Talk:Final Fantasy/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Explanation of Edits

Since user Ferret has asked for additional explanation of my edits, I will cordially oblige him. In the interest of cooperation, I will wait until he has seen my explanations - or until I feel he's had sufficient time to do so - before I edit the article. I will be referencing line numbers in the comparison between my last edit and his mass undo of my changes.

Line 21: Regarding the line, "It has popularized many features now common in role-playing games, also popularizing the genre as a whole in markets outside Japan." I added a Citation needed template after this line, with the reason of "What features are common? In what games? If I'm not mistaken, the RPG genre was already popular outside of Japan - at least in America - so what markets did it popularize the genre in? Is this line referring to all RPGs, specifically CRPGs, or even more specifically JRPGs?" The line made a broad, sweeping claim that was not substantiated. There is no indication of what features were made common as a result of Final Fantasy, nor any source verifying that the aforementioned features were in fact made common in specific video games, much less as a result of Final Fantasy popularizing them.

It also does not provide a source for popularizing the genre (again, what genre? RPGs were already becoming common in America at the time that Final Fantasy released) in markets outside of Japan (and again, the RPG genre was already being popularized in other markets outside Japan by this time). I am assuming that the line means to state that the series influenced the design of console RPGs, which I do believe is factual. At the time of Final Fantasy's release, consoles were comparatively inferior to mainstream PCs, and ports of PC RPGs tended to release years later. As a result, Final Fantasy and others of its ilk, while initially derived from early Western PC RPGs like Wizardry, evolved separately from them to accommodate different hardware and target audiences. But, as I say, this is neither made clear nor sourced.

Line 219: First, again, a citation needed tag was added because the Legacy section started out by making broad, sweeping claims about the first game. While I have no doubt that the game is considered influential, this is not a sourced claim. I may be new-ish to Wikipedia, but I believe that such huge claims - especially ones are self-referenced as being often cited - should be cited. I do not see a source that claims Final Fantasy "legitimized" the genre (though here the genre is explicitly stated to be "early console RPGs"). Despite Ferret's edit summary stating that I removed "sourced content," much of what follows is also unsourced. I checked each source - where it exists - that I removed and the provided links - both archived and original - do not substantiate the claims made. I will go into more depth as follows:

"It also introduced an early evolving class change system". This is under the Legacy section, so I am assuming that all features mentioned are referring to the influence the series has had outside of the series. Otherwise, info on the "evolving class change system" should be under the series' Gameplay section, right? But it's made here, so it's implied that the series introduced to the RPG genre the concept of changing classes. This is plainly untrue, first of all, as Dungeons & Dragons has various forms of this feature. Other RPGs may have as well. So it was hardly an original concept. Secondly, the implicit claim doesn't even cite sources that state otherwise. At most, the sources state factually that the games have this feature. Just that. The feature exists. As such, I do not believe this statement belongs in the Legacy section, because the sources don't support it being a legacy of Final Fantasy.

"as well as different methods of transportation, including a ship, canoe, and flying airship" Again, much the same as above. It's implied that Final Fantasy's legacy was introducing and popularizing this mechanic, but this claim is not sourced. The link provided does not mention transportation, much less that Final Fantasy came out of the blue inventing and popularizing mechanics that already existed in other games. I will admit, "flying airship" sounds the most unique, but even then there is no source supporting the claim that this is a legacy of the games.

"It also introduced an activity-based progression system which has been used in later RPG series such as SaGa, Grandia and The Elder Scrolls" Again, just because Final Fantasy did something does not mean a) that it introduced the concept to the genre, or b) that other games with similar mechanics took it from Final Fantasy. The wording of this statement ("which has been used in") and the section this is written in both suggest that other games were inspired by Final Fantasy to implement this specific mechanic. Even if it were true (it may be in some or all cases, but this mechanic was - to my knowledge - used in only one Final Fantasy game that was released after the mechanic was used in some popular tabletop RPGS), this claim was not sourced. Like the above, all the reviews do is confirm that these 3 games had the mechanic. The SaGa and Grandia reviews compare the games - but not the mechanic - to Final Fantasy, while the Final Fantasy 2 review only mentions the similarity to the Elder Scrolls as a point of reference. In none of these cases is the implicit claim of "Final Fantasy influenced these games' use of this mechanic" supported.

"Final Fantasy III introduced the job system, a character progression engine allowing the player to change character classes, as well as acquire new and advanced classes and combine class abilities, at any time during the game." This claim is made with a source I couldn't verify. The original link is dead, the archive didn't display for me. Unless you care to prove that the source supports the claim, I will stand by my removal of this statement. To my knowledge, the statement is pretty much correct: it's referred to as the job system, it works the way that's said. Sounds good. But, again, this isn't the Gameplay section. Did this leave a legacy on the genre? I'm not convinced, mostly due to lack of sources. It does sound innovating for its time, possibly compared to tabletop RPGs as well. But "allowing the player to change character classes, as well as acquire new and advanced classes" is definitely a feature that some RPGs - tabletop and PC - had at the time. "combine class abilities" and "at any time during the game" are perhaps things other games didn't do, but I don't know. And I can't know, because I can't read the source for this statement.

I hope that was enough explanation for you, Ferret. I understand how you looked at the large edits of a relatively new user and assumed the worst, so I have no problem standing my ground and providing substantial justification. I, myself, have been an admin on a wiki, so I really do get that sometimes edits look fishy and need some backing up. If anyone has any questions or corrections about something I said, please let me know.--GamerAim (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Please give this some time for people to see, taking into consideration this is a Featured Article and a fairly large amount of text is being altered. Just leaving this note to acknowledge I've seen this, but I have not read it fully yet. -- ferret (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Not much text was actually being altered (much less text of any substance). It looks that way in the edit log, but that's mostly the citations. Still, if editors see this and want to correct it with proper sources, by all means I'll wait :) --GamerAim (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I’d like to chime in but...good lord, can someone give a more concise summary of the issue here? That’ll help get more input, whether it’s me or anyone else. Sergecross73 msg me 23:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

It's these edits, Sergecross73.

My edit summary was already concise: the article made statements citing sources that didn't back up the claims made, so I deleted those claims.--GamerAim (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi GamerAim, welcome to Wikipedia. I can't speak for Ferret, but I'm positive they assume good faith in your edits. Anyway, the WP:LEAD is a summation of the article body, so we try not add references there if it isn't a controversial subject (see WP:REFLEAD). In the reasoning, you wrote: What features are common? In what games? If I'm not mistaken, the RPG genre was already popular outside of Japan - at least in America - so what markets did it popularize the genre in? Is this line referring to all RPGs, specifically CRPGs, or even more specifically JRPGs". A {{citation needed}} template is used for a reference; if you feel that the line could use more information, the {{how}} or {{what}} templates might help. If you're familiar with Final Fantasy, maybe you can expand on it. Now, concerning the removal of sourced content, that seems unnecessary, even unconstructive. If you can find a better source however, go nuts. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. As I said, I've been a wiki administrator before and I don't begrudge Ferret. It's all good, and I was happy to detail my edit :)

I understand your reasoning for citations not being in the lead. That's fair. It sounds like a good practice to me :) But, as a "summation of the article body" I do believe that the article itself should support the claims of the lead, right? If you'd like, I can add a citation needed template to the "offending" statements (the ones in the body, not the lead) with my reasoning, as a stopgap. I might also add those other templates you mention, just because I personally think that such information would be interesting and relevant to the article, though I think the lead is long enough as-is and such elaboration would be better off in the body. The Legacy section, perhaps?

Anyway, I am not familiar with Final Fantasy, though I am familiar enough with RPGs in general to question the claims made about its innovations. I understand that many Final Fantasy fans' knowledge of the genre may be limited to that series or to JRPGs, so I can see how their love for - I'll admit - an influential series could lead them to inflate its significance. Not that the series isn't influential or significant - it is - but my own knowledge makes me doubt the extent of that legacy when I don't see any sources supporting these claims.

As such, I am not positioned to source this article's claims that it made, even as I must assume them to be false. I maintain that the removal of "sourced" content is necessary and constructive because, as I said, the source does not support the claims. As new as I am to Wikipedia, I have to imagine your policy on sourcing requires that the source actually support the text, otherwise people could use the same irrelevant web page to support any claims they make on any number of topics. If Wikipedia is a respectable encyclopedia, the claims its articles make, especially ones citing the influence of one game on another in specific mechanics, should not be based solely on the opinion of the editor, which is where this article currently stands. "Final Fantasy was influential" is not a controversial claim, nor one that is difficult to cite (though despite admitting this in the article, no citations are provided), but "Final Fantasy innovated the use of boats in RPGs which influenced later games in the genre" is a specific claim not only a blatantly false, but made without any adequate sourcing whatsoever. And I don't mean "reputable" sourcing, I mean that the sources do not themselves make or support this claim in any way. At most, they point out the existence of the mechanic in a specific Final Fantasy game. At best, these claims should go under the article's Gameplay section.

I am willing to compromise on this and, eventually, move and/or rewrite the "offending" statements to a location in the article more befitting of their context. The content more-or-less remains in the article, but is moved to the appropriate section. It's a win-win.

What is the accepted length of time that I should wait for other editors to fix these problems before I fix it myself? I'm normally a go-getter, but I do not wish to violate your community's customs by acting too hastily.--GamerAim (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Have you given the article thorough read-through though, to really confirm that the sentiment isn’t sourced somewhere in the body? It’s a featured article, which means it’s been through a rigorous review process. And it’s a high traffic/high visibility article. No offense, but I kind of find it hard to believe that there’s these massive glaring issues present, and that they were caught by someone who isn’t even familiar with the subject... Sergecross73 msg me 14:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I will do a more thorough review as you have asked. I also ask, if you have not, that you review my own objections and check the sources yourself.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if these issues - tucked within otherwise founded text - were not noticed. Even if they were noticed, any attempt to fix them may have been undone. Mine was. I have no doubt that a Final Fantasy fan could also just assume that his favorite series was as influential as he feels it to be.

I am not familiar with Final Fantasy, but so what? Despite the claims of the article, it did not pull the RPG genre out of a hat in 1987 like a magic trick. My knowledge extends to the games that inspired Final Fantasy and later games. THAT is how I caught these issues. It's like seeing an article on Steve Jobs saying he founded Microsoft. You don't need to be a Steve Jobs expert, just to know the history of Microsoft. GamerAim (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I’m merely saying that it’s not uncommon for new editors to bring up a litany of concerns, only to find that the only issue is their lack of understanding of how the website works, or their lack of knowledge on the subject. It may or may not be the case with you, but it’s a recurring thing. Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

That's fair. I understand. It was already pointed out that I misunderstood the purpose of the lead, and I accept that it was my own ignorance at fault. You similarly have made a good point that I should more thoroughly review the article, and I will take that to heart when I have time, probably in the next day or two. If it turns out I was wrong, I will of course remove the maintenance templates that I placed on the article. I apologize if it came across as me bringing up a "litany of concerns" for "glaring issues." I recognize that the issues I brought up, if they are indeed issues, are not major and I have only been as persistent about it because I do have a knowledge of RPGs outside of Final Fantasy and wanted to use that knowledge - which aided me in recognizing the apparent (I will say unproven for now, until I've looked into it further) recognization of improperly sourced citations - to improve the quality and veracity of this article. I know I may come across as rough, but I really do want to help, and am doing my best to be considerate of your methods. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do to conform to your policies and procedures, and how to best proceed.--GamerAim (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I have, as requested, reviewed the article in more depth to further verify or discredit my claims. I'd like to start by linking an article I found with a cursory search, dated approximately 5 years after this article became a Featured Article. It describes the origin of the Japanese/Eastern/Console RPG (the terms are synonymous, though the latter is the one used in this article to refer to its legacy), including the influences of Wizardry and Ultima on later games like Dragon Quest, and eventually Final Fantasy. I didn't read the entire article in depth, but it did make me realize that sources contradicting the claims of this article - or the claims made in its sources - may have been written after this article was vetted.

Anyhow, on to the Wikipedia article itself, I still found nothing to suggest the implicit or explicit claims in the Legacy section that I disputed are true. Similar statements are made elsewhere in the article, but are made in a way that does not suggest that Final Fantasy influenced other games' inclusion of these features, or that it introduced the features to the genre. It just states that many games in the series have them in common. The sources just aren't there. I'm sorry, but they're not.

The only statement I disputed that is remotely backed up is "The Final Fantasy series is credited for introducing and popularizing many concepts that are today widely used in console RPGs." This is echoed earlier in the article, with "It introduced many concepts to the console RPG genre." The former has two sources cited, one of which it shares with the sole citation of the latter. In this case, the source is quoted almost verbatim as the latter statement. I will concede that this may be enough on Wikipedia to validate it remaining on the page. But I maintain my belief that the source is not sufficient to merit the article's claims. Yes, it's from what would be considered a "reputable" source for video games, but the source itself doesn't really explain what is meant by "Final Fantasy introduced many revolutionary concepts to the console RPG genre." All it follows up with is the display of the turn-based battles, which fine, maybe the series innovated or popularized that, I don't know. But if that is the only specific innovation being cited, then I think the article should refer to it specifically, not a an unsubstantiated claim. A claim that I will remind you is somewhat contradicted by the source I linked in my first paragraph on the history of the console RPG genre as a whole (the Final Fantasy source is about Final Fantasy alone).

So, I maintain my stance much as I did before, that this article is making unsubstantiated claims. Not (just) false claims, but claims that are not backed by the sources in the article.--GamerAim (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: I've been reviewing the various specific "citation needed" templates and will replace the ones I've added with the most appropriate ones soon. I'm just letting people know that I am now aware of these templates and will do my best to use the one that best explains the problem. The specific templates may also allow me to shorten my reasoning, as one user had an issue with my verbosity.--GamerAim (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I’m confused. It sounds kind of like you’re saying “well there’s sources but I don’t really agree with them”... Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Not all, friend. I'd like to be extremely clear that my core issue isn't that the claims are objectively false as they are contextually. That is to say, for instance, "Final Fantasy III introduced the job system, a character progression engine allowing the player to change character classes, as well as acquire new and advanced classes and combine class abilities, at any time during the game" is a technically true statement as far as FF3 is concerned. But it is contextually false as it is written in the Legacy section. FF3 did not, in fact, originate the aforementioned mechanics, and the sources provided do not support the claim that FF3's implementation of the mechanic influenced its inclusion in later games. By being written in the Legacy section, that is what's being implied, right? That this mechanic is a legacy of FF3? If there were a source that mentioned "Final Fantasy III's job system influenced similar systems in later games," that would be one thing. But that claim, and others like it, are in no way supported by the sources. It's not that I don't agree with the sources, it's that they quite literally don't support the claims being made. They just don't. It's not a matter of me agreeing or disagreeing.

There is one exception, and it's the statement that "The Final Fantasy series is credited for introducing and popularizing many concepts that are today widely used in console RPGs." One of the sources provided says, of the original game, "It introduced many revolutionary concepts to the console RPG genre," which I already concede may technically make that claim sourced. I do think that this source isn't reliable and would like to see a better one, but it's not a preference I'm going to impress on others.--GamerAim (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

If you have done the work of identifying weaknesses in the prose and you have done the work of finding new sources, WP:SOFIXIT yourself. At this point, you have written multiple KB worth of text on this talk page but seem to be unwilling to do more than driveby tag [citation needed] on the article. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Axem Titanium: That's somewhat unfair. GamerAim did make changes to the article, but I reverted them and asked they open this talk section, which they did. As a result, they've been trying to highlight the issues they see in response to this talk discussion. -- ferret (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

In addition to what ferret said, the source I provided does not substantiate the claims I highlighted in this article, but anything provides additional support for the removal of the highlighted claims. Claims which are in no way supported by the contents of the sources provided in the article at present. If you want an article on the origins of RPGs, there are multiple other articles on Wikipedia regarding the matter, which may be more appropriate to your interest.

As far as I'm concerned, I have done my due diligence in writing multiple KB worth of text validating the removal of false statements on this article, and I will continue to write more as people challenge my exhaustively-documented argument without performing the same diligence. If I am wrong, then I am wrong, but my years of research, experience and the mere couple of sources I looked at when countering the claims of this article do not compel me to spend my time playing Devil's advocate.--GamerAim (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

So fix it. You clearly are knowledgeable about this topic. Don't just do driveby tagging like every other armchair editor on this site. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Out of respect for the worldwide pandemic, I am patiently waiting before I fix it in case anyone disputes it. As ferret told you, I already tried to fix it and my changes were disputed. I'd love nothing more than to make them again, but I am trying to be respectful towards the community and not upset anyone with what looks like a hasty edit to a former featured article.

If ferret or another admin tells me it's fine, I will do it. But I won't be goaded into ruffling feathers because YOU don't like that I accommodated the documented requests of other users. GamerAim (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I've come to take a look at the disputed text. I appreciate there is a big conversation just above me - I'm hoping to get a quick summary. If we can start with the lead paragraph, which contains a number of claims about what the series is "well known for". There are over 200 references on the page. Can someone such as ferret summarize which references are being used to create this statement? I am not personally denying FF's influence, which to me feels apparant, but our job is to report what has already been reported. Marasmusine (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in and agree with @Axem Titanium:, there is really no excuse for three different types of cleanup tags on a heavily trafficked Featured Article. Let’s get these issues resolved and get the cleanup tags stripped off. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed the citation marks and commentary. Enough is enough, either show us the references you claim to have about this, or don’t, but you cannot keep citation tags all over a Featured Article that has passed much peer review and not found wanting. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The Legacy of Final Fantasy

I am having some trouble finding much on how Final Fantasy influenced other games in the video game industry. Are there any examinations of this online or in print that anyone knows of? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the same question I was asking months ago.

I've been "letting this slide" because of everything going on in the world, but unless I missed someone's response on this page, it has gone unaddressed for months now. I did what I was asked, by placing maintenance tags, waiting for responses and providing multiple arguments on the matter.

I'm told that this is a featured article, that it's special, that the information was vetted. And yet no one can apparently prove that the claims in the article are correct, whereas I already proved that the sources provided in the article for the offending statements do not support the content of the article. I get that changes to FAs should not be made lightly, but I have already shown that the sources cited don't support the claims, and after months, no one seems to have been able to prove me wrong. I'd say that no one "cares" enough to do so, but the truth is that all the passion in the world won't make the sources cited in this article support its blatantly false claims. I've demonstrated this.

Unless the people who supposedly vetted this page's sources come in and show how the claims in the article are at all supported - in spite of my detailed breakdown of the lack of support for the claims - I will be removing the offending claims after one (1) week from the time of this edit.

I apologize in advance for my brusqueness, but I've done everything I can to improve this article, done everything I was asked to do, and yet the only response I've gotten is "someone other than you said the sources were cool years ago" without showing me proof. I have nothing against any user or their edits, but I have no more obligations except to improve the quality of this article. And I will fulfill that obligation soon unless counter-arguments are presented.

Thank you.--GamerAim (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Anyone else have any thoughts on its removal? I am not necessarily opposed myself, it is a bit strange we can’t source any influence by the first few games to other franchises, but I’d there aren’t any references, I’d support trimming it away. Anyone else? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Not a vital article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clearly not going anywhere, neither here nor at the Vital Article's project page. User continues to occasionally remove the tag and rant but disruption won't win the day. -- ferret (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Over 88 percent of Americans have never played any Final Fantasy game ever. Over 70 percent of Americans have never even heard of the Final Fantasy series ever. Final Fantasy series and its games are NOT vital articles. The sad thing about this site is the majority of editors here are gamers and thus video game articles are given way way way too much importance. Final Fantasy is a niche series and that is a fact. Ask all of your Facebook friends if they ever even heard of Final Fantasy series and i bet my life the vast majority of them would say 'NO'. There is nothing vital about Final Fantasy or its games to the culture or earth or America or anything. It's a niche series. Why don't we make every work of Fiction a vital article huh? Lets' make Eureka Castle a Vital article, let's make Adventures of Little Koala a vital article. Let's make Salute Your Shorts a vital article, let's make Today's Special a vital article. This site has no credibility by listing anything to do with Final Fantasy as vital articles. I will never donate to this site again.

JasonCowl349043 (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed vital article from this. A niche series that 80 something percent of the US, Europe has never played and the vast majority of people in the US, Europe etc have never even heard of is not vital. Enough is enough. Most encyclopedias in the world don't even mention Final Fantasy. It's irrelevant to culture. Over 80 percent of Wikipedia Admins never even heard of the Final Fantasy series. It's vital because of awards? Sales numbers are flawed because the vast majority of people who buy one FInal Fantasy game buy multiple Final Fantasy games. I want a discussion to delist Final Fantasy and its games from the vital articles list. I have devoted my life to this. This site is joke sometimes. Articles for various Pokemon (when i don't believe any of them should be given articles), articles for characters on tv shows that aren't even top billing, articles on freaking Wrestling stables in the 1980s WWF. How can any true encyclopedia have articles on those things? Pro wrestling is also niche. I can't name more than 5 people who went to high school with me who even heard of Bret Hart. it's obscure. JasonCowl349043 (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This is either clear trolling at worst, disruptive at best. If you continue to remove the vital article template without waiting for further discussion, you will be blocked for it. Final Fantasy is one of the most important and well known franchises within the video game industry, and definitely belongs among the included video game topics. On top of that, a goal of the Vital Article project is to bring the articles to a Featured Article status, which Final Fantasy is. -- ferret (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not trolling, fact is over 90 percent of Americans have never played any Final Fantasy game. I don't believe Final Fantasy or any games in its series should have FA or GA status. Maybe you love those games but 90 percent of the US has never played Final Fantasy. I am sick and tired of these video game articles having FA and GA status. Most encyclopedias in the world don't even have articles on Final Fantasy (Microsoft Encarta never had an article on Final Fantasy). This site puts almost as much emphasis on video game related articles as truly important articles like wars, Historical Figures, Major Historical events etc and that is not good. One of the biggest criticms of this site was the Pokemon problem where Wikipedia was criticized for having too many articles on Pokemon with some of said articles being longer than the George Washington article. Many rpgs are more influential than Final Fantasy ,namely Ultima, Mother series, Dungeons & Dragons, and some others. I never even played Final Fantasy until 22 years after I started playing video games. 62.141.194.31 (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons and Ultima (series) are already marked as vital. Earthbound is nowhere near influential as Final Fantasy series. You can't base your argument on your personal experience.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It's also worth noting the GA and FA process has nothing to do with how important the subject is, it is about the quality of the article we have on it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rankings and aggregators table

Does the table in the Rankings and aggregators section belong here? It might be more relevant to take out the lists that aren't explicitly ranking the Final Fantasy series, maybe with a footnote to indicate spin-off games listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaidSwans (talk • contribs) 10:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

"Famous word" meaning

The Development and history section says, "the word 'Final' was a famous word in Japan". I can’t be the only person who has no idea what a "famous word" is. Is that the same thing as a common word? Is it a word that people buy drinks for when they see it in a bar? Rscragun (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

After thinking through it a bit more, I think I understand. I assumed that the sentence was referring to a Japanese word that meant "final", but it is actually referring to the English word "final" being common or well-known in Japan. Is that right? If so, "famous" is probably just a mis-translation that should instead be "well-known" or "common". I will make this edit. Please revert if needed. 67.9.21.190 (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)