, when in fact there are 12 inches in a foot not 10 (so .8 of a foot would equate 9.68 inches). The same error occurs with the other characters' proclaimed height as well. Bhamv (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you just list the height in cm first? It's a Japanese game and most English speaking countries use the metric system. Thus, it makes more sense to say "Squall is 177cm tall (roughly 5'10") etc.". Axem Titanium (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2013 (UT

I"m going to quote my Ultimania copy and game manual:

The game manual for the PC/PS version says 5'8" " is the sign for inches right? and the ' separates the feet from inches I have the ultimania copy right here, and it doesn't even say feet it just says 177cm. type 177cm to feet in google: 177cm=5.80709 that is 5'8" Laguna in my game manual is 5'9" in Ultimania he is 181cm Once again there is NO foot conversion in Ultimania. This is seriously getting on my nerves, I know for a fact am 175cm and 5'7" jesus. Squall is 5 feet 8 inches tall. Also on the Final Fantasy wiki he is 5'8" notice the ' and "

I don't understand why this is so difficult for you. 177cm=5.8ft (as you said), spelled out, that is "five point eight feet". "Point eight" of a foot is equivalent to 80% of a foot. 80% of a foot (12 inches) is 9.6 inches. I think where you're getting confused is the fact that .8 =/= 8". Axem Titanium (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

5'9 3/4 right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.56.123.66 (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Roughly, yes. Also, please don't delete other people's posts on talk pages, it's considered poor form because it can confuse readers and negatively affect the discussion. Thanks. Bhamv (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Featured Status?

It was last proposed in 2010, I think this article is pretty much ready to be put forward for an FAC. Opinions? --Bailo26 19:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, you already did a peer review, but as a last step I'd submit it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests to make sure the prose is polished as much as possible before nominating- if you tell them in the request that it's going to FAC, they'll polish it with that in mind. --PresN 16:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: Miniapolis is currently copyediting this article, per Bailo26's request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests; see here. The first time I took a notice to Miniapolis was during his copyediting work on the Kannazuki no Miko article back in March of this year (and I only state "first time I took a notice to" in this case because I may have seen him around before that, but don't remember). Anyway, he did good work on the Kannazuki no Miko article, though I did disagree with a little bit (seen here), and he's doing good work on this article as well. I'm not sure if this article needed a thorough copyedit, though. Flyer22 (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, per Wikipedia:Featured article candidates: Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination. Flyer22 (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Is that not what i am doing? Besides, the original suggestion i made was more than 8 months ago, Surely any "regular editors" would have seen it by now and had plenty of chance to comment. :S Bailo26 18:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not always the case that editors who contributed significantly to an article or contributed regularly to it have that article on their WP:Watchlist. And since the Contributors tool is no longer available, this is the tool to see who substantially contributed to this article and may be a regular editor of it. There is no need to become defensive; I am simply attempting to make sure that the necessary protocols are followed before this article is put through a WP:Featured article nomination; such protocols are not always followed even though they should be. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates also states: "Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process." I take it that there is no concern with that bit applying to you? Flyer22 (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I would say so! I've played through it...too many times. Not to mention Kingdom Hearts, Dissidia etc. I'm not perhaps the most experienced Wikipedian ever, but i think this article is deserving of being a FA. On another note, i can see that did come across slightly defensively upon a re-read but it wasn't my intention. Apologies. Bailo26 23:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Bailo26. I say move on with the WP:FA nomination then; I might also help with it, though it's been several years since I've played Final Fantasy VIII or with Squall in a different game. Flyer22 (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

GrahamColm and Designate, do you mind explaining how the nomination closed as "Not promoted"? I see support votes in the review, but no oppose votes. And as for any problems with the article that may have remained, they are minor. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Good question. I'll defer to GrahamColm who originally marked it as closed. —Designate (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Image of River Phoenix

Keiiri, regarding this edit that I reverted you on, what good reason is there to remove the image? Since "Squall was inspired by actor River Phoenix," there is no harm in showing a picture of the actor. How is the picture misleading? "Nobody understood it" could mean that nobody understand why Nomura designed the character's look based on Phoenix's looks and/or that people thought there was no resemblance in the outcome of the character design. It might also mean something else. While the statement is vague, the picture is not vague. Having an image of the actor in that section aids readers' understanding of the matter. Sure, they can click on the River Phoenix article for the same material, but that doesn't mean that the image shouldn't be in that section.

And now I see that you have reverted without offering a good explanation. I'll contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix and Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters to weigh in on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Alerted here, here and here. By the way, you marked your initial removal of the image as WP:Minor; that edit wasn't a WP:Minor edit. Be more careful with marking edits as WP:Minor in the future. Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The image is unnecessary. It's also more neutral this way. The description itself is fine, and people can come to their own conclusions based on reading the text. There is a difference between inspired by and based off. And inspired by what of River Pheonix exactly? His courage, mindset, life, history, or et cetera? Nomura never explicity said it was inspired from his looks. This is also before the character was actually even created, so his inspiration, and its extent itself, is vague. He also said in that same answer that there are no correlations with any real people. So he obviously said Nobody understood it for a reason. Trying to suggest or imply otherwise would be considered WP:Synthesis. Keiiri (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Keiiri (last time WP:Pinging you to this discussion because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), it is an opinion that the image "is unnecessary," just like it is an opinion that the section is better "[h]aving an image of the actor [to aid] readers' understanding of the matter." I also don't understand your neutral argument; it is certainly not in line with Wikipedia's way of defining neutral (see WP:Neutral). You make a point of "inspired by," but I already stated above that the text being vague doesn't mean that the image is vague. I don't see what the image being there has to do with the text not being as clear as you or others might like. I'm not interested in a debate about "inspired by" vs. "based off." I'm interested in hearing a valid reason why that image should not be in that section. So far, you have not given one. Your argument seems like a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT case. I'm not arguing from a purely WP:ILIKEIT angle; I honestly think that section is better with the image because it significantly enhances readers' understanding of the topic by showing what Phoenix looks like. And your application of WP:Synthesis in this case is incorrect; including that image is not a WP:Synthesis violation in the least. Flyer22 (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22: Including an image of River Pheonix is obviously not mandatory. Including an image that implies that the character is based on his looks is misleading: Nomura never explicitly said the character is inspired by Pheonix's looks there. He even says was, not is, and it's also noted how Squall got changed since from how he was started off initially. So the extent of Nomura using Pheonix as inspiration before creating the character is indeed vague also, so the image doesn't merit inclusion. Again, he even said in that same answer that there are no correlations with any real people. So he obviously said Nobody understood it for a reason. So people can come to their own judgement from that. This article is about Squall, not Pheonix. Keiiri (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Keiiri, there is no need to WP:Ping me to this talk page since it is on my WP:Watchlist. I never stated that "[i]ncluding an image of River Pheonix is [...] mandatory." I was asking you to give me a good reason for removing it. You haven't, in my opinion. Stating that the image is misleading is your personal opinion, and so is your interpretation of what Nomura meant. After all this time the image has been in the article, its existence in the article has never been contentious until now. Before you removed the image, there was this IP removal that I reverted in February of this year, but that (and any other random IP removal) is the extent of any previous objection to the image. It also doesn't matter that "[t]his article is about Squall, not Pheonix" when it comes to including the image. I dislike removals that are seemingly based on a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT rationale instead of any Wikipedia policy or guideline. That stated, we've both made our opinions on this matter sufficiently known, I won't care much if the image remains removed, and we should let this discussion play out by seeing what others have to state on the matter; as you can see, Sergecross73 weighed in below. Flyer22 (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: For those interested, an image of Phoenix was added to the article in August 2013 by Nomchan (talk · contribs). In November 2013, because that image was a WP:Copyright violation, Denniss replaced it with the one we are now debating. So the image had been in the article since 2013. The only other removal of the image in the edit history is this IP engaging in vandalism and reverting himself soon afterward. Flyer22 (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough then I geuss. I've already given detailed reasoning as to why the image doesn't belong, I'd say that you haven't provided a good reason for why it should be included, but all right, lets let others weigh in on the discussion. Keiiri (talk) 04:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Remove Image - If the reader wants to know know about River Phoenix, they can click on the Wiki-link and see the picture. Squalls not a homage or reinterpretation of him, so its unnecessary to have the image of RP so prominently featured in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 03:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep the image in - the image gives a bit extra context to Nomura's statement, and I think the image simply looks good there. I'd quickly compare this to the two images used in EarthBound#Legacy, which are technically even less relevant to the article's topic, but are used regardless and I do think the article is better for it. It simply makes the article more attractive and easy to read. Here, we have a picture that is loosely, yet directly related to the character. It's common to use a picture of a person who a character is based on or inspired by too, and it is one of the benefits of Wikipedia not being paper that we can use to image of River Phoenix in the article of every character that is based on him ;) Oh, also, the phrase "Nobody understood it" makes the reader curious about how Phoenix looks, so it's probably a good thing to have the picture of him where people can see it and compare for themselves. ~Mable (chat) 08:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you read any of the argument above? You can't just make a WP:ILIKEIT argument. The extent of him being loosely based on the character doesn't merit him being so prominantly featured in the article. The character got changed from how it started off as initially. Plus, the EarthBound article is about a game; poor comparison. Keiiri (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I pointed out EarthBound simply to illustrate that images with a rather loose connection to the article's topic can improve the article. That it isn't the best comparison is expected. A more specific example would be Asami Sato, who's hair is inspired by Rita Haysworth, and who's voice actor's face is technically not adding any information to the article at all. I'm also not entirely sure if "it makes the article more attractive" is a case of WP:ILIKEIT, though I'm sorry if it came off like that. Lastly, I did really dance around the points made above, didn't I? Thing is, it is hard to specify the difference between "inspired by" and "based on" in a meaningful way. I guess I'd be more of the opinion that it should be the reader to decide how to interpret Nomura's statement, as any decision we'd make about that would be POV... ~Mable (chat) 10:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Remove Image - the connection is more than a little thin. It would be lime me including pictures of young people in Shibuya in the article about Luke fon Fabre, which is not really necessary. And as above, if people want to know what the actor was like, they can go to their page. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• Remove image because it is remotely relevant to the subject. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)