Oppose. Guy has a good point here. I think it would be appropriate to remove FFX-2 and Mystic Quest from this topic. These articles, along with the nominees, can later be placed in a spin-off FT or a main game FT, like FFVIII.
The Prince (
talk)
16:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Reluctant oppose: While I'm all for expanding the VG topics, especially with articles that are of good quality like these, I think this topic's scope has become a bit clouded. At its core, there should be the 12 titles that make up the main game series. Anything past that is like a supplementary article. I believe that when adding in supplementary articles, there should not be any holes or gaps. There are several other titles that are spin-offs and/or sequels, but are currently not in the topic or addition. With the numerous spin-offs and sequels in the series, I think adding in the above articles is like cherry picking. I also think that having Final Fantasy X-2 and Final Fantasy Mystic Quest is also cherry picking the titles. Though this may be a bit extreme in my interpretation, I feel it best to keep things simple for a few reasons.
The topic is currently 14 articles now, and if this trend continues, it'll bloat the topic.
A line needs to be drawn on which titles outside of the main series can be added. If the spin-off games, then why not the spin-off movies/anime? If one sequel, then why not the rest like the Dirge of Cerberus: Final Fantasy VII, or related games like Vagrant Story?
Because of the above reason, I feel this does not meet Featured topic criteria 1d.
So sorry, though I agree that the articles are of good quality and they should be showcased, I don't think this is the proper way. My two cents. (
Guyinblack25talk17:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC))reply
Honestly, yes. They are of high quality and I respect the work that went into them, but I don't see them fitting into the FT guidelines. I hate to be the one to push this point, but I think it is an important point that needs to be pushed. (
Guyinblack25talk18:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC))reply
Mmh, well, you're right. Moreover, I've just checked the Final Fantasy Mystic Quest article, and it doesn't even seem to be Good Article quality in fact, meaning it shouldn't be in an FT however we look at it. Seems like I opened a can of worms with this nomination...
FightingStreet (
talk)
19:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Nah, it was a can that should have been opened. In the end it'll help tighten up the quality of the topic. Now about Final Fantasy X-2 and Final Fantasy Mystic Quest, I don't know if there is any process to remove specific articles from a topic. Does anybody know if there is anything in place for such a situation? (
Guyinblack25talk20:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC))reply
The best way to do it would be through the supplementary nomination process. The nomination procedure for it should alert the right people and apply the most useful templates. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
03:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)reply
What about the various titles in the
Compilation of Final Fantasy VII? Those are sequels and prequels too. And what about
Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles? That is as much a sidestory as Tactics and Mystic Quest. The more I think about it the more I think the defining scope of what can be included is too blurred. I think the best solution is to keep it simple. If they need to be in a topic, the various other titles can be brought up in their own topics like FFVIII. (
Guyinblack25talk18:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC))reply
Very reluctant oppose - If it was going to be expanded, it would have to include Crystal Chronicles in the first place, but it is true that there seems to be little defining the scope of the topic if we add all these side games. The good news is that many of these articles, such as a
Final Fantasy IX featured topic, are not that far off, so Guy's suggestion is very doable.
Judgesurreal777 (
talk)
21:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Saying that some side games are more tied to the main series than others is arguably original research unless you can cite some kind of official grouping by the makers. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
03:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment: Should Final Fantasy Fables:Chocobo Tales be included in this? I've played the game, and while it does carry a lot of Final Fantasy elements, it looks more worth as Chocobo Series title than a Final Fantasy title. In the Square Enix's FF site that Guyinblack linked to, Chocobo Tales isn't listed. I also think Crystal Chronicles should be included, but seeing that it's not even in GA status... oh well. —
Blue。15:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
I think that's because it was released in 1992/1993 and they update the page to remove older titles. All of the games listed there are from 2000 onward. The
Japanese equivalent page is more up to date and has the newer games on it, but less older games. (
Guyinblack25talk15:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC))reply
Comment: Final Fantasy III has lost its Good Article status. As per the
criteria, the Featured Topic will be eligible for removal in three months from now (
2008-06-10). I guess the topic will be nominated for removal before that date though, considering the arguments raised here about the spinoffs.
FightingStreet (
talk)
15:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Reluctant Oppose - With the latest being III, this FT is weakened, with there not being any definitive line on the articles that should be included. —
Blue。17:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Close nomination as no consensus to add — Some users have discussed a redefinition of this topic's scope. If there is interest in such a change, it should be discussed on the topic's talk page and another suplimentary nomination made to add or remove articles. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
23:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)reply
2007 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form
I'm nominating this topic as all of the episode articles for the 2007 award have been promoted to GA/FA, the drive started by the concurrent FACs of 200 and Doomsday. While I am aware the lead article is not a FL, this is because of the lifetime of the award (five years). However, the layout is unconfusing, and it is adequately cited. Thanks, Will(
talk)01:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose I am sorry, but I have to oppose not only because the lead article is not a FL, but also because the lead describes a (larger) different topic.
Zginder (
talk) (
Contrib)02:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - I think that this topic meets current criteria, but barely; I would bulk up the lead article as much as possible, because even if it gets a check mark it should have some content, and it has very little at the moment.
Judgesurreal777 (
talk)
04:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - per
WP:WIAFT, not all aticles need to be GA/FA, especially if this isn't a reasonable request. In this case, giving FL status to the lead article would not be reasonable and could undermine the FL process, hence I give support for the current status of the topic. dihydrogen monoxide (
H20)
02:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Support - per above, not all articles have to be of good or featured content. Two FAs, one audited article, and the rest GAs are sufficient. I agree with Dihydrogen Monoxide that the main article is far too short for a featured list nomination, and with this in mind, the individual audit is necessary and sufficient. Sephiroth BCR(
Converse)06:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose I don't think the lead article has a case for being an independent article by any stretch of the imagination. No reason for any year/award combination articles to ever exist. The minimal information there is is easily merged in other articles.
Circeus (
talk)
16:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose — This is either not a unified topic as per #1b or the lead article is not introductory and summary as per #2. This collection of episodes is a bit random, the only thing they have in common with each other is the fact that they were all nominated for the same award. I do think that there is potential in a featured topic structured like this, but the lead article would have to spend more time talking about the episodes themselves, describing what the 2007 nominees have in common with each other and how this batch of nominees is notable from other years' nominees. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
20:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)reply