Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Final Fantasy VI

Final Fantasy VI

Winner of the first WPFF featured article drive, we would like to work on this article in order to make it reach Featured Article status. --ZeWrestler 03:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FICT. This article suffers from unrelenting bloat and is beginning to metastasize into sub-articles on secondary characters (rife with images of questionable copyright status). If FAs are supposed to show the best of WP, we should definitely try to roll back the bloat and Wikipedia:Fancruft and include material _about_ the game, rather than just information that one would pick up by playing it. (The section about censorship is a great start, tho.) jdb ❋ (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to reply about the images with questionable copyright status, what images are you talking about? I just looked through every single image on the page, and they all have legit copyright tags. I even checked the small character images in the template at the bottom. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hm, maybe that's been fixed since I last went through -- good. The inflated content issue remains, though: Calvin and Hobbes nearly lost its featured status after the article became bloated as fans of the strip (myself included, I have to admit) crapflooded it with minutae from the strips, making it tedious to read and of interest only to those who actually read every book in the series. (Judicious editing saved it from losing FA status.) Removing the really-belongs-in-an-FAQ and obvious-to-anyone-who-played-the-game minutae would be a good idea or the same people who voted to strip C&H of FA status will vote against it. jdb ❋ (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe i've read the article so many times that i'm passing the fancruft off as regular encyclopedia material and overlooking it. May you please cite a few example of the fancruft you are refering to in this article.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know if I should mention this, but I've found two images on the page, which are respectively Image:Cquote1.png and Image:Cquote2.png, not having any copyright tags at all. I uploaded over them some days ago, making them smaller file size, but Cuahl is the original uploader and I myself don't know the copyright status of these images. – DarkEvil 18:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
        Forget it, these images just got their tags after contacting the original uploader. – DarkEvil 21:00, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
        I can't believe i missed those two small pics. =( --ZeWrestler ^Talk 21:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        To be sure, I believe the quote images were part of a template gleaned off of some other page. Sorry for the confusion on that part. – Seancdaug 02:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
    - Examples: Most of it has been farmed out to satellite articles on minor characters. WP:FICT indicates that only major characters really merit articles; one may debate whether this applies to certain people in the game, but it most certainly applies to General Leo and Banon. They really should be (as WP:FICT suggests) merged into a big "List of FFVI characters". I would say that it applies to every character in the game who doesn't have some significant role outside it. Cloud from FFVII, for instance, has a huge following in the cosplay community and has appeared in several games besides FFVII; I can't think of any character in FFVII (although there may be one) significant enough to merit its own article. jdb ❋ (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, but whats left in the article. thats the focus at the moment. What is in there that is still considered Fancruft?--ZeWrestler ^Talk 03:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would guess that sub-pages of the article would we weighed along with the article in an FA vote. (It's not as though any other page links to Banon, Leo, etc.) jdb ❋ (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I asked the question about subpages here. In summary, an article should stand on its own and subpages do not have to be perfect. I'm not saying that the fancruft should not be removed from the character pages, but it should not affect the results of the FA voting. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        It shouldn't, but that's no guarantee that it won't, remember.... – Seancdaug 02:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
      - We should put a status effects section. -- A Link to the Past 02:51, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
        hmmm. not a bad idea. Although, i'm more inclined to say create an article Status Affects in Final Fantasy and link it to that. This way, other articles can use it as well. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 03:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I think this is exactly what you don't want. The more the page looks like a GameFAQs entry, the less likely it is to gain FA status. jdb ❋ (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Forget that idea. After i posted this, Cuahl posted a link to Status effect, which covers multiple games, outside and including Final Fantasy. Is that better? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        So, if I understand, all relating to monster or character stats, their attacks and other things that are only helpful to get through the game when playing should be removed, as well as all character pages like Emperor Gestahl, General Leo and even main characters if they don't act outside of this particular game, putting them in a list of characters, that's it? – DarkEvil 00:20, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
        Hold off on that idea for now.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 02:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        As a general rule, yeah, pretty much. My suggestion would be to take most of the individual character pages and move them over to either Wikibooks or one of the dedicated FF wikis out there, and trim down what we currently have to the sort of thing that, say, a non-gamer might concievably be interested in looking up about the game. But I do think that the first step is getting the main article down to good shape, and then working outwards to the various satelite articles. – Seancdaug 02:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
        So how should we start going about this?--ZeWrestler ^Talk 02:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I just thought about the fact that characters from Final Fantasy VI are appearing in that game as well as in the one included in Anthology version appearing also as CG models specially made (except some like Mog, Umaro, Gogo, etc...), I don't know if that'd count as being important enough to keep their articles, what about it? Oh, almost forgot that Gogo does appear outside of that game as he is also a boss in Final Fantasy V. – DarkEvil 04:16, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
        I'm not sure we want to set hard numerical limits, here: as for all Wikipedia, the basic key is notability. A character appearing in only one game can certainly be notable, under the right circumstances, whereas a character appearing in a dozen games might not be. Gogo isn't necessarily more noteworthy than Locke, even if the former has appeared in more games, and it could well be that neither qualifies for a seperate article. I think it's really more of an issue of writing the content first, and then deciding what belongs where: keeping in mind that we're trying to provide a basic overview, not a game guide or complete exegesis, what exactly do we have to say about individual characters? Or about specific locales? Or events? Slice out unnecessary padding, rewrite where necessary so that it's all clear to non-gamers, and organize thereafter. I personally think that that the main Final Fantasy VI article is looking pretty good at the moment, though a lot of the satelite articles need attention. But as I'm one of the guys who pushed for this peer review to begin with, my attitude may not be the most important :-) – Seancdaug 17:59, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I fixed up the reference section a bit. Some of information on the censorship section might want to have a few referances in it. DarkEvil, I know you added a lot to that section. If you or anyone else the sources for the censorship section please put them in the article. Besides the need for referances to be added to the article, i think its ready for a regular peer review by non-gamers before going to featured article nomination. Do you guys agree with me??--ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In the localization and censorship section itself, I've really just reworked some parts of the text or added some info I could find from the Japanese version of this article translating it with google translate which was very difficult to understand, very poor english translation. For the graphic censor, there was already a mention in the article saying that minor instances of nudity were covered. So I played the PlayStation version rom Anthology and got to the Chadarnook boss which was showing more parts than what I remembered when playing on SNES. I used a save game for the SNES and found out it was true. So I just used a sprite editor for SNES and checked through the unlocked bestiary on the PlayStation and found out all the differences myself. So, the graphic section I added was simply started thanks to the article itself and then I found out myself from the games which graphics were different by comparing. – DarkEvil 15:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC)