Talk:Final Fantasy IV/Archive 2

Our combined effort has paid off. I still feel guilty about not having enough print sources, so we all need to remain on the lookout for that stuff. It's the same with Chrono Cross to a degree; that article will be significantly improved once the Compendium translator finishes Missing Piece and Ultimania. But hurrah! Final Fantasy IV has been venerated. --Zeality 17:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Congrats, everyone. Nice job! On another note, does anyone know of any projects going on that are translating other Ultimania books? They would be really helpful for some other pages. Namely, some of the Kingdom Hearts Ultimanias (of which SE has managed to make 5, despite only having three games). Axem Titanium 21:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I only wish FFIV and FFVI had Ultimanias. Square needs to get off their lazy duff and write Ultimanias for their classics. Sir Crazyswordsman 01:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Bugs removed from the European version? Didn't notice. --87.248.29.33 16:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Have they been removed? We have no source for that statement so if they haven't been corrected, we can remove that ugly cite needed tag. I don't have the European version though, so I can't check. Axem Titanium 00:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That was removed during the FA nomination because we couldn't find a cite and even a hint of information to verify, and the same guy has been coming back and readding it several times. --Zeality 00:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have the European version, and have been reading about bugs such as a double-turn glitch, a save-file deletion glitch, and buttons not responding, but have never experienced any of them. I cannot say that they are not there, as I do not know their frequency in the other versions, but I haven't experienced them. I haven't got to the Lunar Ruins though, and so don't know whether the Nirvana glitch is there. Akata 16:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Still, it seems like this story about the bugs being fixed in the European version is purely anecdotal. There has been a re-release of the game in Japan, but I haven't been able to find any proof online that the European version isn't the same as the original 1.0 release, except for a few people claiming it on the Gamespot forums. --81.171.7.125 (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As a followup to my last comment: my doubts were wrong. I finally found a source that seems reliable, and confirms that the US version has bugs that are fixed in the EU version. Final Fantasy IV Research & Development is a forum with some real hardcore FF4 fans, where an expert talks about the different FF4A versions in several threads. 81.171.7.125 (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. The bugs still persist in the EU version. There was a rumor that some were corrected, and others made less noticable, but this isn't true. I've played through both versions of the game extensively, and even run a few hardware tests.

I feel the need to point out that message boards are not reliable sources. 74.242.99.61 (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I recognize the value of a short version of the plot, but the current version contains some pretty important gaffes. Here are just a few examples: 1. The narrative acknowledges the battle with the Mist Dragon, but omits it at the proper chronological point; only after the fact are we told Cecil/Kain fought the thing. 2. Damcyan is "to the north," times two. 3. Characters serendipitously meet with no explanation (Yang and FuSoYa come to mind) 4. There is zero context given to what would compel the party to suspect Agart as a portal to the Underground. I attempted to fix some of these shortcomings in some edits to the plot, but had them reverted. I agree that unnecessary detail is a bad thing, but that doesn't mean this version to the plot is carved in stone and it is my sense that I did not add considerable additional detail and did improve the coherence of the text. 65.42.16.135 16:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I was being hasty when I reverted last time. I welcome you to make additions for clarity. Axem Titanium 16:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I made the changes I had in mind. The details I am most uncomfortable with are those surrounding the addition of Dr. Lugae; on the one hand, I feel like we can live without that portion, although at least with this draft it seemed to me the only adequate way to explain Yang's departure from the party. It is overbroad to say the tower "crumbles," especially when they return there (to the overworld portion) in the very next plot segment and then go to another portion of the tower in the Underworld after that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.42.16.135 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

• I'm a little concerned here. First, plot summaries should be kept brief, listing only the most important aspects necessary to gain an understanding of the plot line. Excessive plot synopses (and solely in-universe articles) are starting to be considered a violation of fair-use (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)). I've always been concerned with the length of this article's synopsis (it should be trimmed by almost half), but we'll wait and see what happens with that dicussion. — Deckiller 03:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I should note, my edits were only made within the context of a plot summary that is at the current level of detail; I think the changes are consistent with that. They should not necessarily be read as an endorsement or committment to that level of detail, but I didn't care to make the hard choices to trim it. I was content to let someone else trim it to a particular level of detail and then offer my own editorial suggestions on how to refine that.65.42.16.135 05:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's almost as if someone wrote the plot story description as they played, rather then summarizing it LReyome254 (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The next location list on queue is this topic's location list. Key locations are already developed on this page, so the subarticle is unnecessary (not to mention the inability to attribute to out of universe sources). The location list is excellent, though, and will be transwikied in full to the Final Fantasy wikia where it is more suitable. — Deckiller 19:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

i remember playing "final fantasy ii" on the snes and distinctly remember tellah's "recall" ability, yet the text says that this was removed. am i mistaken? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.235.60.58 (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't recall having Tellah's Recall ability removed, either. It might've been taken out in the Japanese release for the SNES and put back in for the English release. Abby724 21:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Tellah's recall ability is not in the game "Final Fantasy II" released on the SNES in the US.--205.133.240.254 15:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The article has the release date for the game on the SNES in Japan as July 19, 1991 (and so does http://www.ffcompendium.com/h/release.shtml and http://www.mobygames.com/game/final-fantasy-ii_/release-info). At Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy/Release dates and http://www.thefinalfantasy.com/games/release-dates.html it is April 19, 1991. At http://www.rpgamer.com/games/ff/ff4/ff4.html it's March 1991. With all these different release dates how are we supposed to know the truth? What source is the most reliable? --WikiSlasher 10:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The article says the information is still unofficially confirmed. Rumor perhaps? Credible? — Bluerです。 ^なにか? 19:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Japanese, but judging from translation tools it doesn't seem to be a rumor according to http://ff13vids.jugem.jp/. Kariteh 21:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Gamefront/FFWorld reveal concrete scans from Shonen Jump [1]. Kariteh 15:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a source in Chinese: http://www.romman.net/news/html/ds/2007-5/10/2007051079.htm 209.91.61.251 17:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It is coming eventually, but is there enough information on it right now to split the article? My only concern is that it may be a bit premature. This is not an objection at all, just a thought. Judgesurreal777 21:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't split. This isn't like FF3DS where a lot has changed (the characters got names, for one thing). In this case, it will only be a graphical update. Axem Titanium 21:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It will NOT be a graphical update. It is a brand new remake being made from scratch by Matrix Software, similarly to FFIII. It will definitely contain new stuff, or, as Square Enix's Engrish puts it, "new episodes". So my opinion is that we will eventually split it. Kariteh 22:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine, it'll be a graphical update and a couple of minor plot changes. I don't see Squenix making any big plot shifts so the only new thing that needs to be talked about is the graphical update. Axem Titanium 23:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit iffy on the issue. The DS version could have new development and reception sections, but the gameplay and plot sections would be very much the same. I think we should wait until that information is there until we consider splitting it. --Teggles 03:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It will be split, just like FFIII DS and Final Fantasy Tactics Shishi Sensou. But we have to wait in any case since it's too early and there isn't enough info yet. Kariteh 07:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

But should it be split NOW??? Probably not. Judgesurreal777 00:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've split the article; Tokita revealed that 3/4 of his original script had been cut in the SNES version and that these lost events will be reworked in the DS remake. With "all" the information we have now, the remake can stand on its own (like the small Dissidia: Final Fantasy).

I have not researched this yet, but this game seems to contain alot of influence from the classic star wars movies (far more than usually). Many characters and the main plot are alike, and some things (such as the "red wings", "the falcon" etc) could be seen as direct references. Should this be added to the article? Cyanid 21:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Not unless reliable sources can be found, unless the homage is so obvious that it's in the realm of common synthesis. Otherwise, it's OR. — Deckiller 21:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really see any similarities between FFIV and Star Wars. =\ Xenon Zaleo 07:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

 I don't see any similarities either... Supermario65 (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Star Wars tributes are very subtle, to the point where they're not even worth mentioning. Considering the fact that most of the original development team will probably never bother to comment on such a thing (even though the remake is coming out soon and it has a Dev's Blog), we have no proof that they were inspired specifically by Star Wars. LanceHeart (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometime's they're subtle -- the big ones in this game are the names of the airships: "Enterprise" (Star Trek) and "Falcon" (star Wars) Schoop (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Characters of Final Fantasy IV should be merged into this (lack of out of universe references, appeared in only one game, etc.). Kariteh 20:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This is going to be very controversial, but it should be done; there is nothing out of universe in this article, and we can always revive the article if the DS version of the game yields some developers interviews and reviews. Judgesurreal777

I believe the split has to deal with Size more than anything. It's already a huge article, merging the characters in would be a bit unwieldy. Xenon Zaleo 07:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's lengthy because it's full of cruft. Characters of Final Fantasy V was in the very same vein before, and it still got easily merged (and without any voiced opposition). Kariteh 07:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That's because there was only four playable characters IN FFV! FFIV has a lot more characters in it, thus it wouldn't be wise to do something like this. Plus, if you think this whole spoiler tag thing is ugly NOW, wait until you get what YOU want. It'll REALLY get nasty if we merge anything. Darkpower 12:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"There is nothing out of universe in this article", quoted for emphasis. And nobody ever said frigging anything about spoiler tag thingies. Kariteh 13:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the idea. The article is already large on its own, and adding the information from the Characters of FFIV article would make it at least twice as long. You could cut away certain information about each character, but that would defeat the purpose of trying to make it enyclopedic (meaning to make it comprehensive). The main characters have already lost their individual wikipedia articles that gave extensive details about them (which included such important facts as the abilities they possess and their primary weapons) in order to mash them all together on a single page. If you need outside references, find a guide and use the information from there to build up the references. Isn't there supposed to be some Ultimania guide to this game with relevant information? Zoghade 14:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to be aware of what "encyclopedic" means on Wikipedia. Just because a particular topic is interesting doesn't mean Wikipedia has to be extensive about it. Check Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Even more clearcut, abilities and primary weapons are utterly unwanted and shunned. Check Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Kariteh 14:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No need to talk down about what 'encyclopedic' means. I followed that link to Notability, and I read it to contradict your suggestion, Kariteh. Now I don't want to get too involved in this, because really I have absolutely no experience with matters of what should and should not be included, but on notability I see Characters of Final Fantasy VIII used as an example to bolster the argument for not merging. Am I misunderstanding something? I am a bit perplexed here, I'd like to be the first to admit! But as far as I can tell, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is saying not to merge, isn't it? "This list resides in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is created."DBaba 02:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at Characters of Final Fantasy VIII#Cast creation and influences and Characters of Final Fantasy VIII#Cultural impact. These are what allow the article to be separate from the main FFVIII article. Now consider that it's impossible to create equivalent sections for the characters of FFIV, because of lack of source and information. Without these sections, the Characters of FFIV article is totally in-universe, something which is shunned by WP:WAF. Kariteh 07:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The main article is already very long. We can clean up the other article to be less in-universe, but fitting the other article in this one would be detrimental to both this article and the information from the other. Rebochan 21:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Not one thing about the article is out of universe, there is essentially nothing encyclopedic about it, and there are currently no resources to make it more than that, so it should be part of the FA Final Fantasy IV.Judgesurreal777 01:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I admit I didn't read the article with my usual thoroughness, but I didn't notice a single note as to the removal of Cecil's main power in the move to an English game. In the Japanese, he has a power that hurts enemies but also sucks away his own life. It's the whole reason that the "fight your dark shadow" fight is won by standing still. The dark Cecil kills himself via this power. Taking it out left a plot hole only covered by the general tropes of dark shadow fights. If this information is in the article, please point it out; if not, please add it. Kilyle 09:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The removal is mentioned under Final Fantasy II (North America). Anomie 15:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:FFIVDS.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

fixed- rationale added. --PresN 18:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that the standard capitalization in-article for Wikipedia completely boots whatever the company's or artist's preferences are, but the References section bothers me.

For one, it seems that most of the quotes are coming from the version of FFIV released in the US as FFII, yet it's being creditted according to the "correct" number system. Either we should use the new translation(s) found ing the PlayStation and/or Game Boy Advance versions, or these lines need to be properly creditted to their game of origin (FFII). This is for referential reasons, as no one would find a game entitled FINAL FANTASY IV released for the SNES were they to use a catalogue.

Second, the capitalization itself. All official materials refer to most FF titles with all letters captalized (notable exceptions: DIRGE of CERBERUS and the expansion titles for FFXI), so I believe that the References section should carry this, again for referential purposes. My question here, though, is whether or not the FFII released in 1991 for the SNES carried similar capitalization. Could someone refer to its intrustion manual?

T.J. Fuller, Jr. 04:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the FFII/FFIV issue in the references, I agree. Further, given the structure of the article (description of the game, followed by sections about each remake), it should continue to use the SNES translation. I decided to be bold and adjust them.

Regarding the capitalization issue, I have no opinion. Anomie 15:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This article mentions a multiplayer function in version differences but contains no other information on how it behaves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.75.86 (talk) 12:30, November 17, 2007 UTC

It specifies that the multiplayer is like FF6's, and Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Anomie⚔ 15:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

My bad, it didn't say edit conflict for some reason... Axem Titanium (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all, I knew it was accidental. Anomie⚔ 22:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering, why there wasn't a bestiary in this remake for the playstation 1?

Supermario65 (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The ps1 remake was merely a port of FF IV hardtype, previously only released for Super Famicon. I do not believe that the other pre-VII Final Fantasy games that made it to ps1 did not have it either.Cyrus Beautor (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Characters of Final Fantasy IV: If one forgets for one minute that it's an article about Final Fantasy, then it appears that it's just a non-notable article about some characters from a video game. There are no sources establishing the notability of the subject. It would probably be best to merge it and put a link to a wikia somewhere else instead. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree, the article has never once shown any notability, and has been given the benefit of the doubt for several years with no improvement. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thirded. Besides, the FF Wikia is linked in this article, so it's not like the access to information is lost. Kariteh (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently this has already happened which is fine, but who ever did it did a terrible job. The current section is a complete ugly mess and gives almost no real information. These are the playable characters from one of the most popular games of it's time in and part of a highly regarded series, surly that is notable enough to give at least rudimentary information about the main cast of characters.140.232.146.171 (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've merged part of the article following the discussion on Talk:List of Final Fantasy media#Merge in Final Fantasy Collection, but I'm not sure if the sales and critical reception bits should be placed in the "PlayStation" section or the "Reception and legacy" section. I've placed them in the latter for now since it's probably more logical, but I'm not sure. Any comment? Kariteh (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Final Fantasy IV/archive1 [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be replaced with an image that has no watermark. Kariteh (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the following images fail WP:NFCC#8 and/or WP:NFCC#1.

• Image:Final Fantasy IV JAP Airship.png
• Image:FFIV overworld map.PNG
• Image:Final fantasy IV final boss.JPG
• Image:FFIVDS.JPG

I have left one screenshot because it could be argued that it is illustrating the "look and feel" of the game, although technically it could well fail NFCC as well. Black Kite 18:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed them except for Image:Final Fantasy IV JAP Airship.png since it illustrates the field screen of the game, while the first screenshot depicts the battle screen. Kariteh (talk) 08:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This section says that it's a mistake to think that the US FFII was made from the easytype version and then links to a cite that make just that mistake... But where's the cite that says it's a mistake in the first place??? Davhorn (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion about it has been raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy#Final Fantasy VI DS. Feel free to comment. Kariteh (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the FF IV (DS) article duplicates much of the information found on this page. All of the DS specific information could be included under the 4.6 Nintendo DS (perhaps adding a few subsections if necessary). It seems straight forward, but I haven't played either the original or the DS version; and this is my first proposed merger so I didn't want to just merge it without discussion. Cheers. EricLangston357 (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I support merging. A lot of work needs to be done to clear out the redundancy in the DS article. But a cursory look at the article leads me to believe that it is not signifigantly different from the original to require it's own article. Dragon Quest IV is a good example of a well-done merge, and it seems to be a similar operation (by the same company, in fact). -Verdatum (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong, strong opposition. This article is already fairly large. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest merging the entire Versions and re-releases section into a new article according to WP:Summary style --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The main body of the article is only around 50k, which, going by WP:SIZE is long, but not that long. However, if at some point, a WP:SPINOUT is appropriate, I agree that would probably be the appropriate place to split. -Verdatum (talk) 06:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In all due respect, The After seems a better candidate for merging. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the merge occurs, the "DS" quotes and story should be used as they better explain the story. Also, After should be left alone as it is a a sequel. Fractyl (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Being a sequel doesn't = being notable. The article is almost entirely about its plot, that could be covered in a Characters of Final Fantasy IV article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It is, there's too much info covering the plot and the game system to have it removed. Fractyl (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I said, it can be covered in a Characters of Final Fantasy IV article. FFIV the After is no automatically given an article just because it's a sequel. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this discussion has died down, so I think it can be well stated that there's no consensus. It's one thing to merge FFIII DS to FFIII, since FFIII needed a boost to get to FA, but FFIV is in fine shape. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

strong opposition to merge92.9.65.189 (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)