Talk:Races of Final Fantasy

ESPERS ARE A RACE!!!

They are in fact a race, as I was playing the game and I checked the 2nd page of someone's information in the bestiary, it was "sage advice" or something like that it talked of them as a race or at least a group of monsters and how they angered the gods and it kept going on and I don't remember the rest, but they are a race. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.65 (talk • contribs) .

It would be nice if you would abstain from using caps. WE'RE NOT DEAF, YOU KNOW. just for that, i'm refusing your notion of espers as a race, and instead regard someone else's opinion instead. now that i've read the entry on how they tried to wage war or something, the espers seem to qualify as a race, as they were intelligent enough to do so. anyone else has an opinion? 私はBluerfnです 16:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the fact is that if are hearing the words on the computer screen, there might be a problem, so.....yeah it doesn't matter that your not deaf, and how are you refusing my notion if it's the same as someone elses, just based on different facts?

Ever heard of netiquette? Sign your posts 私はBluerfnです 19:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

FFXII Updates=

I just added some information to the Bangaa, Cactuar, and Esper sections as they lacked the most recent information from Final Fantasy XII. Hope a did a good job. =)

IMO, I understand that Espers in FFVI is a race whereas in FFXII is just an ordinary summon. I rather think that information goes somewhere else. 私はBluerfnです 04:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

good point, i agree, ill get rid of that if it's still there

Let's put it back when there's enough information about Espers as a race in FFXII. I'm starting to see them in a different light now (more than just an ordinary summon) 私はBluerfnです 19:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ordinary summon, end of story. 私はBluerfnです 04:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Espers, Aeons, GFs, Eidolons, and summons of any kind should be on a seperate page "Final Fantasy Summons" and not in either Races or Bestiary? --Daedalus 21:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. They certainly have enough information for a page, and while some of them fit here, not all of them do, and I think they should all be together. Ravenwolf Zero 19:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Humes in FFX also ? Al Bhed is not a race

Regular Humans appear all over FFX and FFX-2 but are not named. The Al Bhed are more of an ethnicity of humans, although they do have distinctive pupils and irises. Can we asume the humans of FFX / X2 are Humes or should we create a section just for them ? Renmiri 17:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Renmiri

I removed the reference to blond hair with dark skin being "biologically impossible" in the Al Bhed section. From the Blond_hair page: "Blond hair however is found all over Europe ... and is even present in the Middle East and South Asia, though it is very rare there, except amongst the Pashtuns of Afghanistan and Pakistan. ... Blondism is also present in a large proportion of Aboriginal Australians, and in general, people of Aboriginal Australian descent tend to have fair hair. "

So obviously, it's possible, though of course the most common blonds (in our world!) are light-skinned. Identity0 11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it permissible to place the Al Bhed article into the Human section? It was missing from the reverted copy, so I opted to do it now. Okay? 私はBluerfnです 16:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Section for Selkies and Lilties

There needs to be a section for Selkies and Lilties. Gargants and Shoopuffs have them and they are more insignificant. - The person who did the Yuke section. XD

The numerous occurances of second person (addressing the reader as "you") need to be fixed. Other than that, it's nice to see all these articles consolidated - I just hope the page doesn't grow excessively long. Perhaps Chocobo and Moogle should remain in their own articles because they're such large sections. Aerion 05:06, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No wait, I think I've changed my mind after taking a closer look (in which I tried to correct some second-person and stylistic issues). What is really needed is severe trimming of those sections. The current version amounts to a chocobo strategy guide - that's what GameFAQs is for. I think a more general treatment would be better - does anyone agree? Aerion 05:26, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

... Or maybe nobody really cares. Aerion//talk 07:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely needs to be trimmed; the article is now 31KB, and on the edit page there's a message warning to not let it exceed 32KB. -JarlaxleArtemis 02:35, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By the way, how do you delete the Contents box? I'm sure that would take up less memory. -JarlaxleArtemis 02:39, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deleting the Contents box will not take up less memory - the box is generated by the MediaWiki software every time the page is loaded, and is not part of the page source. But it's not a bad idea to remove the TOC anyway because it's taking up enourmous amounts of real estate on the page. You can remove it by adding __NOTOC__ anywhere in the article. I've gone ahead and done it on this article already. Aerion//talk 02:58, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to move some of these entries into their own articles: the entries on Chocobos, Moogles, Cactaurs and Tonberries are fairly tightly written, but are still long enough to be seperate entries. While it makes sense to have this page for certain races (esp. those that only appear in one or two games), the length of this page at the moment is a bit of a problem, IMO. – Seancdaug 03:49, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hm -- I can see the need for a separate article on Chocobos or on Moogles, because they're fairly well-known, but do Cactaurs and Tonberries really merit separate articles? They're fairly obscure compared to the first two, no? (lord knows, given the amount of truly psychotic fancruft in WP (see Category:Gundam weaponry), this is a fairly minor issue, but I'm curious.) jdb ❋ (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Certainly neither Cactaurs or Tonberries are as well-known as either Chocobos or Moogles, but I still think they probably deserve individual articles. They're both popular enough to have their own spin-off merchandise (personally, I adore my Tonberry plushie :-) ), at least. Housekeeping also plays a part: while the entries (now articles) probably could be revised to tighten up the prose a bit, most of the information contained in those entries is worthwhile. In the interest of keeping this page of managable length, it makes sense (to me, at least), to provide no more than a basic overview here, while the seperate articles can cover anything that goes beyond that. Trying to find a balance between relevant detail and fancruft is tricky, to be sure, but I personally felt the information in the two articles, if a bit specialized, wasn't at the level of fancruft. Just my two cents, though. – Seancdaug 05:07, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Guado picture.

Is Maester Seymour really representative for the Guado race, being only half-Guado? krikkert 22:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

what defines a race?

i think there are far too many non-"race" like creatures in this article, making it more a bestiary. Yes, technically, pug/tonberry is a race. But so are aboute very single enemy in every single final fantasy--tonberry is simply a monster in several of the games. why aren't the race of espers from ff6, which half the story is based around, listed? why arent the hybrid animal like people, like lone wolf listed? they're in several games. many are correct, and good, like bangaa, but i'm seeing far too many "new-FF" races and not enough old ones. i will do some research and hopefully add some more. Lockeownzj00 07:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that Tonberry is in fact counted as a race in Final Fantasy XI, as long as it is in one game I think it should be here, but we sure do not need a second bestiary. Defining a race is harder than everybody might think and I've yet to find the perfect solution to define what exactly only belongs in Final Fantasy bestiary and Races of Final Fantasy. All I can say is that a bestiary is a record of imaginary or real (in this case it's probably gonna be imaginary) creatures or rocks (believe it or not). Human races are not gonna be in the bestiary so they've got to be here at least. – DarkEvil 13:28, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Quote:why aren't the race of espers from ff6, which half the story is based around, listed? why arent the hybrid animal like people, like lone wolf listed? — simply because no one has included them yet. Why not do it? — CuaHL 14:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that. But I don't want to start without some picture references, and I'm not far enough through my replaying of ff6 in japanese or its english companion for comparison to take pictures of the Esper World.

Is anybody willing to go through the FF games with me, one by one, whether here in the talk page or through instant message, so we can organise exactly which races are in which games? Obviously we wouldn't be able to do it off the top of our heads so we'd need to use many resources (hello ffcompendium and probably play through the games a bit ourselves, but I think it'd be good work, once we finally implemented it. Lockeownzj00 20:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• First, don't forget to note comparisons you can find on JAP and US FFVI as it was suggested to add a story section in the localization and censorship, so it could be great. I'm in for finding every FF race and adding their respective picture and artwork if available. What doesn't defines as a race are really those monsters with no story behind them. I think the tonberries have their place because they're a non-playable race in FFXI I think, but I've never played that game, just using ffcompendium for that one. I'm not willing to play through FFIII for the NES though. Also, a good thing to do, saving us time for the games which we don't need to play through (you want to play FFVI through so don't do that for that one), is using saved games, preferably at the ending of the game with an airship, so we can visit through the world all the places and find all the races. Just doing that allows us to take screenshots of them, also it allows us (well me at least) to revive memories on that race (unless it's the first time you play through) so that we can write about them. — DarkEvil 13:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm quite happy to help. We should get together in the WikiProject chatroom (irc.freenode.net #wpff). — CuaHL 14:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• I doubt you'll be able to get picture referances for all of the races. And i also notice you are well short on races from earlier FF games. Notably i can say you are missing Elves, Mermaids, Dragons and Leifans from FF1.
• What about the FFXI beastman races, which are placed in the bestiary of non-sentinent races? The Tonberry are apparently a race, but races which either coexist or fight based on reason such as the Goblins, Yagudo or Quadav aren't? Where exactly is the line drawn? Niton 07:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think a race should be able to think and, unless it's made impossible by physiology or access to them, they should be able to communicate with other races. That's just what I think, though. Ravenwolf Zero 19:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Behemoth?

Don't we make a point of keeping this as a catalog of races and not a bestiary? If that's the case, why is the Behemoth included in this article? Last time I checked, the Behemoth has been, and always will be, a monster the players have to fight, and has never had a role other than posing a challenge. I'd like to hear the reason why it was included in the first place before I make a decision to delete it or not. Kakashi-sensei 21:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, I don't believe that the Chocobo, Cactuar, Shoopuf, and Tonberry belong in this section because (as I've said above) they are not counted as a "race" (i.e. an intelligent group with at least some semblance of society, government, intelligent communication, etc.). While you could make an argument that Cactuars from FFX could fit this description and they could potentially be an exception, I think most will agree that Chocobos, Shoopufs, and Tonberries do not belong in this section. They belong in either the Bestiary or in a new article such as "Mascots/Staples/Animals of Final Fantasy," or something of the like. Kakashi-sensei 21:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Humans as a race

Many FF have humans as a race in the games (eg, Humes in FFXI). Should there be a short entry included in this list? Chanlord 04:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Lucavi

I've tagged this merging to this article. It could also possible be moved to the Final Fantasy bestiary but I'm not too familar with the Lucavi and if they are sentient or not. Discuss Chanlord 07:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Lucavi equals Good Idea!

That's a good idea, as the Zodiac stones were sentient! Itsame 04:11, 6 January 2006

Cetra section edited

There was a bit of inaccurate information in the Cetra article (such as Aerith being half-Cetra, a notion which ignores the fact that one cannot be such a thing; one either is a Cetra or they aren't), and it was otherwise a bit short on relevant information. I've expanded the article and added a good deal of relevant information that the section was deeply lacking.

Ryu Kaze February 10, 2006

Clavats

I added the instruction manual/official website blurb about Clavats, but I can't remember any of the male suits nor the first female suit. Could someone with a manual handy finish that off and maybe add a picture? Eowynjedi 21:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Selkie's Breasts.

Uh, there is no source that selkie's mature more quickly other than the picture of the selkie.

It seems that it stemmed from this edit.

It was added some months ago, so it's probably an unnoticed pervert-ish bit of vandalism (or mistake). You're right, there seems to be no official source that claims this.

Template?

In some of the races, it goes "Appears in FF__", where as some other ones list the appearances in the paragraph. Can there be some sort of universal structure?

FFXII

Hi. I've added information on FFXII races on September 11. It's from the Scenario Ultimania. Should I put a reference in it or just leave it alone? 私はBluerfnです 06:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm also going to add some pictures related to these races, soon. 私はBluerfnです 07:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added pictures related to the races. I hope I don't infringe any copyrights or anything, because I support Square Enix....huhuhu. 私はBluerfnです 15:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Tonberries

In FFVI, in the American localization at least, the name of a single one of these creatures was "Pugz." Yes, the 'z' makes it sound plural, and yes, they did appear in groups, but 'z' does not actually pluralize in English and the name of a single enemy in FFVI does not refer to the group. I suggest that 'Pug,' seemingly an attempt to make the word 'Pugz' singular, is incorrect, and that the name of this creature should be listed here as it appears in the game: Pugz.

It's written only as "Pug" and "Pugs" (two separate monsters) in FF6, never "Pugz". --HeroicJay 19:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, "Pugs" is one of a handful of monsters in Final Fantasy VI that appears as an invisible stack: one monster laid directly on top of the other monster, so that it initially looks as if there is only one monster present. Under those circumstances, its seems like "Pugs" is intended as a plural form of "Pug." – Sean Daugherty (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand Corrected! Thank you.

Beastmen?

Why aren't beastmen here? If races like Tonberries and the Urutan-Yensa are here, shouldn't beastmen be here, too? Just a little entry like the one in the bestiary seems good... --Jopasopa 21:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree as the beastmen are portrayed in FFXI as having a very full history and their own separate nations. They can be viewed as equal to the playable races as far as their effect on the world. There is a decent article at http://wiki.ffxiclopedia.org/Beastmen It even has the Poroggos listed. --- 20:48, 20 November 2006 207.62.190.7 (Talk)

Since, as far as I can tell, the bestiary is no longer, should the beastmen races go here? I guess under one heading would be okay, but since stuff like Urutan-Yensa and Mermaids are here, I don't see why a race such as the Poroggos (newest race and thus least plot development) would be less significant. --Jopasopa 04:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

We're working on a new beastmen page at User:Deckiller/Beastmen (Final Fantasy XI). I'll probably end up getting a section on either the races/creatures page in the long run. — Deckiller 04:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Is it okay if I contribute to that page? --Jopasopa 14:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. — Deckiller 00:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Nature of the Urutan

The current entry is incorrect in attributing the Urutan to the artificer's log (that is included on their entry in the Clan Primer). This log clearly describes the creature being capable of looking like a cask, and thus I feel it is much more correct to attribute the log to the Mimics, who are very obviously of an artificial nature (which means the Mimic Queen in the Barheim Passage is probably the 'mother' being referred to in the artificer's log). Given this, there is little reason to doubt the Urutan are anymore unnatural to Ivalice than the Bangaa or Seeqs. -Dave 128.205.75.166 04:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC) --I agree, and they are "Humanoid" after all Almighty Rajah 23:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The, uh, the log is referring to Omega mk. XII. Not the Mimic Queen. Mimics may look mechanical, but are natural monsters, according to the bestiary.

It's no big deal, I thought Omega was a Mimic at first, too.KrytenKoro 20:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Cosmo Canyon race - why refering to manticore?

I would like to change the reference of "manticore-like" on the Cosmo Canyon race to "lion-like".

The reason for this is that the two physical distinctions that sepperate a manticore from a lion are not preasent in any Cosmo Canyon race, namely the head of a human or the tail of a scorpian. Instead he has the body of a lion, the head of a lion, and the tail of a lion... on fire.

Uh...

Why does it say "Because of this understanding, they have produced some of the greatest mages in the world's history, including Morphling and Loutaru the summoners who fought during the Crystal War of 863 C.E." under the Tarutaru section? I can't recall anything regarding a Morphling or Loutaru, and, judging by their names, they are player characters. Perhaps someone added fan-fiction or someone not familiar with the story saw the fan-fic and assumed it to be canon? --Jopasopa 03:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous fancruft. Removing at once. 私はBluerfnです 08:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Summons

I threw together a quick stub for Final Fantasy summons, please help expand it. I will do some expanding on it as I find time. --Daedalus 01:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

We are actually trying to move away from lists of in-universe information (that info was merged long ago). I guarentee it won't fly with most of the project because of this. — Deckiller 02:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've brought this up on Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy. We should discuss this there for a concensus. --Daedalus 21:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Consolidation of this page

Ideally, this page will morph from a list of the 40+ races throughout the series to an article chronicling the history of races in the series, describing notable races, and so on. A lot of the "one-fers" (Occuria, etc) can be merged into appropriate game areas, such as Spira (Final Fantasy X), Terminology of Final Fantasy VI, and so on. — Deckiller 02:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a possible version of this page (User talk:NicholaiDaedalus), removing all races that only appear in one game (for this purpose, I count FFX and FFX-2 as one game). In the process I also ended up merging Moogle into this list, though it still needs a lot of trimming, and the original page isn't redirected yet. I ended up merging the Shumi entry into the Moomba entry as a sub-entry, since the Shumi only appear in one game whereas the Moomba are in multiple. I removed Dragons, Cactuar or Tonberry since they are detailed in Creatures of Final Fantasy. The end result is a comprehensive list of everything that appears in at least 2 games and is only 10 entries long. I left this page as it is so that we can merge the "one-fers", which I don't have time to do right now. --Daedalus 21:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

We might be able to add an others section if we find it difficult or impossible to do the one-fers merges. — Deckiller 22:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Since Moombas are the evolved form of some Shumis, shouldn't they be considered a sub-species of Shumis? Unless I forgot an important detail or something, I think Shumi should have its entry and Moomba would be a sub-entry of it. Kariteh 21:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Humes of FFXII

The subsection for FFXII Humes seems useless to me. There's nothing too significant about them that they should get extra attention when compared to other humans and the Humes of FFXI. So what if they're everywhere, a jack-of-all-trades, more diverse than other races, have members of other races in their society while other races usually only welcome the same race, and generally make up the leaders of the fictional world. Nearly every depiction of humans, even outside of FFs, has been the same or similar. --Jopasopa 16:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: I don't mean they shouldn't be mentioned at all. Personally I do think FFXI/FFXII Humes are slightly more significant than other humans in FFs and deserve a few sentences for each. Maybe a subsection for both Vana'dielian and Ivalice Humes? If anything, FFXI Humes are more significant than FFXII Humes, mostly because of their richer backstories and the fact that racial personalities and relationships play a rather big part in the game's storyline. --Jopasopa 16:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As rich as their backstory may be, that's just one game and therefore insignificant to the series as a whole. They are no more significant than humes/humans in any other game. That information would be more appropriate in a race section under FFXI main article, not here. --Daedalus 19:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. FFXII's humes deserve some special 2-paragraph mention even though racial difference in that game don't have much importance to the plot, they are just there (obvious exceptions being stuff like the viera and garif, but even then those are just for a segment of the game)? Meanwhile the races' personalities' and conflicts play a huge role to the game's storyline, as opposed to FFXII, where it is more national rather than racial. What I'm saying is that either both Humes should be mentioned, neither should be, or FFXI's Humes as opposed to FFXII's humes. --Jopasopa 00:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the entry on Humes of FFXII. Because I didn't play FFXI, I regard myself as having no knowledge about the Hume characteristics in FFXI. Seeing that most FFXI races are already there, except Humes, why shouldn't anyone who knows write one as well? Why suggest forsaking the FFXII humes just because the FFXI Humes are not there? Even if they are insignificant, they are a race nevertheless, and they are given special attention by the storymakers - just see the Hume entry in FFXII's official website. My views. 私はBluerfnです 05:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Red XIII/Aerith Crossbreed

I've changed the line at the end of Nanaki's section that said there was no indication that Hojo planned to crossbreed the two failing species to preserve them. It's readily apparent during the scene where you save Aeris and gain Red XIII that he did, as he puts them into the same holding tank and says he's doing them both a favor by saving their species, while Red XIII plays along until he can escape by acting as if he's going to pounce on Aeris. --4.254.118.210 07:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, it is clear that hojo intended Aerith to cross-breed with Red XIII in order to create a more long-lived specimen for future study, based on his comments at that moment, his comments in the boardroom meeting, and the simple logic that he would not knowingly sacrifice his research specimen to be devoured when he has just begun to study her. --Daedalus 15:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Human distinction

Is there a criteria to distinguish races from the "standard" humans? Is it based on physical features or something else? I was the one to merge several human-like races into the human subsection because I saw the Al Bhed there, but looking back I'm not sure what's better. If Cetra are considered humans, then perhaps the Zilart should too, since the only difference between both races and standard humans is the ability to "hear" what the latters can't... But then we'd pratically be putting everything under the human section. Kariteh 21:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I just did some merging and trimming of what other people have already placed there. I added ones that logically seemed to follow the existing pattern, but I was about to propose discussion of this very topic right before you beat me to the chase. --Daedalus 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Table of contents

I don't see an issue with the standard ToC. I recommend it be used instead. — Deckiller 16:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Moogle merging??

So I hear the Moogle article is going to be merged into this? Why should it be merged? Moogles have appeared in the Final Fantasy series (including Final Fantasy: Unlimited), the Kingdom Hearts series, the Seiken Densetsu/Mana series, the Chocobo games series, and Mario Hoops 3-on-3. They're clearly more than just a "Race of Final Fantasy", and as such I think they deserve their article. Kariteh 16:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Against merging. Moogles deserve their own article for their numerous appearances and roles in the series. And it does feel weird that Chocobo and Cactuar have their own articles, while Moogles don't. No for merging. Edit: forgot to sign, please forgive my manners. 私はBluerです 17:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Information creep has inflated the moogle entry in the races article to contain as much information as the main article. If a subsection can contain the same volume of information, then there is no reason to create a main page.
2. There was information in the main article that was not in the races section. While this is not normally a problem, there was also information in the section that was not in the main article. A reader should not have to go to multiple places to learn about the same topic, that is a bad thing. The merge creates only one location for information creep to occur so that it is not only consolidated, but immediately consistent as well.
3. While Moogles are certainly notable enough to warrant their own article, there was simply not enough encyclopedic information to warrant it. What we have is a paragraph or two discussing the topic, and a page and a half listing appearances. This is borderline directory material, and full of trivial fluff content. The amount of meaningful content is hardly enough to warrant a seperate article, and it is doubtful there will ever be more content beyond moogle's appearances and game-specific trivia.
4. Chocobo and Cactuar should also be merged into Creatures of Final Fantasy for all the same reasons as they are all little more that a description and a list of appearances. And if no one has merged them by the time I find to time to take a critical look at them, then I will merge them as well.

--Daedalus 20:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not merge. There was no link before the merge to the separate article; that might contribute to the "information creep". Anyway, it was the largest section on the page besides maybe the Humans section, and, yes, required trimming. It's been trimmed and the link is there now. --HeroicJay 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Correction, there was a link (I backed up to the wrong point), but most of the "information creep" happened after the merge anyway. It was just clutter, really, especially after the merge. --HeroicJay 21:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Go back and check again. I put together two different merges, the first one on the 15th, and before I performed the merge, the Moogle section under races was huge. So all of the information creep happened before the merge. There also was a link to the main article before that merge as well. Someone reverted without discussion the redirect on the main moogle page when I did the first merge, but they did not re-add the link in the races article, possibly leading to your initial misunderstanding. And what you refer to as "clutter", was the combined information found in both places merged into one, not only that, but if you check the history you will find that I did go back and trim a lot of it out. You are essentially mistaken on all of your points. --Daedalus 22:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I haven't been following the entire thing. Nevertheless, your argument for why it should be merged, as I see it, was that it was a lot of redundant information and that one or the other or both was poorly written. I agree with all of that to some degree, but don't see why that means they must be merged. --HeroicJay 23:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, poorly written and redundant it may be, but that's not my reason for merging. My primary reason for merging is that the entirety of the encyclopedic information on the main page fits within a couple paragraphs, and the rest of the page is filled with fluffed up formatting of appearances that once rewritten can fit within a single small paragraph. There basically just isn't enough meat to make a seperate article. --Daedalus 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Still, feels like something of a double-standard when we have an article about each of the 491 Pokemon species, or Koopas, but moogles, which have been in at least eight numbered FFs and many other games, including being playable characters in several, are out. --HeroicJay 23:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, it is something of a double-standard. My response to that is that those articles need to be trimmed. We need to define our practices based on guidelines, policy, and accepted practice of the Wikiproject, and not based on other examples that violate the no-trivia and no-directory clauses of our guidelines. --Daedalus 00:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Agree to merge; it is hard for Moogles to assert notability on their own; races as a whole, however, is another story. We are trying to prevent cruft and make sure the FF coverage is encyclopedic; I don't care if we have to break out the axe, we have to get this done per obvious reasons. — Deckiller 22:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You should really use more specific lead-ins. The "agree" above is against merging, and this one is for. --HeroicJay 23:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait. There was no consensus; there was barely a vote. It was 2-2. Why did you merge it then? --HeroicJay 01:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

All meaningful arguements are in favor of the merge. The arguements against merging are "Moogles deserve their own article" with no reasoning to back it up and comparisons to other articles. The arguments for merging are numerous and backed by policy: its content is trivial, it's brief and unlikely to become more expounded, content of the seperate articles are largely directory material, their individual notability as a seperate article has been questioned, the contents are largely cruft, etc. We are weighing arguments, not counting votes. Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Daedalus 16:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

But the only one who gave any original arguments against was you (Deckiller more-or-less repeated what you said) and you merged. Translation: you took initiative because you agreed with your own arguments. That's kind of unfair. --HeroicJay 05:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, you want a good argument? It's already been mentioned as a minor point, but I'll restate it: Moogles exist in games that are not Final Fantasy, and as more than just cameos in those games, so having them exist only on a page for "Races of Final Fantasy" is underplaying them. Unless you want to rename this page "Races of Square-Enix games" - in which case, good luck keeping its length under control. --HeroicJay 05:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• As policy states, Moogles can have their own article if they are the subject of two or more reliable secondary sources (excluding strategy guides, but they are not the subject of those anyway). So, if you can find IGN editor articles about them, New York Times articles, magazine articles, etc, and you can get 3+ Reliable Sources, then they might be able to warrent a seperate article. — Deckiller 11:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not what the notability guidelines say. That applies to web content; moogles are a fictional race. --HeroicJay 17:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm talking about WP:FICT and, more importantly, the policy of Wikipedia:Attribution. The former says that fictional articles must have some sort of out of unvierse perspective, and the latter states that all material must be attributable to a reliable source. Sure, Moogles may be able to have their own article, but it will be difficult to provide a significant (3+ points, as my example) out of universe perspective via attribution to a reliable source. In other words, notability may be obvious, but attribution and perspective may not be. Sure, we can say that Moogles have been cosplayed, but is there a reliable source to back that up? Currently, none have been found; therefore, we must limit coverage of moogles with the rest of this article; a description attributing sources that describe. If enough out of universe information that is attributable to a reliable source can be found to complement the in-universe description, then it will be able to stand on its own article. Policies and guidelines cannot be interpreted individually; the notability guidelines must be taken with all the other policies and guidelines, although policies always have a priority over guidelines. If a series of articles is weak in its adherence to all policies, then they are better off being kept together in a large article, which stands better on its own. — Deckiller 19:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Someone's gone and deleted the Moogle article on this page. Someone decide what you want to do; Deckiller is requesting research before contemplating a seperate article. For now, we at need the section back up here. Nagyss 23:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted, it was merged, if I understand your concern correctly. I know, because I merged it. All of the information that wasn't trivial or cruft is now present in the section in this article. Nothing is missing, in fact, there is more information in this section than there ever was in the original, seperate article. No back-up is necessary. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 02:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this "creature from several Square Enix game series" is now merged into this Races of "Final Fantasy" article. Kariteh 13:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Several Square-Enix game series"? Let's think about this:

1. Final Fantasy
2. Seiken Densetsu: a gaiden of Final Fantasy
3. Chocobo Series: a spin-off of Final Fantasy
4. Kingdom Hearts Series: a spin-off of both Final Fantasy and Disney

• Moogles' first appearance: Final Fantasy
• Series that they most often appear in: Final Fantasy
• Series that are not spin-offs/gaidens of Final Fantasy that they appear in: NONE

Conclusion: Moogles are a Final Fantasy Race that also appears in Final Fantasy Spin-offs/Gaidens. Let's not load our statements by implying that they should not be representative of specifically Final Fantasy, since they clearly are. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 17:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As a not-so-unrelated note, should we rename Square Enix battle systems to "Final Fantasy battle systems? That article describes ATB, CTB, and RTB/ADB, which are all battle systems representative of specifically Final Fantasy, despite having also been used in several non-FF games. Kariteh 21:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

By the same logic that I presented for Moogles, if it appears in games that are not gaidens/spin-offs of Final Fantasy, then no, it should remain as "Square Enix". But if it only appears in games that are gaidens/spin-offs of Final Fantasy, then my vote is yes, it should be renamed to "Final Fantasy". --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 22:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Seiken Densetsu is no longer classed as a gaiden/spin-off of Final Fantasy and is now recognised as the World of Mana series. Kingdom Hearts is not a Final Fantasy spin-off but it could be argued that moogles are only feature as a Final Fantasy cameo so that's a moot point. Antisora 16:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Kariteh has twice merged Chocobo into Creatures of Final Fantasy on the basis of "existing consensus." I see no such thing here. Now, I hold that it works better on its own due simply because there's too much content to fit in a section of Creatures of Final Fantasy, but enough for a separate article. Even assuming an unreasonably tight squeeze of the presently trim-needing appearances section, the chocobo section would be much larger than the others' and unwieldy. I see no reason why we shouldn't place a suitable overview on the creatures page, with a link to the separate article for those who seek specific information. That's what is currently done. --Kizor 21:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kariteh, and there is consensus. The same thing happened with Moogle, Races, Classes, certain characters, and other such articles. Currently, the Chocobo article is doing the exact same thing that they all did: it has very little actuall content, and a whole lot of trivial fluff in an over-exagerrated "appearances" section. But his move was a little premature, the Chocobo content needs to be reformatted and trimmed first, then merged after that. If no one else gets to it first, I will perform this task in three hours from now. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 16:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• • If sources can be found that describe the Chocobo's development, reception/criticism, and perhaps merchandise, then I'd bet it could stand on its own as an article. Otherwise, it belongs in the Creatures supserarticle that is infinitely greater than the sum of its parts. Same goes with Moogle and the others. — Deckiller 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have created a trimmed-down, reformatted version of the Chocobo Page to be included as a section for Creatures of Final Fantasy. My draft which can be found here is still quite large, so It'd be nice to get a few more eyes to go through it and remove what they feel is unnecessary and clean it up a bit before I perform the final merge. Also, any sourcing that you can provide would be much appreciated. All further discussion of this should occur in Talk:Creatures of Final Fantasy#Chocobo Merge and not here. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 19:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

We do have this mildly deranged advertisement, if that helps any. We can't ref youtube, but we could dig out the details of the advertisement elsewhere. --Kizor 07:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Other Races getting out of hand

Since my initial merge I have indicated that the other races section needs some more trimming, instead it has exploded with more info and images galore. The key here is that they are trivial because they only appear in one game. The goal of this article is to educate the reader on the types of races often seen in Final Fantasy, not bombard them with every little detail about every race that ever appeared as a single village in only one game! Most of the time there's only one notable member of those races, anyway. Please stop adding images and information. They should be trimmed to little more than mentions, not expanded. WP is not a gameguide. --Daedalus 20:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a good idea to create an image gallery instead of letting those pictures float there as a distraction to the text? edit: All right, no image gallery. Done, besides, removing the other trivial images. 私はBluerです 07:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That's fine by me, they really are trivial. I'm hoping that we can someday get the Other Races section down to just a few paragraphs at most for each game, but I don't see that happening overnight. --Daedalus 15:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The section on Occuria is much too large. I'd suggest maybe the first 2 sentences, as the rest constitutes plot points of FFXII and definite spoilers. It also doesn't explain anything about the race themselves - only one member's actions. Hakikev 01:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What's up with this "crusade against information"? It's not like Wikipedia will ever run out of space to put more text into it. In my opinion there should be as much information as possible about everything here, while avoiding redundancy, of course. The possibilities are limitless, so why hold back? If I was looking for information about the races of FF, I wouldn't want a page that merely mentions the names of the races, I'd want to know everything there is to know about them. SamSandy 10:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not an encyclopedia's job to mention every bit of information for every topic. An encyclopedia is meant to introduce the reader to all aspects of knowledge by synthesizing primary and secondary sources and providing a succinct overview. Otherwise, imagine how big some of our science sections would be, and so on. This also applies to fiction. When someone clicks "random article", they should get a topic, not an article like "Appearence of Moogles in Final Fantasy VI", or an unsourced page listing every detail. Not to mention the copyright violations of essensially retelling a story with the exact same detail. — Deckiller 10:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know every details and trivias about Final Fantasy, use the Final Fantasy Wikia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Kariteh 17:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Races versus creatures?

I'm looking at some of the entries on this list, and couldn't they be considered "creatures"? I'm thinking about proposing a rename of Creatures of Final Fantasy to Monsters of Final Fantasy, to better distinguish the two. Moogles are creatures, but not monsters; Humans are creatures, but not monsters; and chocobos are creatures that the player can fight, but they aren't usually hostile monsters. It's hard naming general gameplay subarticles and standardizing them. But this is some food for thought. — Deckiller 22:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what to think, but it seems the page has already been renamed without discussion. Kariteh 21:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just an idea to toss out there: what if we were to seperate them out as Monsters, Creatures and Races? This has the advantage of clearly defining what does and does not belong on the monster list, places a definite location for previously ambiguous creatures (example: Chocobo), as well as most other creatures are quite clearly either a Race or a Creature (example: Human, Elvaan). The disadvantages are twofold: 1) we are creating a third page, which in itself is not so bad and 2) many creatures are not quite so clear as to whether they are a race or creature (example: Moomba, Moogle), and there are still the odd-ones-out that can be argued to belong in all three catagories (example: Cactuar). It's rather arbitrary, but I'd basically seperate them out based on either their level of cultural advancement (not to be confused with intelligence) or their socio-political involvement/influence in their worlds. --Daedalus 20:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

We're bound to make arbitrary separations in all cases, since Square never bothered separating their beings into clearly defined types to begin with. I believe Daedalus' culture suggestion is the best so far though. We can just have "Creatures" and "Races", with the proposed distinction. In "Races", we would precise that the beings described are the beings who generally form populations that have a visible and advanced culture. In "Creatures", we'd precise that the beings described are the animals, monsters, and intelligent beings who generally don't have any culture. Moombas don't have any cultures, so they'd go in Creatures (unlike Shumi!). Moogles don't really show any culture in III and maybe even VI, but they certainly do in XI, XII, TA, CC, KH, etc. (i.e. the majority of the games), so they'd go in Races. Chocobos do show a culture in IX (Chocobo's Air Garden ruled by Fat Chocobo or something), but they generally don't in the series so they'd go in Creatures (the word "generally" is important in the precisions). We may also be able to couple these reasonings with the socio-political influence distinction, but I'm not sure, first because the culture distinction is enough, and second because Lufenians for instance don't really influence their world much despite having a definite culture and stuff. Kariteh 23:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I switched creatures to monsters a while back. Also moogles have a culture in the III remake for DS> Almighty Rajah 23:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Still means nothing compared to the majority of the game. XI, XII, TA, CC, KH, etc. Kariteh 09:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So, do you all agree to rename Monsters of FF to Creatures of FF and putting some sort of brief explanation in the intro? It's just a shame to have those 2 big Monsters and Races articles and yet Chocobo in neither of them. Kariteh 18:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay since everyone agrees, I'm renaming the stuff. Kariteh 22:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

...Can an admin do it? I can't since the page Creatures of FF already exists (as a redirect). Kariteh 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Al Bhed

Are we quite sure that they ARE human? At least in the game, they only use "human" to refer to the common, non Al-bhed, non-Guado, non-etc. stock - Yuna is even said to be half human, half Al-Bhed. Of course, they are humanoid, and they can mate with humans, but so can the clearly inhuman Guado. The game seems to seperate them as much as it does the Guado, so why not say that they are their own race/species? 128.211.175.104 22:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say yes, they are human. To me, it seems that the game makes the distinction more between Al Bhed and Yevonite than it does between Al Bhed and Human, implying that the main difference is religious. It is an ambiguous issue, though. --Daedalus 15:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And yet, it says that Yuna is half-Al Bhed, even while she is a devout Yevonite. And in FFX-2, where she is almost totally following anything that could be called an Al Bhed "religion", she is still not an Al Bhed. Yes, there is obviously a religious component to the race, but due to the more relaxed rules against interspecies breeding in FF games, that is understandable. The Al Bhed are still treated as "as seperate" as Guado are.74.140.118.84 16:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's comparable to Jews. They are a religion, and yet they are also an ethnicity, so someone can be half-jewish. Why can't the same apply to Al Bhed? Al Bhed is an ethnicity, and it is a religious difference (though, in this scenario it is a lack of a specific religion), thus someone can still be half-Al Bhed. Yuna is half-Al Bhed, but full Yevonite because she is ethnically half-yevonite, but completely a member of the religion. The same could be said about someone who is half-jewish and full Christian. Their mother was jewish, their father was Christian, they are ethnically half-jewish, yet completely full Christian in religion. The game is very ambiguous about this distinction, so I feel this jewish comparison is relevant as a possible interpretation. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 16:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So wouldn't the Guado count as an ethnicity as well?74.140.118.84 15:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Technically yes, but they are also a seperate race. The game makes it clear that they are as seperate a species as are the Ronsos. It just so happens that they are interbreedable with humans, that's all. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 15:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

But how are the Al Bhed not a seperate race? Wasn't the argument above that it was comparable to a mere ethnic difference, and so how would that not apply for Ronso and Guado as well? Basically, what defines a "race" in these games? All of them seem to be interbreedable, to the most part, so species is non-applicable. We even have a race of summoners that merely have a horn on their head to differentiate them - shouldn't a consistency in different eye structure and hair color also count?KrytenKoro 14:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Any specific definition we come up with is OR and does not reflect the facts of the game, simply because the game does not give a clear definition. However, we can base our decisions on degree of difference. Hair and eye structure are very minor, despite these differences they still look like humans. Ronsos don't even look like primates, there's now way they could be human. Guados do look like primates, but their proportions are extremely different than that of a human, and it can be safely assumed that they are not human. Al Bhed do not have such physical distinctions. If the designers intended the Al Bhed to be non-human, then why would they make them look so similar? This isn't Star Trek where racial differences are dependent upon budget and time constraints, this is a video game where they could look as exotic as the designers want without limitation. And if you'll notice, the summoners are listed under the Humans Category just like the Al Bhed are. You'll also notice that article does not call them "humans", but rather the ambiguous "other human-like races". --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 19:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not refer to them as a human subspecies? After all there are some physical differences between an Al-Bhed and a human (the spiral iris), so it's not just the fact that they speak their own language. HalfShadow 21:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue is unsolvable because the games themselves don't state exactly whether Al Bhed are a distinct "species" or not. Since the developers didn't clear the vagueness, we can't clear it in their places. I think "Human-like races" is the safest way to go; we're stating that they (and other races) look mostly human, but we're not claiming what's their exact status. Kariteh 22:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Issue with this page

In looking at all the "by game" races; this should probably be turned into a 5 paragraph section outlining the races briefly. Details belong in their respective articles or subarticles (like Spira (Final Fantasy X) and Terminology of Final Fantasy VI, and so on). That'll really help the problem. — Deckiller 01:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, they need to be trimmed to mere mentions. --Daedalus 15:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ordering by world?

Is there perhaps any way we could order them by world, as that would be more biologically applicable?

For example: Races of Ivalice
Races of Spira
Races of Gaia and Terra
Races of Vana'diel

and then (correct me if these have real names, or if you just want to say Races of FFI, etc.)

Races of Earth (I)
Races of Earth (II)
Races of Earth (III)
Races of Earth (IV)
Races of Earth (V)
Races of Earth (VI)
Races of Earth (VII)
Races of Earth (VIII)
Races of Earth (CC)

Since the races of linked games would pretty much be the same, or if not, intertwined?74.140.118.84 15:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

C'est agreeable, now that you mention it, races are sometimes defined by the countries or nations they live in, say Japanese to Japan, Chinese to China, multi-ethnicity also share the same countries like United States or Malaysia. The only issue I see so far is the Moogles, because they appear almost in every game, and Ivalice their appearance differs from the usual. We could sort them by world, and the rest by game. Bluerです。 ^なにか? 17:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well to make myself more clear - All of the Ivalice races are intricately related, so it would make sense to group them together. And even though in some of the Ivalice games (Tactics, Advance, Sealed Grimoire) certain races may be missing, they are still part of the background, so it makes sense to have them together instead of in "Races of Tactics" "Races of Tactics Advance and Sealed Grimoire"

Basically - I wasn't so much talking nationality as continuity. Viera and Nu Muo belong to basically the same continuity, so shouldn't they be grouped together?KrytenKoro 21:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

So what is the consensus? Should it be grouped by world, or other methods?? Bluerです。 ^なにか? 06:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

But how do you keep the Main races / Other races hierarchy if you switch to a by-world ordering? Kariteh 14:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides Moogle and Human, there's not really true main races, is there? At least, the other races that appear in multiple games still don't have much if any impact (Dwarves are a side-nation, not a main one). After that, just order in the games main through uncommon races.KrytenKoro 22:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Dwarf is included as a "main race." They exist in 5 continuities: I, III, IV, V and IX. We can add to the list a section of "races in multiple continuities" or something like that. Kinda like this:

Common Races

Races of Earth (I)

Races of Earth (II)

Races of Earth (III)

Races of Earth (IV)

Races of Earth (V)

Races of Earth (VI)

Races of Gaia (VII)

Races of Earth (VIII)

Races of Gaia and Terra (IX)

Races of Spira (X)

Races of Vana'diel (XI)

Races of Ivalice (XII, T, TA)

Races of Earth (CC)

--—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 15:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant is that Dwarves aren't really as important to the story (or even the history) as Humans and Moogles usually are. For example, in III, it's basically - Hey, somebody stole this item, go get it back. And even then, you're not getting it back specifically to help them, you're getting it back to get to the Fire Crystal. You understand?

Oh! Wasn't the world called Centra in FFVIII? And I was sure that Crystal Chronicles called it something too, though I might be wrong. Is there any way to check? (r at least, have a a default "Races of FF"x" until Square maybe reveals it for whichever games aren't explicit?KrytenKoro 15:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Centra was a civilization in FFVIII, it's not the world's name. Bluerです。 ^なにか? 16:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So, this is what I know so far (meaning what I have personally played):
(~ means we know them to be a true other species, not just a race)

edit: Okay, I removed races that are already on the page

Races of FFIII:

Gnome~

Viking?

Fairy~

Races of VII:

Gi?

Races of VIII:

Pupu~

Cactuar~

Centra

Races of Spira:

Those musical guys

Whatever the hell Tobli is

Cactuars~? I forget if they were a true race in this one.

Races of Ivalice:

Where did we get the Helga and Rebe names from? It's definitely not in the game, and there's no sources listed, so I can't find out if it's somehow from Square. The googled pages definitely say it's not on the official site, and so far none of them say where they DID get the names, so it could likely be that someone came up with the names on one site and noone questioned him (This is convincing to me since many of the sites have the exact same text, indicating straight copying).

Races of Wonderland:

Cactuar~

Chocobo~?

Lupus?

Fungo's Race

Toad Sage's Race

Fabula's Race

Should we also include races of Kingdom Hearts on here, or at least the non-Disney races? Are there even any of them besides Human and Moogle?

KrytenKoro 16:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to be listing this here, it's only going to clutter up the discussion page. The races are already divided into their respective worlds/continuities in the article under the large "other races" section, we would only have to change the section names. Aside from Dwarf, Human, Moogle and Moomba the rest would compose "Races of Ivalice", and "Moomba" requires a little more discussion, but only IF we decide to reorganize in this way.

As a side note, I used "Earth" for the worlds that I didn't know the name of, so they might be wrong. And yes, I understand that dwarves aren't as prominent in the stories, but they are still races that appear in 5 out of 12 continuities (counting main numbered series, not all the gaidens), almost half the main games is certainly a significant number of appearances, prominent or not. And there are also so few races that exist in multiple continuities (4 total counting moomba) that it really isn't going to clutter the article to just list them all together under "Common Races", and such a grouping would be a much more convenient organization than trying to split up the dwarves among different continuities. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 16:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Still, I don't really think that Dwarves should be listed together - are they really even the "same" race in each game, or merely named the same? I guess if it's named "common races", then it would work - "main races" seems to imply that they are usually near-central to the story, when they're really not.

As for Moombas - what games do they appear in that aren't FFVIII? Chocobo World is an extension of FFVIII, and I wouldn't really call Chocobo Racing a game-game. More an extended minigame. Even then, wouldn't it just be another extension of FFVIII?

But seriously, Moombas should just be listed under Shumi, since that's what they are.

Okay, I looked again at FFVIII, and their world is definitely Centra. At least, the "nation" of Centra covered the entire world present in FFVIII, which I think should be basically the same thing.KrytenKoro 20:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Dwarves are as much the same race in every game as the Chocobos are, which change in design just as much as the dwarves do.

Even though they are never encountered in the game, Yuna's Mascot dresssphere is a Moogle suit with a Moomba doll, showing that Moombas exist (at least in concept) in Spira. That's why Moomba would require discussion should we make this orgizational change.

Since Moombas are in one game and referenced in another, and Shumis are only in one game, it can be argued that Shumi should be under Moomba, another reason that Moombas should be discussed in a seperate thread.

Look at your words. "The 'nation' of Centra covered the entire world present in FFVIII." Doesn't that mean that it's the name of a nation, not the world? Also I clearly remember there being multiple nations in VIII, you know: Balamb, Galbadia, Esthar, etc...

--—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 22:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Having made the change to the proposed Organization, this article has now become an indiscriminate list and has a whole lot of potential for filling with cruft per info creep. I recommend we consider moving all of this information into the individual games articles, and only include Human, Dwarf, Moogle and possibly Moomba (depending on a seperate discussion) in this article. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 22:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I knew and said it ;) We can't keep a hierarchy if we have a by-world ordering. I think moving races to some other articles is a good idea. The races of Ivalice could definitely fit somewhere in the Ivalice article for instance. Races of Spira would go in Spira, races of FFI, II, etc. may even not be moved at all and scrapped, since the individual games articles (plot sections) are enough to know there were mermaids and elves and those kind of minor folks. Kariteh 22:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Since our experiments in editing have proven Kariteh's concern, we have two options as I see it.

1. We move all of the sections to their individual games, leaving only the 3 (or 4) Common Races remaining.
2. We revert all of our reorganizations and go back to an heirarical setup like we had before.

I'm currently leaning towards Option 1. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 23:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Moombas: I don't think that an allusion in FFX actually counts as them being a race in Spira - Moogle, Pupu, and Onion Knight also appeared in a similar use in those games, but did not actually occur as characters - one of them was a minor character even in VIII! And every games that Moogles naturally appear in (not as supernatural entities ala FFVII or VIII), they were major races.

As for the hierarchy - it didn't really seem that different from what we have now - recurring characters at the top. I will say that it seemed unfairly biased towards FFXII. For example , Nu Muo hardly even appeared in FFXII, yet were counted as major races. It would be reasonable to have the races on some kind of info page for each game. Not the game's page itself, but it's side-pages.

So, basically, I really don't see how the hierarchy is any different here - the races that appear more than once are at the top and listed as recurring, while those that appear only in specific games are at the bottom and not treated with such undue import. I actually think we've improved the hierarchy here. In fact, all that's really been done is move some of the "main races" that didn't really deserve to be there.

"Dwarves are as much the same race in every game as the Chocobos are, which change in design just as much as the dwarves do

Chocobos seem to do the same thing in every game - provide transport and eat gysahl greens. Minor artistic variations were not quite what I was aiming at - I was thinking more like the difference between Disney and Tolkien dwarves. I've not played I, IX, or IV very much, so I don't know if they truly are different, but they do sound like it in places.

"Look at your words. "The 'nation' of Centra covered the entire world present in FFVIII." Doesn't that mean that it's the name of a nation, not the world? Also I clearly remember there being multiple nations in VIII, you know: Balamb, Galbadia, Esthar, etc..."

There were two nations - Balamb was a region. Dollet and Esthar, I think, were the "nations" - and they were both continents, weren't they? As for Centra - it was what the entire known world was known as, at the time that it's people still lived. I think it still was known as Centra during the events of the game, but I might be mistaken. I guess it doesn't matter that much.KrytenKoro 01:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made a very bold proposal to resolve this. Because it affects several articles, it can be found (and should be discussed) HERE. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 02:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Human" vs. "Hume"

How many use "human"? I mean, if there are more that actually say human, then fine, but if human isn't used, then Hume is obviously much more appropriate.KrytenKoro 21:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Since that quote is from my edit summary, I'll respond:

IV: King: "Edge... We are no longer humans... We no longer belong here."

V: Butz: "Lenna! The Hiryuu weed is extremely poisonous to humans!!"

VI: Edgar: But no HUMAN is born with the powers you seem to have, and..."

VII: Tifa: "...animal? That's terrible! Aerith is a human being!"

VIII: Ifrit: "For me to lose to a human... Very well, I will join you."

IX: Vivi: "Um...... Y-Yeah... But... But I have to... I have to find out who I am... I'm scared... What if I'm not even human...?"

X: Al Bhed 2: "Y fiend! Eh risyh teckieca! Oac! Ed ec cu! (A fiend! In human disguise! Yes! It is so!)"

XI: Hume

XII: Hume

Though I can't prove it quite yet, I'm pretty sure I II and III also used "human" in dialogue. Hopefully that settles it. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 14:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

II: The Emperor: I expected you'd say as much. Reluctance to forgive has long been a human failing. Bluerです。 ^なにか? 14:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Just an unrelated question - in VII, did Tifa not yet know that Aerith was a Cetra?KrytenKoro 17:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it was already revealed earlier in the game by Elmyra that the Turks were looking for her because she was a Cetra. This comment by Tifa can be interpreted a couple of ways. 1) Cetra are a culture of humans that happened to have a link to the lifestream. 2) It was meant to convey that Aerith is a "person" and not just an unfeeling beast. It's also important to note that Aerith's father was Dr. Gast, a full-blooded human, so calling her a human is just as correct as calling her a Cetra. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 18:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Races in Ivalice/Crystal Chronicles

The Ivalician races section is really, really, crowded- it's a bit painful to try and read.

As an aside, I do believe it says in the Crystal Chronicles strategy guide that all four "races" are offshoots of Humans. Let me check on that. ShiraShira 03:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That may be - but they are seperate races now, with a clear identity. As for the Ivalician races - we could maybe put more space between each paragraph, but other than that, there's just a lot of species in the games.KrytenKoro 03:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of species, but are all of them notable? Kariteh 08:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, WP:Notability. Perhaps that's why even the official pages of the game listed only five races: Hume, Viera, Bangaa, Moogle, Seeq. 12:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the Nu Mou, now- they played a big role in FFTA. Should the Rukavi from FFT/A be moved to the monster list? ShiraShira 15:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If some of these races are only in one Ivalice game, I say they are too trivial to mention and should be removed. But the only Ivalice game I'm familiar with is XII, so it's really up to someone else to know what races don't belong. As far as CC goes, it can also be said that chihuahuas are an ofshoot of dogs, but they are still a seperate race/species than German Shepherds. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 17:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole chihuahua analogy resolves the CC question- Nu Mou feature in FFTA and FFXII. The Rukavi play a large role in FFT and only one of them makes a cameo in FFTA. Seeqs are new with FFXII, but I hear they will feature in Revenant Wings and FFTA-2, so they're sound.

Would it be better to use the conventional Nu Mou art as opposed to the rasterized pictre of Mackenroe? ShiraShira 17:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Lucavi are a band of demons associated with the Zodiac, they're not really a race. Kariteh 17:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

They are unified by their common creation, and excluding their obvious morphological differences, they are functionally the same.

As for only one Rukavi in FFTA - weren't the Totema all Rukavi, too? They appeared in mostly the same shape in FFXII (I think the only ones actually changed, and minor at that, were Exodus and Mateus).KrytenKoro 17:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

They are precisely too unified to constitute a race. As far as Wikipedia should go, they're really just characters. We can't say much about them as a race apart from describing FFT or FFXII's plot. Kariteh 17:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, Lucavi/Rukavi/Totema/Espers are no more a race than Aeons are. Aeons are functionally the same, but are simply summons and not a race, so too should the Lucavi be removed from this article. However the Ivalice system is very quickly becoming quite major in terms of the series as a whole, and perhaps Lucavi should be described in detail in the Ivalice article, and mentioned in the Final Fantasy magic#Summoning Magic section with a link to Ivalice? --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 18:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, see, the Totema were named after Rukavi- they were a different kind of entity entirely. The summons in XII are the same kind of being as TA's Totema. Either way, though, the Totema and Rukavi are both astral beings and merit further categorization.ShiraShira 18:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Everybody agreed with Δαίδαλος's bold proposal anyway, so I'm not sure what's this debate about. This page will soon not exist anymore, so the Lucavi/Totemas/Espers should definitely be moved to Ivalice. Kariteh 18:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Weren't they all sealed within crystals in all 3 games? And they were all demons as well, weren't they? The biggest difference I can see is that they needed hosts in FFT - but even then, Zodiark was able to manifest on his own - perhaps in FFTA they are hosted by the entire race they represent (as in, each member devotes a small amount of their essence) or something similar. A gestalt, if you will. I don't know, though. As for Aeons - weren't they all just Hume's, though, that had been transformed? And not originally demons, as the Rukavi were?KrytenKoro 18:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Does Δαίδαλος still want to do his proposal? He went through and re-edited all those headers to make this one more readable - would he have needed to that if he still wanted to go ahead?KrytenKoro 18:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The header reorganization started with you, I simply helped streamline them so that they were consistant. My idea for the proposal came to me only after observing the final result of our changes, when I noticed that we only had 3 recurring races. Of course I still want to put my proposal through, especially now that it has uniform consensus, I'm just giving it a little more time to give everyone a chance to see and comment on it. If by tomorrow there is no change in discussion or consensus, then I will start implementing my proposed changes. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 18:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is this info gone?

Why is everything on this page gone now? I thought it was extremely good information, and now it is all gone for no good reason.

If you don't know the reason, don't pretend it's "not a good reason". Everything has been discussed right above here. Just read. Kariteh 07:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Since my proposal has been archived, it has been moved HERE. Essentially all of the races were moved into their respective games' articles and the only one left was moogle, which can be found in Common themes of Final Fantasy. This article no longer has a purpose. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 15:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be the slight problem that there is no racial information in any of the final fantasy articles except for the tidbits I found in the character sections. So why was this article deleted, again?

It's unencyclopedic to have a page about the races for every final fantasy game, when they could be mentioned in their respective articles instead. — Deckiller 20:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no racial info in any article?? There's frigging no racial info in any article??!?

Common elements of Final Fantasy#Recurring elements

Final Fantasy I#Setting

Final Fantasy II has no races

Final Fantasy III#Setting

Final Fantasy IV#Races

Final Fantasy V#Setting

World of Final Fantasy VI#Espers

Gaia (Final Fantasy VII)#Demography

World of Final Fantasy VIII#Creatures and races

Final Fantasy IX#Setting

Spira (Final Fantasy X)#Creatures and races

Vana'diel#Races

Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles#Races

Ivalice#Demography

Kariteh 20:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fran.jpg

Image:Fran.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Moogle FFXI.jpg

Image:Moogle FFXI.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)