This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since there were objections over the venue, I've opted to open notability discussions on the four topics discussed. I feel like this article could, in theory, be notable, but as it stands, the sources do an insufficient job of demonstrating notability. To examine each source:
I find that, based on what is here, the subject is not presently notable. If there are more good sources out there, I'd certainly be happy to see them.
Here's another SIGCOV I found specifically about World of Ruin
(Eurogamer article). It argues that the scene with Celes and Cid is possibly an example of "games as art". This source is pretty compelling evidence that it's standalone notable. Here's an
Inverse article that also specifically talks about the World of Ruin twist, with a big map of it.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
00:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There's also an article
here that spends a couple paragraphs arguing that "The World of Ruin is what elevates Final Fantasy VI into a masterpiece", though I don't know the reliability of the site so I am less inclined to cite it as clear SIGCOV. Still, it might be.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
00:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Popping my head in, but I've run into Goombastomp before and it lacks editorial. The author however
writes for Valnet, which I'd be *wary* about but does give you an angle to argue.
Repeating myself here, but I don't think this is a notability issue; it's a readability issue. This article lacks crucial context for the reader to understand what the topic even is. The lead has no less than 5 unexplained concepts from FF6 that make zero sense to a reader who first arrives at this article. If you were to provide all the proper context necessary, this article would just be copying vast swathes of the FF6 article. Just because something is "notable" doesn't mean that the best way to convey that information is on a separate page. Merge.
Axem Titanium (
talk)
21:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
After heavy reflecting, I also agree on a merge. There are sources discussing the subject, but not enough to warrant a stand alone article without needing to go into excessive detail for it to make sense; that's the biggest deciding factor in this case.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
23:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Honestly, I feel as though there's a valid point to be made that World of Ruin is better to strengthen the FF6 article rather than being a thing on its own. Merge -
Cukie Gherkin (
talk)
21:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge - This article is a great example of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should". Can you write four sourced paragraphs on one small component of a video game? Sure. Should you do that? No, because you end up with something with no real weighting according to importance that's also completely out of context. This is, essentially, just "various people's opinions on one part of FF6", and sources or no that shouldn't be a stand-alone article. This isn't
World 1-1 here. --PresN00:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I was the last to comment here, weeks ago, but the clear consensus is to merge the article, with only the article creator against. I've gone ahead and merged it to
Final Fantasy VI. --PresN02:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.