Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Final Fantasy video games/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:25, 29 April 2010 [1].

List of Final Fantasy video games edit

List of Final Fantasy video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): PresN 16:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

A spin-off of a former featured list, List of Final Fantasy media, I've been working on this video game list for a while now and think that it's ready for FLC. There's no dabs, no images (so no alt text needed), and checklinks is giving me a clean bill of health. --PresN 16:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 15:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • The first sentence says it is a "series of role-playing video games". The second paragraph however lists other types of games that are included in the series. Do you believe it would more correct to simply state it is a video game series, and then state the different types of games included (e.g. remove "role-playing" from the first sentence)? I do understand that they are primarily RPG's. Jujutacular T · C 22:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess another option would be to somehow work into the opening of the article that they are primarily role-playing games. Jujutacular T · C 22:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, changed it to video games in the start and then said that it's primarily RPGs when the lead gets to mentioning genres. --PresN 14:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?? This is FLC... --PresN 16:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • yeah not so sure if it's feature list yet...i guess it could be too, but i often worry if i over rate it. one thing, that i see is fortress is in ff main series related section, even though it says spin off on the notes.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to say spin-off/sequel- it looks like a spin-off (rather than a direct sequel), but concept art shows characters from FF12 in it. Either way, the terminology is misleading- it's not a spin-off of the series as a whole, as it's directly related to FF12, so it goes in "main series-related". --PresN 19:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, lists can't be GAs. --PresN 19:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • alright then, i vote for it becoming a featured list. they should make a GL or something thoughBread Ninja (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  • Link spin-off first time round.
  • Fixed.
  • "on nearly every video game console" can you prove that statement?
  • Probably not, so changed to "over a dozen" (13 that I counted)
  • "among other honors" such as?
  • Removed.
  • I think a key may be useful for things like JP, NA and PAL. I know they're linked but it would be of use to know what they are anyway.
  • Alright, can you point me at an article that uses a key so I know how to do it? None of the video game FLs seem to have one.
  • I can't quite work out how FF 1 was released for the Wonderswan Color on December 9, 2000 when our article here about the Wonderswan Color says the console itself wasn't released until December 30, 2000. What makes that source reliable?
  • The wonderswan color article is wrong. The press release from when the console was released clearly says that the console was released on December 9. It also backs up the December 9 release date of FF1.
  • Also mildly confused that the PAL PSP version was released "February 8, 2008" and yet the system release says "2007 – PlayStation Portable (Final Fantasy Anniversary Edition)[5]"...
  • The first release of FF1 in the PAL region (Europe) was the PSP version, which was released there on February 8, 2008. However, the PSP version was initially released on April 19, 2007, in Japan. Therefore, the release year of the PSP version is 2007, but the first release of FF1 as a whole in Europe is the 2008 release of the PSP version there.
  • Similarly for FFII.
  • Ditto for above.
  • And FFIV for the GBA. There may be more of these, I won't point them out because I may be missing the point somewhat. Can you clarify these issues please?
  • Yes, this happens a lot. Europe generally gets video games released there months to years later, so quite often the first release date in Europe is going to be a different year than the first release date of the game itself.
  • re-release or rerelease. Be consistent.
  • Whoops, fixed the one instance.
  • I would have thought that notes which are complete sentences should take a full stop.
  • Or at least be internally consistent (Final Fantasy XI: Online seems to have a few full stops).
  • full stops removed.
  • Did you put (GBA) somewhere so we know that you mean Game Boy Advance? And if you abbreviate it, why not use it consistently afterwards?
  • Unabbreviated. They were only used in the date cells of the tables, as I felt it looked awkward with it fully written out there. I found a better way to write them, though.
  • Mobile Phones->Mobile phones.
  • Then you have "Mobile phone". Be consistent.
  • Standardized on Mobile phones
  • Sometimes you relink a platform within a single cell of the table, sometimes you don't. Be consistent.
  • Standardized on 1 link per cell.
  • personal computer or PC. Be consistent.
  • Fixed the one instance of PC.
  • "Outside of Japan" no need for "of".
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 75, please uncapitalise that in accordance with the WP:MOS.
  • Fixed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you confirm that ref 46 uses an en-dash, not a hyphen.
? Not sure what you mean- the title of the ref is using a hyphen. Do you mean that it should be using an en-dash?
Yep. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, fixed, I think.
  • Where are the "Original release dates" for the spin-offs?
  • They have them, except when the cell is a series. I can put them in there if you think I should.
  • Just seems odd to have "Original release dates:" in the cell with nothing following... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, fixed. The "release date" thing was because I couldn't figure out how to make the template not display that; I've now forked off a version for use for series and collections. --PresN 15:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. Marking them off as I go. --PresN 16:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, a couple of them have questions for you. --PresN 19:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a rule written down somewhere about how often you're supposed to link in lists? 'Cause The Rambling Man up there wanted it to be no more than 1 time per game/cell, whereas you want it to be the same way its done in regular articles. I can go either way, but I'd like to know what it's supposed to be. --PresN 14:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said I wasn't overly bothered. Typically we link once, and once only, unless it's a sortable list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per below, I've hit upon a solution- one link per section. This eliminated linking PlayStation 2 in 5 cells in a row, but ensure that you don't have to go hunting for links late in the list. --PresN 01:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I believe that I have addressed your concerns. --PresN 02:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't scrutinize the article as well as others have or probably will, but the things that I noticed are the potential overlinking and Collections section.
  • I tend to think it is acceptable to once link per cell or per row, rather than expecting readers to find the linked first instance that is somewhere in the list, but I'm not sure if WP:REPEATLINK agrees since the list is not sortable.
  • I've hit upon a solution- one link per section. This eliminated linking PlayStation 2 in 5 cells in a row, but ensure that you don't have to go hunting for links late in the list. --PresN 01:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mainly question the purpose of the Collections section. To me, it seems out of place to me as they are not games themselves. The information is worthwhile, but I am not sure that this is the correct place to summarize it. I think that the section at least needs an explanation to mention that the collections are individual products available as a single purchase.
  • I've put in an explanation of what collections are; they may not fit 100% but there isn't another article to put it in. --PresN 01:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another minor gripe would be the term "system release," but I see that that is used in other FLs. To me, it sounds like when the system was released, not when a game was released for it. "Release dates by systems" seems a more appropriate phrase, but I understand there may be precedent for the term currently in use. —Ost (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per below, I've gone and changed the template to use your phrasing, as it better exemplifies what the field is used for. --PresN 01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason why you use piped links instead of redirects? For instance, you use [[Final Fantasy I and II (compilations)#Game Boy Advance|Final Fantasy I & II: Dawn of Souls]] instead of [[Final Fantasy I & II: Dawn of Souls]], which goes directly there. DabSolver shows other examples. I was able to use WP:CHECKLINKS to replace the instances, but you're welcome to revert if you purposely excluded the redirects. —Ost (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, thanks! I'll go ahead then and cut down the overlinking, since it seems to bother people. How did you use checklinks to fix the pipedlinks? I only use it for external links. --PresN 21:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically, it applies its commonfixes after it fixes dead links, so I just ran it and saved it, even though your links were fine. I figured it would be easier for you to revert me than to do it by hand. DabSolver may have done the same, too, although I've played with that tool much less. —Ost (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, nifty. I suppose that I used piped links due to some OCD-ish quirk, but you're swaying me to just use the redirects as they won't have link-rot issues. --PresN 01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I believe that I have addressed all of Ost's concerns. --PresN 02:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I think it looks good and I can support FL promotion assuming other reviewers don't find major concerns. —Ost (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. (Note that I am unfamiliar with series.)
  • The lead linking to articles implied by text seems out of consistency with usual wikilinking one would expect. For example "first game" implied FF1, but I almost expected to be taken to first video game or something. I do recognise that changing this may reduce readability. So I support change only if it is of equal or better readability.
  • Why is the whole "fourteenth is forthcoming" linked? Would it be preferred to just link say "fourteenth title is forthcoming" or alike? It is not going to be coming forever.
  • These two seem to be the only examples of this implied linking I could find- they now have more obvious links. --PresN 01:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would ".. has placed it as one of the best-selling video game franchises." rather be clarified as ".. has placed it as the sixth best-selling video game franchise."? Are you worried about the place changing or?
  • I wrote it that way because when I started re-writing the lead it said it was the "third best-selling" and the linked article had it as the sixth. There's no need in my mind to be specific if it's less than the top 3, and it does seem subject to change, yes. --PresN 01:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, fixed. --PresN 01:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think all the notes do need the full stops. They looks weird directly followed by refs. Besides, it is syntactically incorrect.
  • Alright. Done. --PresN 02:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ost316 suggests redirects instead of pipes. I am not sure why. I prefer piped links myself.
  • It might be a style preference, but I also like redirects because it gives you one central place to edit the section link instead of routing through articles if someone changes a section name. I also read WP:NOTBROKEN as preferring redirects—"With a few limited exceptions, there are no good reasons to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]."—but that may be my interpretation. —Ost (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, this will increase further editing required should the articles be created or sections renamed. I'm just assuming that most of these redirects don't deserve an article and probably never will. Of course, it's case-by-case basis. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  23:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, in any case, I think I'll stick with redirects now that they've been changed, as I don't feel strongly about changing them back. --PresN 01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same here. No idea about a better link though. --PresN 01:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since per above there's now only one such link per section, it should be less of a problem now too. --PresN 01:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also find "system release" slightly confusing. "Release dates by system" indeed sounds like a better option.
  • I agree, I've gone and changed the template to use that wording. --PresN 01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not find the systems being overlinked, simply because they are so randomly distributed that it would take additional effort to be bothered by the same links. It may appear a bit on the non-aesthetically "blueish" tone, but I am sure it is because of the loads of referenced.
  • Per above, I'm going to one link per section, which reduces the redundant links without making it unduly hard to find them later in the list. --PresN 01:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, it probably cannot be helped any further anyway.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  13:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I will support this as a FL given some of mine and couple previous issues are resolved. The referencing must have taken you a while. :P—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  21:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha, yeah.... --PresN 01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added an optional "multiplereleasedates=yes/no" param to the {{VGtitle}} template. You can use it to display proper "Original release dates:" and "Original release date:" instead of "Original release date(s):". Edit: I added this it to article. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  23:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, lots to do! Comments inline with your suggestions as I get to them, I'll put a summary comment when I finish it all. --PresN 01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I believe that I've address all of Hellknowz's concerns. --PresN 02:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given this is FLC I think it deserves a bit more nitpicking :)
  • You missed 3 fulls tops. I fixed them.
  • Final Fantasy Legend series. "The three games were reissued by Sunsoft." Rewhat? Do you mean re-released, republished, localized? Is this a term specific to this system/game release?
  • It means republished, but I guess it's not a common term. Changed. --PresN 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final Fantasy Adventure. "..it has generated its own series, called the Mana series." --> ".. has generated its own game series, called Mana." I think it helps to clarify it was game series not manga or anime or something equally insensitively stereotypical. Also would "Mana" be enough instead of "the Mana series" as series is already mentioned right before.
  • Agreed, changed. --PresN 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final Fantasy: Unlimited on PC Adventure - Labyrinth. Would Amada Printing be notable enough to be redlinked? I don't think FL or FA actually forbids occasional redlinks.
  • I don't think so, as far as I can tell they're just a defunct publisher that mainly handled small print runs of trading cards or the like. This was the only game they ever did. There's very little reason to think that any English speaker would create an article about them.--PresN 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final Fantasy X/X-2 Ultimate Box. "..with a bonus disc." What bonus disc? Empty/full/with game/with bonus material? Ref is forum in Japanese which helps me not.
  • It had the same video on it as FFX International, added in. --PresN 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final Fantasy Mobile series. "Final Fantasy i" <-- typo? It looks like something that may not be. Reference is in Japanese.
  • No, that's correct. Weird, but correct. --PresN 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same place "..were released separately for two mobile phone brands." What brands? It seemed like it talks about something mentioned before but I cannot find any previous mention of phone brands. Add ".. two different mobile.." if you don't want to specify which ones so it is clear you had no intention to.
  • I'm going with "two different" as I can't tell what brands they are just from the logos. --PresN 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ivalice Alliance series. Given you want to keep redirects instead of pipes - Ivalice Alliance (like in Final Fantasy XII notes)
  • Fixed, also there was another piped link there. --PresN 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure I would miss half the links even if I was to look for them specifically. :)—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  14:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should E³ be wikilinked at its first mention in Final Fantasy Versus XIII?
  • Yes, also expanded to the full name. --PresN 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fortress. "Spin-off/sequel of Final Fantasy XII". Is it interchangable or both? The slash is sort of ambiguous. Can you say "Spin-off sequel of ..." as in it is sequel to canon game but spin-off in terms of story?
  • Yes. It's sort of both; there's not a lot of detail available, but it's not an RPG (spinoff) but seems to involve characters from FF12 after the game (sequel). --PresN 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Finest Fantasy for Advance collection (????, Game Boy Advance)" doesn't include year anywhere (well, at least 3 times). Should it?
  • Probably! Fixed. --PresN 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  13:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, same deal as before with the inline comments. I think I've addressed them all. --PresN 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support then. I cannot see any more problems or omissions. I'm not an expert on "featured stuff" but it seems to me it satisfies all the FL criteria. I could probably nitpick lack of prose and lack of more solid references than occasional forums but I think this is close to as good as it gets for lists with such obscure info. I'll gaze over it again later to see if I missed anything. Looks like good work to me! —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  14:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! FYI, there shouldn't be any forum references- the one you referred to above as a forum is actually a listing of games in the Square Enix site. --PresN 15:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; my only concern with this article has been alleviated. Impressive work. Tezero (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Final_Fantasy_video_games/archive1&oldid=370465965"