Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Square Enix: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:12, 1 August 2012 editSjones23 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers102,551 edits →Enough already: add ANI discussion← Previous edit Revision as of 04:45, 1 August 2012 edit undoSNAAAAKE!! (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users96,243 edits →Enough alreadyNext edit →
Line 272: Line 272:
All right, now this has gone far enough. Discussion can continue, but let's just wait until we reach a consensus. ] ] (] - ]) 02:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC) All right, now this has gone far enough. Discussion can continue, but let's just wait until we reach a consensus. ] ] (] - ]) 02:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
*ANI discussion is ]. ] ] (] - ]) 03:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC) *ANI discussion is ]. ] ] (] - ]) 03:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

And so your "100% disenganging" marches on. Anywyay, if it's still being controversial somehow, let's just make it a vote already, because I think everything has been already said (and by me repeatedly). You know my vote. --] (]) 04:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


== Genre discussion == == Genre discussion ==

Revision as of 04:45, 1 August 2012

WikiProject Square Enix
Shortcut

Welcome to the discussion page. This page provides space for community members to discuss housekeeping, project and article issues. Click here to add an issue to the discussion below, or here to edit the page to respond to a specific issue.

The current month's archive is here.

Archiving icon
WPSE Archive index

See index for full list, including archives of the former WikiProject Final Fantasy.

  1. Sep 2006 - May 2007
  2. Jun 2007 - Aug 2007
  3. Sep 2007 - Dec 2008
  4. Jan 2009 - Apr 2009
  5. May 2009 - Aug 2009
  6. Sep 2009 - Jan 2010
  7. Feb 2010 - Oct 2010
  8. Nov 2010 - Mar 2011
  9. Apr 2011 - Sep 2011
  10. Oct 2011 - Feb 2012
  11. Mar 2012 - Sep 2012
  12. Oct 2012 - May 2013
  13. May 2013 - Sep 2013
  14. Oct 2013 - Dec 2014
  15. Jan 2015 - Dec 2015
  16. Jan 2016 - Jun 2016
  17. Jul 2016 - Feb 2017
  18. Mar 2017 - Nov 2017
  19. Jan 2018 - Dec 2018
  20. Jan 2019 - Dec 2019
  21. Jan 2020 - Dec 2020
  22. Feb 2021 - Sep 2021
  23. Jan 2022 - Oct 2022

Pageview stats for September

Quick summary of our stats for the past month - please work on those popular stubs/starts! --PresN 02:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Format: Most popular (most popular non-FF if applicable) - Least popular

Ehrgeiz

Clarification needed. Is Ehrgeiz part of scope under WP:SE? Because the FF series template listed it under Related Games, yet its not under WP:SE's scope. — Blue。 07:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It's related to Final Fantasy because it contains Final Fantasy VII characters as unlockable playable quest characters. now that i think about it, it might be best to go in FFVII template rather than the entire Final Fantasy series. Anyways, the reason why it's not part of our scope is probably because it's not developed by square or square enix. merely published. but since our scope has changed not too long ago, i don't think it's a problem to add it into our scope.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Merging Minigames of Final Fantasy

Hi all, I boldly redirected Minigames of Final Fantasy to Gameplay of Final Fantasy, but was reverted. I've started a merge discussion here - please come by and help form a consensus, it's been a while since the last one. --PresN 23:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Stub percentage project

All articles higher than Stub class: 99.8% complete

Hey all, remember this? Since waaaay back in February, when I first brought up the idea of getting all of our articles to be better than stubs, we've moved from %79.5 to over %90 of all articles being Start+! That's more than double the ratio for the video games project at large. I've been slowly pushing articles bit by bit over the past few months, and we've gotten pretty far. Lets all give it another push to move us to %95+ or %100! It's mainly biography stubs at this point; if you can find even one source for some of these guys it could be enough to push them up a level. Please help out, and keep the SE project as one of the best mid-sized projects out there! --PresN 03:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If no sources are found for any of those soon they should be deleted.∞陣内Jinnai 13:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I went through the bios and redirected any article that had no sources and where I could not find even one source. (excluding something like an imdb entry). Where I found a source I slapped it into the external links/references; several of these guys could probably make it to Start now. If you disagree with a redirect, find a source and revert. We've jumped to 93.4%! --PresN 19:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Pageview stats for October

Quick (super-late) summary of our stats for the past month - please work on those popular stubs/starts! --PresN 02:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Format: Most popular (most popular non-FF if applicable) - Least popular

Q4 2011 Roll call

Please list your name below if you are still with this project:

  1. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  2. Lucia Black (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  3. PresN 07:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  4. Here obviously.∞陣内Jinnai 02:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Dragon's Den

Put up a request at WP:RS/N#Dragon's Den as I realize it would be a marginal reliable source at best.∞陣内Jinnai 02:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Does Eidos still exist?

So the Eidos and "SCi/Eidos/Square Enix Europe" articles are a bit of a muddle. I know that there is an Eidos Montreal and an Eidos Shanghai, and maybe another satellite studio. I can't find any evidence that there is any office anywhere still called simply Eidos, and I don't think that label is still being used on any game that isn't a re-release. The SE websites are a bit contradictory about organization, though none mention an Eidos anywhere. Am I wrong, or does Eidos only exist as an out-of-date web portal (http://www.eidos.com) and a fond memory? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 13:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hard to say...i dont think it does anymore from what we seen but thats just my guess.Lucia Black (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that while the name is still floating around, and is still used in the subsidiaries' names, that Eidos itself no longer exists as a separate entity from Square Enix Europe. --PresN 02:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
So, searching a job posting page, they say "The Square Enix Europe game studios -Square Enix London Studios, IO Interactive, Crystal Dynamics, Eidos Montreal & Beautiful Game Studios". SE said that Eidos would not be a publisher, but would stay a developer. Is it possible that Eidos is now "Square Enix London Studios"? Because the European game publisher is still "Square Enix Ltd." ...I think. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Pageview stats for December

Summary of our stats for the past month - please work on those popular stubs/starts! Switching to doing this every other month. --PresN 18:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Format: Most popular (most popular non-FF if applicable) - Least popular

Broken links fixed

Following articles on to-do list for "broken links" has been fixed:

Q1 2012 Roll Call

Please sign your name if you are still with us.

  1. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. Lucia Black (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  3. --PresN 03:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  4. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  5. Nanten (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XIII-2

Hey all, I've beaten FFXIII-2 (at least the primary ending) and have started working on the game's article. Sjones expressed interest a couple months ago in doing a collaboration on the article to bump it to GA level, so you and anyone else interested feel free to come on by and help out! I've rewritten the gameplay and plot sections, but it's all uncited and the plot was almost stream of consciousness, so it could all stand to be rewritten. Any input you have on the article would be appreciated! --PresN 21:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget the basics of the basics: citations. I'd be better to leave you guys to that, seeing as I don't have the game to work with. -017Bluefield (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Haven't been working on this for the past 2 weeks, but I'll start back up on it (just 100%'d it today). And yes, obviously citations- I did get FFXIII to FA, I do know how it's supposed to work. --PresN 01:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Fortress (Square Enix)

I have recreated the Fortress article for the reasons expressed by Postwar, Bread Ninja and I at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Square Enix/archive/9#Fortress (Square Enix) (except for that outdated bit about the game not being cancelled). Is it possible to undelete the images File:Fortress_-_Judge.jpg and File:Fortress tech demo.jpg or should new ones be uploaded? Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is still a work in progress by the way. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Images undeleted. --PresN 16:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks :) Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Because Fortress is an article again, it will be on retention for three months to be back on the FF12 Featured Topic or else the topic loses its status. GamerPro64 00:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
A difficult situation indeed. Since i voted for it's return, i will make an effort on this article, despite not being the best editor in this project.Lucia Black (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Game quote section.

I found that the Final Fantasy IX article's reference section has a "Game quotes" section. Should we do that for other articles, like Final Fantasy X, too? (I mean, it would make things easier to separate.) -017Bluefield (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm of mixed opinion on using ref sections like that (I tend to have all of the citation definitions in the references section and then split things up there by section used in) but I don't see the harm in it- if you'd like to do it while you're messing with the citations and quotes in those games, I say knock yourself out. --PresN 01:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Attention to Mana and other series?

I was thinking if we could check up onto Mana series as t seems t has a lot of potential but lacking in information. I personally believe t could be a potential featured topic. Also things have slowed down recently most likely due to issues in the real world or lack of information given, maybe searchnig for articles within our scope that aren't the most/least viewed.Lucia Black (talk) 09:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Q2 2012 Roll Call

Please sign your name if you are still with us.

  1. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  2. Lucia Black (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  3. Tintor2 (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  4. PresN 19:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  5. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

SaGa in the series template

There is an ongoing discussion about this topic at Template talk:Final Fantasy series#Saga / Mana Series. Your opinion is requested. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed split on Final Fantasy III's talk page

I proposed a split for the remake at Talk:Final Fantasy III#Split DS/iOS/soon to be PSP remake. Would be great to have some input.Lucia Black (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge on Parasite Eve's talk page

I propose merging the novel at Talk:Parasite Eve#Merge Novel? to the series article, Parasite Eve (series) . Would be great to get some views again. If not i might just boldly merge them together.Lucia Black (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say no as there's a film, but I see that's at the series article already. Books are hard to get reception for- since the article is just a plot summary I think its fine to merge it. --PresN 17:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Looking back its easier merging the series to the novel since it wont require name change.Lucia Black (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Q3 2012 Roll Call

  1. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  2. --PresN 02:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  3. Tintor2 (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  4. Lucia Black (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Advent Children

Just so everyone is aware, Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children has been demoted from Good Article status. Please see the GA reassessment to see how this article can be improved. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Characters of Final Fantasy IV

In Talk:Final Fantasy IV#Characters of Final Fantasy IV, I started a discussion regarding remaking the merged character list and I have been working on it in User talk:Tintor2/ draft. I managed to find some decent critical reception, and cleaning up fancruft from previous revisions, but I can't find information regarding the cast's creation. Also, some sections lack information regarding the sequels The After Years and Interlude. You are welcome to help if you want. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Responded to your archive problem on the talk page. --PresN 19:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have started working on Characters of Final Fantasy IV adding references and revising the prose. Still needs more work though. However, I haven't been able to find an illustration that shows most of the game's cast. I have seen once one showing most of protagonists by the designer, Yoshitaka Amano, but couldn't see it again. If not what image could be helpful to the article? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Colons (again)

It looks like this discussion is starting up again. Just the facts:

So what should we choose? Some questions to consider: Does WP:COMMONNAME apply here, even though the official name isn't more complicated like all the examples given? What is the "official" name (I'm inclined to say w/o colon since that's what is printed on the back of the box)? Does looking at the back of the product count as "original research"? Axem Titanium (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

    • "Look at your life; look at your choices." - Haha, loved this bit. Anyways... the idea that citing the product itself is "original research" is absurd. Have we lived and fought in vain? Original research requires that you're interpreting or editorializing; quoting explicit text as a citation for that explicit text is just using a primary source. I say no colon: if that's what the box has it as, that's what the title is. --PresN 18:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I also support the use of no colons. Since the DVD does not have colons, then that is what the title is per the concerns by PresN. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The DVD could have not it for a variety of reasons, but it's not important why. What's important, practically everyone in the English Internet uses either ":" (far more common) or "-". And that's including: IMDb, Anime News Network, Rotten Tomatoes, GameSpot, IGN, RPGamer, Amazon, even Final Fantasy Wikia and Facebook. Misplaced Pages is the only one that goes all contrarian on that, despite the rule on the common-name naming. Also an another official English website: Sony Pictures. --Niemti (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you talk a little bit about what those variety of reasons might be? Also, why you don't think it's important? I, personally, think it would be very important to this discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Axem
Just tell me: Why do you bother?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Like a DVD naming convention or whatever, or just being random, but I have no crystal ball here and it doesn't matter. Like my Onimusha: Dawn of Dreams game is written as "Onimusha Dawn of Dreams" on the side of the box case, or Kessen is written as "KESSEN", but who cares? No one, because Misplaced Pages always uses a common-naming name. --Niemti (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Basically, I second what Niemti said - everyone uses the colons except Misplaced Pages, which makes little sense. As for people saying, it appears without colons on the DVD, I presume they mean the opening credits of the film. In that case, so what? None of the Star Wars movies use colons, so are we now saying that they should be listed as Star Wars Episode V The Empire Strikes Back instead of Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back? Of course not, the suggestion is absurd. The exact same principal applies here. It's also worth noting that the Blu-Ray box and both the box and instruction manual for Dirge of Cerberus do use colons. Bertaut (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello again
I think Bertaut is right. I think the colon is part of using correct English and should be used on the virtue of this being the English Misplaced Pages. Square Enix doesn't seem to take spelling or uniformity of title very seriously -- and not just in this case. So, I think I would have inserted a colon the first time I made the article.
But we are not writing the article for the first time. Therefore, I don't exactly suggest renaming the article. Still, if you guys are sure that the matter is really "to be or not to be", well, I say let colons be.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont see this as an issue of english name vs japanese name. Colons based on eliable sources. Whichever is the most common regardlesss of what the DVD covers. By the way the TM means trade market. Their on most logos but does not mean they are actual part of the title.Lucia Black (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about "English vs. Japanese". The discussion, for most part talks about Misplaced Pages style and its MOS. Being most common is not the only criterion; MOS also specifies other criteria such as correct English, capitalization, etc. The all-caps form and the "TM" sign are just examples for these other criteria. 91.98.84.185 (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I know, and I just used it as an example of how the side box titles are completely irrevelant (there was a mark instead of the colon, but still it doesn't matter at all). --Niemti (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the criterion. If the most common name has no colon. then we do not add colon. We do not alter names (unless it is to add disambiguation) for the sake of criteria. It is not "incorrect" if a name holds no colon. Thats how they are written. The TM is merely to show it is trademarked. It is not a replacement for colon. Do you all know what the TM is for? if not, then please do not bring it up because that example is meaningless here.
Many titles do have colons and many dont but are implied. However, it is not upto us to say it is implied or not. If reliable sources add a colon, and the most common name is with a colon then that is the one we will use. If they do not however, then we dont add one. This has nothing to do with english spelling.Lucia Black (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, guys.
Wow, this is pretty exciting; I read about this kind of discussion in Misplaced Pages Essays. You see, this is the point where the participants have exhausted all they had to say. Some start repeating themselves, gradually denying all opposing facts. "Manual of Style says this." "No, it doesn't." "Yes, it does." "No, it doesn't." "Yes, it does." ... Then, essay says the name-calling creeps in. Then, admins come, block people for name-calling and call them name-callers. Then crats come and block the admins for calling others names (namely name-callers). Then, ArbCom kicks in. Then, U.S. government kicks in. Then, UN intervenes and passes a motion. Then, U.S. vetoes the motion. Then, China vetoes the veto of the motion. Then, France vetoes the veto of the veto of the motion.
I don't remember what exactly happens next, but eventually, a nuclear war wipes out humanity. Then, a surviving roach tells me "You owe me 20 bucks!"
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"If the most common name has no colon. then we do not add colon." - except the most common name has colon. Because NOBODY BUT WIKIPEDIA writes it without colon. And that's including official websites, too (Square-Enix, Sony Pictures). Colon is being used also by: IMDb , ANN , IGN , GameSpot , every other WP:RS website and magazine (Variety , New York Times , etc), Wikia , Facebook, everyone. The only exception is Rotten Tomatoes, but even they just use a dash instead. I don't know why is it even discussed at all. --Niemti (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

(sigh) Given the fact that Niemti has made bold changes and demerged articles without discussion, as well as acting like a novice and sharing the same subjects, which possibly matches that of a banned user, I have opened up a sockpuppet case on this user. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Well I can't comment on any of that or sigh about it, but it doesn't change the fact that not to have colons on this title is ridiculous. Like I said, citing the DVD cover is useless, when you consider the DVD covers of films like all the Star Wars movies, the Twilight movies, the Lord of the Rings movies. None of them have colons, so are we suggesting that the title for all of those movies here on Wikipidia is wrong; that The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring should be The Lord of the Rings The Fellowship of the Ring. I've yet to see anyone present a good case for not using colons other than "they don't use them on the DVD cover". And in any case, they do use them on the Blu Ray cover, on the back, colons are used twice. Bertaut (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
So, should we establish a consensus? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I think we're confusing the logo and the title. The logo is a graphic image used on the front cover. The title is the actual name of the film used in a sentence or other stream of text. The logo for LOTR:TFOTR does not include a colon because the subtitle "The Fellowship of the Ring" is on a separate line. The line break in the logo does not necessarily mean that a colon exists there in the title, though in many cases it does. For example, in this case, the logo for FFVIIAC places "Advent Children" on a separate line, but the title of the film does not include the colon, as shown by the back cover and spine of the DVD case. At present, the two sides seem pretty evenly split between for and against, suggesting "no consensus" for a change. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Axem
With all due respect, from where I am standing, it does not seem anybody have confused "logo" and "title". That said, I am afraid I don't think "no consensus" is factually accurate here. The only reason given against colon in this discussion is WP:COMMONNAME, which (per Niemti's evidence) actually supports colon. So, it seems perfectly clear that this discussion has established that Misplaced Pages policy is in favor of the colon. Therefore, in absence of strong consensus against the colon, the colon should stay put, per Misplaced Pages policy.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe the "against colon" side has ever cited COMMONNAME as justification. I believe COMMONNAME only applies in cases where the "official" name is much more complicated than the name in common use (see all the examples given on that page). In this case, the official name is actually more simple than the common name. I believe Bertaut was confusing logo and title above in bringing up LOTR as an example since he was arguing that the logo for LOTR doesn't have a colon yet a colon is still in the title. That is because logo =/= title and how a film's name is depicted graphically (logo) is not the same as what it is actually called in a string of text (title). In this case, the way the title is represented in a string of text is "Final Fantasy VII Advent Children". I believe we have not drawn a consensus because there are three people for including a colon, three people against, and two people who I can't tell what their opinion is on the issue. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Axem
It seems I do owe the roach 20 bucks after all.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not "acting like a novice". Now, the colon is in "a string of text" title according to both SquareEnix's and Sony's English official websites of for the film. Too. As I already said. (Some other SquareEnix websites do not have a colon, but probably just because of Engrishing/not caring.) --Niemti (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That's original research to assume that. We use colon when its used in text by reliable source, regardless if it matches the logo or not.Lucia Black (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh-my-god. It's like you never understand what I'm saying, all the time. So, which reliable source does NOT use a colon, huh? That is except of RT (who use a dash). Spoiler: NOBODY, ONLY WIKIPEDIA. --Niemti (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Please do not shout, as it is considered to be impolite and no one likes to be shouted or yelled at. If this type of incivility continues, I will be forced to do something about this. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not shouting. I'm repeating myself, for at least fourth time already. Spoiler: written shouting involves exclamation marks, or at the very least bold text. Now, can we close this discussion at least? --Niemti (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
point is your reasoning isnt nuetral and has original research. The reason should be because no source writes it without the colon. But instead you are seeing the title to be independent that we control regardless of sources.Lucia Black (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
And you know what? That's EXACTLY what I'm saying, all the time (that INDEED no source writes it without the colon). And the sources were even listed, complete with links. You really never understood what I'm saying, it's amazing. --Niemti (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No. Please do not lie. Im sure it wasnt your intention but that is not what you have been saying. Please note that im nuetral (i have not argued to add or not to add the colon) but expanding the view. You replying to said view does not mean you were saying it "all the time". You wee basing this on how english text would look like. You also used said reasoning such as a trademark sign which is completely irrelevant. And recently you used original research ( assumption) as to why official sites do not use english romanization which you claim was for laziness.Lucia Black (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's close this discussion. It's getting really silly. --Niemti (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Now I am forced to intervene. Please don't put pressure on other users to do your bidding (that is considered harassment). Also, your edits satisfies 4 out of the 6 criteria in this Misplaced Pages policy, as well as "Failure or refusal to get the point" and the "campaign to drive away productive editors". This has already exhausted my patience. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Bteween you two, I don't even know what's going here anymore, or what do you really want. Not only I've stated my arguments very clearly, I also repeated them several times, to no avail, but apparently it's still not enough, and now I "put pressure" and even "harrassing" somehow. Incredible. Oh, and apparently I even "lie" about something (which is not-a-personal-attack at all). --Niemti (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

your resoning is clear. But im saying the reason you gave a moment before i replied was biased and had original research. You use no sources add colon as "part" of your reasoning but it was not your main point.Lucia Black (talk) 02:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Enough already

All right, now this has gone far enough. Discussion can continue, but let's just wait until we reach a consensus. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

And so your "100% disenganging" marches on. Anywyay, if it's still being controversial somehow, let's just make it a vote already, because I think everything has been already said (and by me repeatedly). You know my vote. --Niemti (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Genre discussion

A discussion regarding the genre issue in the lead section of the Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children is taking place at Talk:Final Fantasy VII Advent Children#Genre issue in the lead section. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Square Enix: Difference between revisions Add topic