FFWiki forum logo
Forums: Index > The Labyrinth of Time > An article creation policy

Okay guys, people want to discuss this.

There are two sides to creating this policy-- First: Identifying a need. Second: What goes into it.

For the first one: I'm telling you now that there is a need. Seeing people question whether something needs an article gets tedious. It also requires people who see the talk page (not many people check talk pages) to know what to do in the scenario. --So I'm fast-tracking onto the important bit: Actually discussing the policy.

For the second one: Have no fear, you're resident "wiki-expert and knows almost everything about policy except maybe music and personnel articles" is here. I wrote what some may call a draft which can now be found: here.

This policy is built based on past discussions and what the wiki does in practise. Mainly what the wiki does in practise, but some of what the wiki does in practise has featured in past discussions.

Look how many points there are, right? It would have taken us ages to review each point individually.

But of course, very few of these points have gone through Wiki-official processes to be listed the way they are. This is because the wiki does not have an article creation policy to officially note them down in.

So how should we discuss this?

Okay, I don't know how everyone else wants this to work but here's how I'm going to work it and if the end product is still not wanted in project space then your loss.

I will make a list of anything dubious or not 100%. Wikians, you can also add to this list. In a week's time I will take the first point from the list and open up a discussion. When a conclusion has been made I will amend the draft. If after a week no decision has been made I will look for the consensus and amend the draft-- it wouldn't work any other way. After a point is confirmed I will move on to the next on the list. Through this we will discuss everything that anyone has a problem with. 23:48, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

HOORAY! The Wiki has needed something like this for so long, it is excellent to see it being made. There's a lot of specific information and it is incredibly handy for making articles; I've often had to hope an article is okay or ask around and get little help when making some articles; having a standardized list depicting different reasons for articles of different types and list articles to be made is great. I completely support a page like this being made. And was this really that hard, JBed? Jimcloud 00:02, July 29, 2012 (UTC)
No, not hard. I always planned on making a forum like this. After deciding to post it straight to project space I was waiting for response. And then I was going to make one after the responses on the talkpage of the project page but people were more intent on criticising me rather than the policy. The two problems that were bought up-- one was fixed and was never argued further.
Essentially there was no point in me making this thread when the wiki just decided to let the project page lie in there. I was just waiting for something to pick a problem with it (because I knew there were).
But no one ever did. And now rather than pick the problems people are still avoiding the subject entirely and just moving it out of project space. And in a half-assed way since it's still linked to in Help:Contents.
Psst... Jimcloud, I wanted to create this thread more than anyone else wants to see it. And I'd argue that not many people want to see it. 00:14, July 29, 2012 (UTC)


  • World articles containing list of location over List of Locations article, ALSO every world (based on either situation (Terra (Final Fantasy IX)) or being a different World Map (Bottom of the Sea)) has its own article. This is not done in practise but it is policy. Discussion point 1 (Approved).
  • Sub-menus of the Items/Inventory menu option all go on one page. This is the theory, yet for some reason there is justification for Loot (Final Fantasy XII) and similar articles, but not Key Item articles. Discussion point 2 (Amended).
  • List of Abilities: I'm not sure why I flagged this, AFAIK it's always done in practice. I think I flagged it because of how List of Abilities pages are formatted, which is really a job for the MoS, not for a creation policy. Discussion point 3 (Approved).
  • Every recognizable figure that has appeared in 2 ability animations gets a creature/being article (such as Grim Reaper). --This isn't technically official because it's not in practise. However I once discussed it and no one argued against it and I would have gone through with creating an article but I never did. Discussion point 4 (Undecided).
  • 75% appearances in a compilation for an enemy-- there was admin go ahead for Guard Hound due to appearing in 4/4 released of VII. Since then Epiolnis was created (although since then VI has been added-- which makes it four, which fails the regular recurring enemy check (although its appearance in 75% games of a series overrules that if we decided to keep that).) Discussion point 5 (Amended).
  • 6 appearances for a recurring enemy. Or is it 5? There is always a drive for being important. I am fairly sure 6 is followed. But not confirmed. Discussion point 6 (Amended).
  • 8 appearances as an enemy ability. Recurring enemy abilities usually get articles for being Blue Magic or appearing under some other criteria. However Scorch only has 4. Eight was once said to avoid boring physical attack pages from being created. This is now being refuted. Discussion point 7 (Amended).
  • Used by 2 different summons, both requiring 3 different uses. --This is not true. Y'see, we made a number of articles like Hellfire (Ability) and Diamond Dust but someone said that abilities used almost exclusively by one summon should not get an article. It was basically a "stop making these articles" comment. This means there is nothing official in the policy, and the policy written here is therefore not officially followed. Discussion point 8 (Amended)
  • "A recurring ability associated with a specific character or boss in 3 appearances (such as Army of One, Big Bang (Ability))." But that includes "Scorch" and any enemy that appears in FFI, TAY, and an original game that uses an ability in all three, like Scorch. Discussion point 9 (Approved).
  • The single-appearance character policy. I'm sure most people agree that everything written there is acceptable, however there are exceptions to those rules. Discussion point 10 (Approved).
  • Wait, if <20 Allusions, they go on the main game page? Final Fantasy III#Allusions doesn't exist, neither does Final Fantasy III allusions. Is it just because nobody's written the Allusions section/page yet? Discussion point 1 (Approved)
  • For enemies, why does FFT and FFTA2:GotR have exceptions but FFTA doesn't? Discussion point 12 (Approved)
  • Special enemies that are palette-swaps or fall into the same family as another enemy can get their own page (like Ultima Weapon and Omega Weapon)? Discussion point 13 (Approved)


Okay, so on this list, the first thing I want to comment on is that with summons, there's no need to make pages for any attack. At all. Those attacks are tied to the summon spell, or in cases like FFX and FF13, they are hallmark attacks of that single "character." Just because another summon might use Hellfire does not create a need to create an article for that attack. The truth is unless an ability is used by more than one entity within the context of the same game, it's inextricably tied to whatever used it, whether it's Ifrit or Anti-Shiva. Once the party gains access to the Hellfire spell, we'll talk.

Second, I would argue that we do a lot of page-making for things only ever used once, and I don't see that as a problem. FF13 has Ruin and as demonstrated, it has its own page. Pages need to be created based on the need for accessible information. Because Ruin is a new spell, it deserves a page, even if said page is just a blurb. The same goes with any new summon or traditionally universal object. Now, for individual character skills, such as Limit Breaks, those either need to go on the character's page or in an archive with those of the rest of the cast, depending on what it is and whether there's enough to justify pooling them all into an article. But in most cases, every summon and spell should have a page. Bluestarultor Best-of Stellar Arena sigicon BSA 00:40, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

What about articles like Omnislash and Army of One? Are they comparable to summon attack articles?Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 01:41, July 29, 2012 (UTC)
Those pages are useful for people who are curious for information about a specific ability; if it's used by more than one creature, then obviously you can't find all of the information you want for it on one parent page unless it's for the ability, and thus, you can't effectively demonstrate the differences between the ability on the other parent page, can you? Since that's the case, I would say that we should have these articles when the information can't be demonstrated together on one page otherwise. Jimcloud 02:28, July 29, 2012 (UTC)
One user ability appearance = An article. Even if only one job/one character uses the ability it still merits the article. I don't know why summons should be treated that differently. Shiva is always (almost?) the only one that uses Diamond Dust, but Shiva is a creature/summon article. Summon articles are essentially character articles. And you don't see us opting not to create ability articles if only one character/job uses the ability.
Just my thoughts on the matter. 19:08, July 29, 2012 (UTC)
Would it be better to create individual h2s for each point on the list and then create comment subsections for each one? I feel that lumping all suggestions/bullet points in one list would make constructive comments bulky. 8bit 20:23, July 29, 2012 (UTC) EDIT: For the enemy ability attack page, I'd say allow four appearances. If the only difference is the "boringness" of an attack name, I don't think that's an important enough factor to have a separate limit for page creation. 8bit 20:32, July 29, 2012 (UTC)
If you read the opening I say that I'm going to actually discuss each point individually. If we try to discuss all the points at the same time things will never happen.
Currently we're in the "add stuff to that list" phase. Any other discussion that occurs now doesn't really matter. 20:42, July 29, 2012 (UTC)
Summons are a bit less than characters though. We don't have a page on Asura's Boon or whatever the most recent version calls it, I never keep track of these things because Asura only uses it in 2 games. In FFIV and TAY she casts Asura's Boon, but in Dissidia and D012 she casts Queen's Aegis, which does something completely different. I'm all for the "3 uses" (or perhaps 4?) rule, but not the "2 different users" rule, as Hellfire, if wasn't used by a summon, would have its own page without question; however, all the information we could ever have on Asura's Boon is right there in Asura (Summon). at least I think that's how it is... right?C A T U S E 02:58, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that somebody include a section for when new policy pages can be written. You know, instead of going through all this lamentable acrimony again. --BlueHighwind 20:26, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose... as debating that would be nothing but lamentable acrimony in itself. :{ C A T U S E 02:58, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

I've only just noticed that there is absolutely, positively no policy whatsoever on this page about when to make Music articles. Any reason for that, JBed? Jimcloud 21:16, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

When I write things on wiki... I don't have control over my internet connection-- so when it is turned off I end up just writing everything I know for fact and the basic skeleton of the article. Music articles were something I forgot to include in said skeleton, and therefore when internet connection returned there was nothing to remind me that I needed to add music articles here. I'm not good on music policy so I didn't write it without internet, and then I forgot to check up on it later when I had internet.
There is also no information on personnel. I forgot about this completely. Which is strange because one of the things that made me think about writing it now was because of discussion about making articles for VAs (but then we don't have those articles so they were never going to be mentioned in the policy). 21:20, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

Quick question, because I don't fully understand the current policy and I'm lazy: Shockstorm (yes, me!) appears as an ability used by Rikku's Machina Maw (X-2), and as an ability used by the Mimic Queen boss (XII). Does this deserve it's own page, a disambig linking to the "List of blah blah" articles, or nothing at all? (Right now it has no page/disambig). And I feel for you Jbed, my internet gets turned off around 11:30 pm. Quite annoying. --Shockstorm (talk) 21:49, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

That depends on two things. Firstly: Is Shockstorm a top-level command? For example, in FFX "Blk Magic" is a top-level command, but "Fire" is not. Secondly: Does Shockstorm in XII have enough similarity to Shockstorm in X-2 to be considered the same thing?
  • If Point 1 is true and Point 2 is true, both get a parent article at the "Shockstorm" article.
  • If Point 1 is true and Point 2 is false, "Shockstorm" is a disambig that will link to an article called either "Shockstorm (Ability)" or "Shockstorm (Final Fantasy X-2)" (there is undecidedness on the best tag). The enemy ability will be linked to on the "Shockstorm" disambig.
  • If Point 1 is false and Point 2 is false, "Shockstorm" is a disambig, and the X-2 ability will link to what the skillset that Shockstorm is in is called, and the XII enemy ability will link to the XII Enemy Abilities page.
That is current policy. In this scenario Point 2 is false but I don't know about Point 1. JBed (talk) 22:07, July 31, 2012 (UTC)
Shockstorm is a part of Machinations. That means that it does not need an article.
What it does mean is it should be covered on an article called "Machinations". And the wiki does not have a page called "Machinations". It should. JBed (talk) 22:14, July 31, 2012 (UTC)
I don't think any of the FFX-2 unique skillsets have articles, it's all on the job pages only.Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 00:41, August 1, 2012 (UTC)
None of those pages actually specifically give the skillset information. From the pages you can't tell that Shockstorm is a Machinations, or that the V-one is a command. I think in the game you can by the icon (unless jobs ever have two skillsets...???).
But the policy is that all top-level commands should have a page. If we want to make exception to the job system games like FFV and X-2 (although we don't for FFV... we make pages for the skillsets right?) that's fine. But I don't see why we should when we give character-unique skillsets like Skill a page, and even though Dyne is just an upgraded version of that and rarely ever used... even THAT gets its own page. 16:47, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jbed. I think if you want to create the first of those X-2 pages you can do so, and once you have the formatting down I can help with the rest if you'd like. --Shockstorm (talk) 18:03, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Okay, I have a question, didn't notice this until now. Is there no policy on recurring abilities/equipment/etc in the same subseries only obtaining one appearance per subseries? I'd assumed that was the reason that characters got abilities if they were recurring for that character, and why enemies got parent pages if they were recurring in a subseries, not to mention it was the way I was taught to count things for the longest time. As it is now, things are getting pages for appearances in IV, IV Interlude, TAY, and something else, so I figured that some specification might perhaps come in handy. Jimcloud 13:19, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

All games have always been equal to one appearance. The only exception is Dissidia and D012 in regards to abilities.
With regards to equipment, Dissidia and D012 have counted as two separate appearances always. Unless I'm thinking of a time while equipment still needed three appearances, and that D012 had been released before we increased it to four (I think it was definitely four by D012 though).
I would say that it might make more sense if we counted them as one, however it's not how it has ever been done.
However, now you've reminded me, IV, IV Interlude, and IVTAY is just another example of the exact same game three times. They just copied all the equipment and abilities over and maybe added few new ones, right? There's probably argument for not considering Interlude one if either IV or TAY is already on there (i.e: Interlude exclusive in the IV series = 1 appearance; otherwise 0 (which is like how D012 works. Appearance in D012=1, appearance in Dissidia and D012=1).
Things get articles for being recurrent in a sub-series because they are significant to the sub-series. While the wiki covers the entire FF-series, we are also the biggest source for each of the sub-series, and thus Chocobo Eater appearing twice with roles in FFX and X-2 makes it page-worthy (while only one would have allowed the boss page to suffice), and Guard Hound appearing in every enemy-based-VII-game means that they are clearly significant to VII even if they aren't significant to the series as a whole (which they'd need one more appearance for).
I also now realise that IV, Interlude, and TAY will now share lots of enemies meaning a lot more sub-series enemy parents can be made.
Such is the problem when you deal with VII (where each enemy-based-game is completely different and have had their enemies created from scratch with inspiration from past games) and IV (where it's the same game three times). 18:17, September 3, 2012 (UTC)


I think HenryA and Faethin work most in these errors: We need to have the policy on personnel be added to the ACP, and also the music policy.

I can't add anything else.

But everything in the ACP has been approved. 21:26, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

I will summarily put my quick input below. - Henryacores^ 19:30, November 25, 2012 (UTC)


This point has been talked a lot among the years here. I haven't contributed to the wiki since nearly 2 months as of this post, and I stopped in the middle of a revamp to this area. If my memory doesn't fail me, I used the following criteria for creating new articles:

  • Song is a Main Theme
  • Song is a Main Vocal Theme
  • Song is a Final Boss Theme
  • Song is a Main Battle Theme
  • Three exterior appeareances excluding sequels and/or <h4>'s. (e.g. An appearance on both DFF and D012/XII and RW counts as one) and appearances in compilations, but including distinct arrangements.
  • Obvious importance to the game in question (i.e. as prominent as the game's Main Theme (DISSIDIA (Theme)/The Messenger))
  • The 200-word clause is absolute bullshit and counter-productive.

Jimcloud also pointed, back in September, the hypothesis of creating music articles on themes derived from other, more prominent themes. I opposed this idea and suggested an approach as in Theme of CRISIS CORE, but we didn't reach a conclusion. - Henryacores^ 19:30, November 25, 2012 (UTC)


The only difference being that I base the criteria I listed on the experience I've gathered over some months of work involving the entire section and the notion of what does need an article, and what is meaningless and unnotable among what I've worked on. And you are right: if I hadn't called upon increasing the number of appearances to three, your argument over pointlessness would actually be valid. Now the 200-word minimum can't be a valid criteria for article creation because it clearly evaluates the notability of the content based on the users who write about it. Liberi Fatali; Zanarkand; Dancing Mad; One-Winged Angel and Theme of Love (among several others) need articles independently of their word count and it's completely ridiculous to state otherwise. - Henryacores^ 00:34, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

"The 200-word minimum is not "absolute bullshit", and failing to state why you think it is only shows that you don't really understand its purpose."

Well, he already said why before you posted. But anyways, it should be clear to see why such a policy is unnecessary and even harmful: we don't have many new users or articles to justify limits on creation, and worshiping at the altar of policy tends to restrict contributions. As for the subjective part, it's usually pretty clear what sort of music is significant to the story. Things aren't black and white, and neither should we should try to interpret them that way ;). --Shockstorm (talk) 03:19, November 26, 2012 (UTC)


Actually, I think you do understand. You'd rather not admit that you're nitpicking policy instead of, you know, contributing. Which seems to happen a lot with people who get comfortable in positions of power.

And yes, more regulation will inevitably lead to less creation and contributions. That's just common sense. The question is whether it's justified or not. I'd say it's not in this case. --Shockstorm (talk) 04:48, November 26, 2012 (UTC)


What you utterly fail to understand is that a subject's notability can never be measured by how many words a random editor can write about it, and adopting such a rule for any field of our scope heavily harms our coverage. I vehemently oppose the adoption of this rule anywhere on the Wiki, not just Music.

Also, this article creation policy doesn't (seem) to focus on what an article should include, but yes, in what conditions it should be created. It doesn't make any sense at all to have one of those conditions be the article size posterior to its creation. If an article covers a notable subject and it's lacking in size, then it is not deleted: it's a stub.

And the critera I used back then were sufficient and strict, where they did never not allow the creation of unnotable articles, and disregarded lyrics as important. And that can be easily seen from my contributions to the navigation template. - Henryacores^ 20:51, November 26, 2012 (UTC)


The fact that the 200-words thing being a post-article-writing check (and believed not a good idea), and the amount of words being different for those who write the articles (and also believed not a good idea)-- these are thoughts I can subscribe to as well. JBed (talk) 21:32, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

That being said, all I was really looking for was the list of policies the wiki currently follows. We can argue about the policies for many moons further, however my opinion is for the benefit of creation an article creation policy it's best to just get down the policy we have now. JBed (talk) 21:33, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. Unfortunately, music policy seems to attract these sorts of things, so it was fairly inevitable. They've moved from here to the IRC, so you may at the very least be thankful for that. Jimcloud 21:38, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
Some Color Mage / Talk Contribs / Let's Stream Random PS4 Crap. / 22:05, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
On a somewhat related note; Shockstorm, while we know that you are disgruntled over how we clearly talk too much about policy and never do anything, snarking at us in edit summaries does absolutely nothing to improve your case or worsen ours.

Okay, so I tried to add stuff about Music to the ACP, re-wording to fit in with the writing-style of the page and making a few additions. I referred to all themes/songs as "tracks", although now I realise that may not be a good idea if we handle songs with the same melody collectively. Do we? Eh, I'll let someone who is better with the terminology and understanding of the music pages make tweaks. JBed (talk) 22:20, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Faethin that's too direct and ignores Kingdom Hearts, Revenant Wings, The After Years and XIII-2. Let me improve on that and summarize:

  • Three exterior appeareances excluding appearances in compilations, but including distinct arrangements.
    • If the theme appears unchanged in a game and its sequel and/or prequel, it counts as one appearance.
    • Appearances in media outside the Final Fantasy series don't count.
  • Theme is a Main Theme
  • Theme is a Main Vocal Theme
  • Theme is a Final Boss Theme
  • Theme is a Main Battle Theme

I've brought justice and freedom to the FFWiki Music section. I'll go back to my cave and sleep until my beloved people need me once again. - Henryacores^ 22:27, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Also, ILHI, yes. We treat songs with the same melody collectively. For a recent example of this see DISSIDIA (Theme). - Henryacores^ 22:28, November 26, 2012 (UTC)


First, we need to define what personnel we want to have articles about and define the notability of a staff member inside the development of the products we cover.

So, in my opinion, there is only need a to cover the artists and developers of the content we cover, which excludes administrative and marketing staff from our scope. Of course, they have their importance on the production of the games/books/films, but it's not creative, and I see no use on pointing out whoever's the head PR or the sales manager for a certain game besides the listing of production credits.

We also have to define which studios we cover. Of course, every organization which worked for the creation of Final Fantasy content should have its own article, but we must decide if we want to make articles on people who worked for the games while associated with these organizations.

In a first approach, I can point that we should have articles for main, world map, field, battle, graphic and sound programmers; character, map, battle, field and event designers; writers; animators and modellers; producers; and artists, which include voice actors, composers, performers and arrangers, among others.

This may sound megalomaniac, but it's a gradual work. And we have most of the information on production credit sections: we don't need biographies of everyone involved. Just their names and their contribute listed on a page. - Henryacores^ 19:30, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

Ooooh. I like this idea. Also good to see you finally in here finishing stuff off so article creation policy can be done. Jimcloud 21:38, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

So I added the Personnel, as well as adding some other out-of-universe comments. Our policy lacks a level of specificness, so I made out what I can.

For those who work on musical tracks I made comment about working on an "original track". Of course, now I realise I am excluding Leona Lewis and Susan Calloway. So I just tweaked it. Which means that if someone works on a track in the game but not in an OST then they won't get an article. My main thought goes out to excluding that classical composer President Shinra listens to.

Also if SE officially release something with a bunch of remixers/cover artists then it suggest we make a page for each one of them. JBed (talk) 22:20, November 26, 2012 (UTC)


I think that is everything. I'm not entirely sure I like the structure anymore (it seemed logical to me at the time) but in its current state it can still serve its purpose.

Move to project space? 21:40, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

Finally done. I decided to wait a bit for objections, but I think I waited a bit longer than I'd intended <_< Jimcloud 05:14, December 7, 2012 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.