Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Final Fantasy titles

List of Final Fantasy titles edit

The list is not comprehensive, the Novels/Manga and Radio Drama sections need more work. There is a huge lack of source citations. Kariteh 09:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neutral; the topic's scope is explained clearly in the lead: Final Fantasy (ファイナルファンタジー, Fainaru Fantajī?) is a popular series of role playing games produced by Square Enix (originally Square Co., Ltd.). This article is supposed to provide a list of the video games in the series. I don't see a lack of sources; they cover the entire topic completely, which means there is no need for 100 citations. Instead of nominating it for removal, it might be best to change the article's scope and flesh out those topics without resorting to this, because the WikiProject's manpower is already at its limits working on other articles. But minor expansion does not warrent a removal, in my opinion; although I'd like to see a couple of the fansite sources removed and changed to more official ones, like IGN or the official site. Clearly, the list needs to be modernized, but I'm not sure diverting attention away from the current work to focus on this one is necessary, because removal candidates usually result in an extensive peer review and updating process. — Deckill er 13:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are ZERO references for the release dates specified. This should be the most important thing, and I have no idea how the list was featured without those references. My vote will definitely be delete if this isn't fixed. Not to mention that USA and Europe are specified as release areas, where it should be North America and PAL region. (the latter is not always so, but the former always is) --Teggles 02:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The references are in the "sources" section below. My guess is that inlines were not included because they would be redundant/excessive and generally unnecessary, since the source is clearly stated at the bottom. I'm mostly disagreeing with the timing of this nomination because of the other projects being implemented in this area. The list does lack reliable sources, the users who did the initial push are no longer with us, and I cannot add another project to my plate right now. — Deckill er 02:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My mistake there, but the sources given are in no way reliable. What you'll have to do is take a case-by-case approach (official sites, promotional fliers, etc.), requiring inline sources. Note that the first two references are fan sites and the last one is a user-submitted site. These are the complete opposite of reliable, which I think you'd agree with. I notice on the WP:FF talk page that you said this will distract from other tasks - that doesn't really matter. You don't have to fix this page, there is nothing stopping you from allowing it to be removed (if the case). --Teggles 02:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - [edit conflict] I reworded my statment for clarity. I just feel that, as a WikiProject, we shouldn't nominate our own content for removal; instead, we should try to address the need to work on it on the talkpages. Perhaps it's the newly-found FAR instinct in me, but I always feel that if I'm involved (indirectly or directly) to a removal candidate, I should try to help it if it's a tangible goal. — Deckill er 02:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate remove — this list has changed significantly since it was elevated to featured topic status in 2005. Plus, I feel we don't have the time or the manpower to really overhaul this page right now (unless someone wants to step up to the plate?). We might as well remove it and try again when there is a chance or an interest in overhauling this list. — Deckill er 02:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll help with some references, but it probably won't be enough. --Teggles 03:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anything is good, and you'll definitely give it a much needed tuneup. Unfortunately, I may not be able to help; my participation is at its limits right now because of sudden real-life issues (which is why I may seem less civil than usual, and for that I apologize). — Deckill er 03:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, how long is the discussion lasting? I thought it was two weeks... Kariteh 10:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go out on a limb and say Keep. While it may not be "comprehensive", FLRC is not the proper place to address that issue. The sections you mentioned were all added by you personally and if you don't feel like getting citations for them, then this isn't the right place. All articles need to be updated at some point (I'm assuming the article was up to date when it was promoted) but simply because it isn't updated as fast as you would like doesn't mean they should be demoted. Axem Titanium 15:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — list has improved since nom, and now that someone else is on the same lines with my original statement above, I feel that I can vote keep reasonably. — Deckill er 15:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, is the vote continuing until there's a majority of keep or something? The votes should have been closed on March 17, 8 days ago. Kariteh 15:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I dunno. Do you really want it removed that badly? You should probably talk to Raul about closing this FLRC. By the way, it's not a vote. Axem Titanium 20:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]