*grumbles about not being allowed to megathread this*
Suggesting a few changes to character article policies:
==Characteristics== ===Personality=== ===Appearance===
Is there an article you think is of an exceptional quality? Vote for it here!
*Concur with splitting Appearance and Personality. I would call the section they fit in "Profile", and add that Creation and Development, Voice, and Music are other character-important sections that may be looked at to move there.
Splitting A&P could look pretty annoying for characters that have multiple sections for that part. Would Lightning's article be
==Appearance== ===Final Fantasy XIII=== ===Final Fantasy XIII-2=== ===Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII=== ==Personality== ===Final Fantasy XIII=== ===Final Fantasy XIII-2=== ===Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII===
==Appearance== ==Personality==with no differentiation between games? The issue with the latter could be that one has only played the first game and doesn't want to know the specific ways Lightning has changed yet and is planning to skip those sections.
Nah, no difference between games, like normally, only thing is that a ==Characteristics== is above it and it's split from personality, otherwise same as before.
They are currently split between games for some characters, but not others.
I was more or less apathetic towards the split of appearance and personality, but when JBed made the comment on IRC that they were basically two separate entities as it was, I decided that we may as well have them split into appearance and personality sections.
We should not make the header change on a case-by-case basis in terms of gameplay/combat. Myself, I favor "gameplay", and that should cover everything, even if it seems a bit more obtuse for things like bosses, it's still valid. It also works with the headings we use for the navboxes now, does it not?I'm really not fond of the removal of the stats and abilities headers from the table of contents. It helps people get to where they want to go on the page, and it's not going to kill it or anything. Furthermore, I vehemently oppose the making of subpages for Theatrhythm articles (Kaimi). The length of a page is only a bad thing if there is bloat or if it affects load times, and ultimately Theatrhythm's information is neither. It is perfectly valid for it to stay right where it is.
Don't have many opinions about this, but splitting appearance and personality sections across games like Kelt demoed would be incredibly dumb, let's please not do that.
The only reason we split Dissidia pages is because they're gigantic already, when philosophically, they should be one single page. That's why they're subpages. Theatrhythm doesn't seem necessary to do that."Gameplay" is a better term than "combat" because not all characters in games necessarily have to fight. Cloud sometimes goes snowboarding.
So, for the characteristics if implemented, on pages like Lightning's, we just remove the game sections and combine them like others under new headers?
In Popular Culture isn't MoS, and it's totally pointless. No need to have it. Also
I think it was agreed in a previous discussion that the "In Popular Culture" section is called "In Other Media", but maybe it was never added to MoS. Someone could maybe still find that discussion.
- Yes for splitting A&P into A and P, but I'm not convinced on the "Characteristics" h2.
- Battle to Gameplay is a fix I can't deny, but I don't think this solves all our problems in regards to putting things in Other Apps or in Gameplay. Because Other Apps covers more than just Gameplay but also mainly covers gameplay unless there is also a story in which case the Other Apps section probably links to a subpage.
- No. Your points about the TOC and not using things below h4s are just random personal preference and both HTML and MediaWiki disagrees with you.
- So there are four types of appearance, "Appearances" (first-tier scope), "Non-FF Appearances", "Other Appearances", and in-pop culture. Character articles are different, where "Other Appearances" actually refers to other titles in first-tier scope. This confusion has gone on for ages. But In Pop Culture would contain things on Final Fantasy in popular culture surely?
I think that, if we ourselves, the editors of the wiki, are confused about "Non-FF Appearances" and "In Pop Culture" (Appearances and Other Appearances is obvious), then I highly doubt the average reader will know the difference. Maybe we need a better name? Or maybe we just don't need to split them at all? On some pages like Cloud's, maybe, on Tifa's it's only for one section. But then, I don't think that should be case-by-case basis, I think it should be "do or don't". btw, I prefer Cloud's "Other Media" section as a title to "In Pop Culture".
As for "Other Appearances" and the new "Gameplay" section, I think the policy on that should be: only if from their original series/world. So FFVII G-Bike and Snowboarding go under Gameplay, while things like Dissidia and TFF don't.RE: JBed's reply, I barely agree with using h4s as it is, but I understand why we must have to (definitely for Gameplay sections when there are stats etc sections below that), but I don't see how h5s and h6s are anything other than incredibly obtrusive, how they don't bloat the ToC completely with tiny sections, and I seriously think we need to edit their tags in our CSS because they look tiny and useless as headers. It is my opinion, true, but it just doesn't look right. Scrolling through the ToC of any character and you'll find it looking so neat until TFF comes along and bloats it completely, for it to go back to being neat again, it's so horribly inconsistent. I don't see how everyone else doesn't have a problem with it.
If no one opposes within a few days, then I will make the following changes to MoS and update character pages:
(psst, the two people who commented on the "Characteristics" h2- one said it should be "Profile" and include other things, the other said they don't think there should be a "h2". Another user gave an example where they omitted a h2 and used App and Per as their own h2s) JBed (talk) 18:23, November 10, 2014 (UTC)
My bad >.< I'd settle for "profile" if it'd be preferred over "characteristics", meaning that can turn into a majority for "profile h2" if needs be. The example omitting an h2 isn't really a voice for either way.
This is a related topic. We moved the Dissidia info to subpages, and Cloud has Cloud Strife/Tactics. So, let's discuss a new policy rule.
Examples using Lightning: FF14 she appears in battle, if someone ever hacks the game to find out she surely has stats, equipment, abilities, etc, which would go on a subpage. Theatrhythm Final Fantasy would go to a subpage too, and like Dissidia and D012, both the original Theatrhythm and Curtain Call would go under the "Theatrhythm" subpage. The other entries there, either it's hard to judge how much info there is to give and if it's enough to need a subpage, or the answer to those questions is no.
I agree with subpage for appearances outside their original series that have a story, regardless of gameplay. If the character only has gameplay information then I would not subpage. JBed (talk) 21:23, November 6, 2014 (UTC)
If this was not already policy, then I concur with making it one now. I would, however, give different conditions:
I agree with Techno on both points. The storyline thing in game(s) that are not part of the character's original game should definitely go there. And things like Theatrhythm pages have quite a lot of table information and I would definitely put them on a dedicated subpage. This stat/abilities thing also relates to the fact that we tend to use headings a lot and with headings like H5 and H6 it doesn't like nice on either ToC or the page itself due to how little the letters get. I realise that my preference is more of a 'cosmetic' one rather than something 'practical' and actually plot information-loaded, but I think sometimes loosening rules for some things is a better choice.
Also, there's this Artniks thing that got two games and I wonder if that would also get a subpage if subpaging per gameplay element did happen, I just don't know how overwhelming information is there. And maybe Airborne Brigade could get subpage as well since from what I noticed a lot of FF 'Legends' performs a lot of abilities of various rarity.
Is there an article you think is of an exceptional quality? Vote for it here!
I concur with Kaimi that h5s and h6s are terrible design. I am actually more surprised that fewer people see it as poorly designed. Although I will close the discussion at the top within a few days, I won't close this one until we get more discussion.
Okay, I have to ask if some of these appearances truly merit subpages. For starters, FFXIV, Lightning. The story role she plays is minimal (in truth, she only received her own tiny little sub scenario apart from the main story), and her gameplay statistics would be unreasonably difficult to find (you would have to be talking to a professional data miner, and how many of those do you know?) and not really that expansive an information set. Though the policy rule you have suggested states that this appearance merits a subpage, I would argue that it does not, by any means, truly need one. Which makes me wonder if the rule is really ideal in its present state. I'm not sure if we should go with that, really, it seems to me like the case by case basis has been working just fine up to now. While I don't think a case by case basis is ideal, by no means do I think the rule suggested above is a better choice than what we currently have. If the rule underwent some manner of upheaval and was a little more choosy about what appearances merited subpages, then I would be all for it.Now then, gameplay. While we do have subpages for extensive gameplay information (I'm thinking Aeon (Final Fantasy X)/Stat Growth type extensive), and under circumstances that severe I would agree to a subpage, as it stands now, it's... three tables long, with tabbers? That does not even begin to merit its own subpage. They're not hurting the load time, or the scroll time, very much at all by being there, they're not really irrelevant, and Theatrhythm lacks the quantity of information that a subpage would merit. It would be a barren wasteland, and that would be terrible. That's just how I feel on the matter, anyhow. Jimcloud out.
I'm not sure about Lightning FFXIV but then again, I know nothing about FFXIV. I would say that giving a subpage to every single playable appearance for characters is a dangerous thing to start. SE pouring shovelware out every three months on iphones full of cameos from series characters. (For cheapness.) Do we need a Lightning (All the Bravest)? Lightning (Artniks)? Cloud (G-Bike)? Cloud (Snowboarding)?
It should only happen if you have enough to build an entire infobox in the colors of that game like any other playable character and if their role is significant enough to fill at least 500 hundred words.Anyhow, BH out.
I actually think the "if you have enough to build an entire infobox" idea works best. If this is more about making it a policy so we know when to do it than it is about splitting of subpages, if we go that route, then:
For a continuation/similar discussion, see Forum:The Never-Ending Gilgamesh Issue.
Just while this forum isn't closed, since the subpage idea hasn't gone anywhere conclusive, I'll just suggest a minor ammendment. Should our Merchandise headers be subheaders of the Other Media ones?
Subpages and MoS Following
This is just a simple thing but while we're making TFF Subpages I'm just wondering if character subpages of main pages should have the same layout in MoS as normal ones. This would mean that we need to editDissidia pages a lot and add personality but will mean consistency. TFF ones should follow that too.
The existence of Story and Personality sections hinges on the character in the game having both of those things. Appearance sections still work, though as demonstrated with Dissidia they can end up doubling up as Costume/Palette swap sections for gameplay goodness. that's the term that I seem to use for fighting games even if it's more than a palette swap
The Character structure is meant to be all-encompassing. Though with these subpages, characters parent articles (e.g. Cloud Strife) should not bother mentioning Dissidia and Theatrhythm in their Appearance/Personality sections unless it differs from the main incarnation. Like if Cloud wears a pretty pink dress in Dissidia, then a brief mention of him wearing a pretty pink dress would be worth putting in the Appearance section. Cloud's red SOLDIER outfit from Ehrgeiz and Vincent outfit from KH are real examples but both of those games aren't in scope. --The parent article still have the job of covering Cloud in-general even if most of the article is about their original appearance series. 184.108.40.206 12:43, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
I am fine with making all Dissidia pages use the layout. It just means moving stuff under "Gameplay" instead. Though I'm not sure we should follow the format of subsections for "Dissidia Final Fantasy" and "Dissidia 012 Final Fantasy" under Gameplay then subsections under that like most pages would do, the sections can remain the same and just moved around. This is mostly because a) they're nearly identical and b) everyone knows which game it is because it's a "Dissidia" subpage. Story and Personality do exist in Dissidia, not sure about TFF or Tactics. Would the Dissidia pages' "Attire" sections be changed to "Appearance" ones?