Talk:Yuna (Final Fantasy)

Geez, the reception section here is such a mess

Anyway, if someone would actually try and rewrite it, here is some more NOTABLE reception (instead of stupid "she looks like ..." opinions on random websites and such):

• Tom's Games [1]
• GamesRadar [2]
• The Inquirer [3] (also Tidus)
• Complex [4] (also Paine)

--Barry Sandwich (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Then be bold-Tintor2 (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not "mine" article, so you be bold. --Barry Sandwich (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody owns an article in wikipedia.Tintor2 (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Also [5] (UGO.com). --Barry Sandwich (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the necroing - or if this is the appropriate spot to comment - but I would like to add a voice of support for revamping the reception area, especially the paragraph RE: the mixed reaction to the X-2 visuals. That's a strong leading paragraph, but very few of the citations are actually about that, or even given proper structure with "X liked it, saying '(stuff)'. Y did not, saying '(other stuff)'" I would think it would be also appropriate to focus this section as one argument versus another - like "they were meant to look more playful and free" versus "their new look is demeaning and very fan-service" - rather than just some dude in an article crowing "THEY LOOK SO HOT." An examination of an argument - or better yet a discussion - that has merit, where some creep drooling about a sexy game character is not worthwhile. MakinBaconPancakes (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Okinawan kimono? KIMONO of Okinawa style does not exist.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SdA_Z-aRPsw/SxTAIyN627I/AAAAAAAAABU/6f0ULnWBdW4/s1600/hakama2.jpg

http:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Mariko%27s_Graduation_%2796.jpg

It is style of HAKMA obviously. HAKAMA is Japanese clothing(not Okinawa style).

A developer is a Japanese. The Japanese knows HAKAMA by all means. Would a fan make the word "Okinawan kimonos"(LOL)?

61.214.5.118 (talk) 07:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

A centralized discussion whether we should use video games as sources for voice actors in this article is taking place here. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Just no refs in the leads altogether. --Niemti (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section on how to use citations in the lead section. Also, per the relevant guideline, "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

When Advent Children got de-GAd, presence of refs in the lead was one of the reasons. (And I only then noticed how FAs are like that.) --Niemti (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

At least we should use few or none citations to comply with WP:LEADCITE. However, the guideline states that there is not an exception to citation requirements specific to leads, as this is a non-controversial article. As such, you are free to add a few citations. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Better just run a fine copyedit through this article because I suck at English tenses. --Niemti (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Since I am a good copyeditor, I am going to copyedit the article myself. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Reception too. --Niemti (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

By "copyedit", I didn't mean "revert all my work, then keep reverting". --Niemti (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

STOP IT. --Niemti (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Please calm down. It would be more helpful if you were more civil. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So don't revert my work when I asked you to do "a fine copyedit". If I wanted you to "go and revert all my edits, and keep reverting", I'd say this, but I asked to correct any grammar errors. --Niemti (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

And you can still do it now. --Niemti (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sjones23 said he was going to copyedit the article and nobody disagreed so wait for him to finish before editing to avoid edit conflicts.Tintor2 (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I asked him to do a copyedit, and then I even asked him to do "Reception too". I just didn't ask him to start by reverting all of my (prior) edits, and then to keep reverting them, without discussing or even not explaining anything. And that's a disruption. --Niemti (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I had to revert some of the edits, because I felt some of them were tedious and had spelling errors. I have no intention of disruption in anyway, but I don't want people to interfere with copyedits, so please wait until I finish before editing to avoid edit conflicts. I am requesting a GOCE copyedit as well to see if others can help. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much complete. Unlike Rikku. --Niemti (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

GA revamp

Here's what we need to do to get this article revamped for GA:

• Lead - must be expanded to three or four paragraphs.
• Creation and development - find anything on voice acting and how they got into it. Also, expand upon the development section with information from other staff members as well.
• Reception section - needs to be expanded with FFX reviews, and we should mention reviewer names for websites. See Raiden (Metal Gear) and Cloud Strife for examples.
• Copyedit - even though it is done, just another run through should do.

Any other comments would be appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope on "reviewer names for websites". Because I didn't do it to make Kratos A-class (Kratos (God of War)). Raiden and Cloud use the names only because someone placed them and might be as well all removed because it's all redunant (the names are all in the references already), they're not requisite for anything. --Niemti (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I think reviewers are notable and I am discussing about this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Reception to seek others' opinions about it. I feel that we should just at least mention them in the body of the article to explain unfamiliar readers of the article. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion what makes a GA, and I showed you how I ACTUALLY made an A (which is higher than GA). Reviewers are notable when they have their articles (and the policy that you just linked as "notable" refers precisely to this notability needed for any subject to have an own article). --Niemti (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I have already moved the discussion to WT:CVG to seek more opinions there. Please wait until I speak with them. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You sure love debating. --Niemti (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, lets just nip this in the bud here- you both love debating. Also! The proper way to reference reviews is "Joe blah of IGN said" not "IGN said" as IGN can't say anything, it has no mouth. Since apparently this is how we're determining correctness in this discussion: I have 8 FAs and 61 GAs. The goal is to make the article the best it can be, not just blindly adhere to only what is explicitly stated in the GA guidelines. --PresN 18:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, PresN. Since I feel that he is the sockpuppet of the now unbanned user HanzoHattori, I am just trying to calm him down and give him a few tips. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What "feel"? It's a new and now only account and I don't use any other. --Niemti (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

While you are here with good faith, it would have helped if you behaved more civil and not be disruptive. However, if you continue to behave inappropriately, it would likely result in your account being blocked again. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

And then you start your usual talk again. And thanks for "trying to calm me down and give me a few tips", that's now patronising at all, and I'm so new to this, never edited an article like that before, you know? Except every single one of them (literally). --Niemti (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Also the lead is already "expanded to three or four paragraphs". More precisely, to three. --Niemti (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

And the actual problems were all listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Yuna_(Final_Fantasy)/1 --Niemti (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

These were already addressed by other users as well. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

And it was years ago. But you're just making artifictial and even completely non-existing "problems", like demanding an expansion to 3 paragraphs after expanding to 3 paragraphs. Just nominate it already. --Niemti (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I am just giving some ideas and tips on how to improve it. Also, there is no deadline. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

By expanding 3 paragrpahs to 3 paragrpahs? Yeah. Also, just go and nominate it. They will tell what did change in the requirements since 2008 that's not there (if anything), and you can nominate it again later anyway. Jesus mate, you just love them talk page talks don't you. --Niemti (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Please drop it already, as this is getting out of hand really quick. Again, there is no deadline. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh. I came here expecting to just roll my eyes and close the tab, but this is actually really good for a character article, good job to both of you. Here's what I would ding it for at a GA review, just from a short look:

• It needs a copyedit scrubbing- you have a few awkward sentences, like this one: "However, due to Tidus' being the product of the Fayth who could not depart until Sin's defeat, in the game's ending, Yuna is separated from Tidus who disappears." (Try: "In the game's ending, however, Tidus disappears as he is the product of the Fayth, who could not depart until Sin's defeat.", or split it into two sentences.)
• You have a few refs that are just bare links, so that needs cleaning up. Also, stick to one date format- either 2012-08-02 or August 2, 2012, but not both. I also prefer to link all the occurrences of publishers like IGN, but even if you don't, link the first instance at least.
• You need more reception on FFX compared to FFX-2.
• Whatever information you can find on the voice acting- it was the first FF game with VAs, so you should at least have some reception.
• Whenever reception is done, the lead paragraph that's summarizing it should have a bit more than the two sentences you have now. You don't need 4 paragraphs, but the lead should fully cover that section of the article. --PresN 18:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I am working on it in my sandbox. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There are NO bare URLs here (Wikipedia:Bare URLs is something entirely different than you seems to think it is). Internal links should not be repeated after the first time in the main body. The voice acting reception, and for both games, is in the article already. --Niemti (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As I do not want to get into a fight, please let me explain the bare links more clearly: what PresN is trying to say is that the bare links must be formatted using {{cite web}}. As for the voice acting, we should find whatever we can find, other than the reception. Make sense? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Here, I'll be more precise. Problems with references:

• Ref 9- you dropped the "game" bit of the reference from refs 2-8.
• Refs 1, 10-13 - date format is different than refs 2-9.
• Ref 17 - This is what I meant by bare url. You are technically correct; it has a title. Still needs publisher and access date, at minimum, and author if you've got it.
• Ref 27, 28, 30 - are in a completely different format than all of the other refs.
• Refs 26-28, 30 - date format
• Ref 32 - bare title link
• Ref 38-42, 44 - author missing
• Ref 41 - use url= and archiveurl=, don't just throw in (archived)
• Refs 46-49 - date format

Also, there's no reception on the voice acting in FFX, just FFX-2. --PresN 19:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That'll work. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Reference reformat has been completed. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope- ref 10, 11, 16, 25 need author, ref 35 is wonky, ref 38 has wrong date format. --PresN 19:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, right... I'm still working on it. By the way, is FF Shrine considered a reliable source? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It sure is, because it's actually from IGN, lol. Original source. --Niemti (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we should just use the IGN source used by the FF Shrine, as fansites are not generally reliable sources. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you're demanding. Anyway, while you're here. Could you take a look at a few other articles like that and list any potential problems that are unrelated to imperfect formatting of references (which I don't think is all that important)? For now and for a future reference. Like Taki (Soulcalibur). --Niemti (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am. Like I said, I prefer to make articles the best they can be, not just do the bare minimum needed to get a green plus sign- and at this point I'm basically doing a GA review for this article. If I see a problem, even if it's not the biggest deal, I'm going to mention it. As to Taki- it's basically fine, only concerns are that the "In video games" section is too detailed- the first three paragraphs, really, are so long that they should be 5 paragraphs, which is a bit much. Try to condense those down to about half that length if you can. The lead needs to actually summarize the whole article- while specific paragraph counts aren't a great metric, it should probably by 2-3 paragraphs, and cover all the sections in the article. As to the reception... while I suppose it's just reflecting what the sources say, is there nothing out there that isn't falling all over her? Nothing that complains that she's just a walking pair of breasts? Maybe there isn't, but it feels kind of unbalanced right now. --PresN 20:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose an easier way would be just having sections such as "video games" and "other merchandise" instead of "in [put media here]". Since "Appearances" already implies the "in" on the section title.Lucia Black (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There is that and there are some boob jokes, but really rarely anyone's going Anita Sarkeesian on Taki. They usually target Ivy instead (and even Google will search for Ivy when you try to search for Taki in Soulcalibur - no, really). And what about the one-shot characters such as Sniper Wolf, when the subject's scope is so limited? Or the character-less characters, like Dark Queen? --Niemti (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you have the sources you have, I suppose. As to Sniper Wolf and Dark Queen- that's the problem with character articles; sometimes (most of the time) there's just not enough sources out the to flesh out an article. Then it's a judgement call for if the article should stand alone or be merged into the parent game's article- not every character needs it's own article, even if it can stand on it's own technically. That's why we have the "list of characters in X" articles. Don't forget about google book search, especially for older characters- sometimes you can find something there. --PresN 20:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe something more on topic, Yuffie Kisaragi. How would you rate it? --Niemti (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are some suggestions that I have: The lead section should be 3-4 paragraphs, so far it has only a single paragraph. Also, the creation and conception section needs to be expanded upon, this also includes a section devoted to the voice actors. As what PresN said, the lead section needs to actually summarize the article. You may find whatever information you can find on the voice acting, other than the reception section which may also include reception on the voice actors themselves. Hope this helps. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This is getting kind of offtopic since it's about this article's state. Regarding Mayuko Aoki's work there's a DVD called The Other Side of Final Fantasy (included with the Japanese version of FFX) that contains interviews with the Japanese cast. However, I can't find a translation. There are also the three FFX Ultimania guidebooks that contain information about them. However, I've had the same problem.Tintor2 (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What Yuffie really needs is to have her KH appearances sourced. Not sure how to do it, probably involves some quotes or whatever. When you're done with it here you can do it there. --Niemti (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll see if I can reference and/or trim Yuffie's article later.Tintor2 (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Please not get off topic niemti. You have been told already. Anyways. Is the b-list accurate? The article looks good enough to be B-class. But maybe i am missing something. Or are we just planning to go straight GAN without giving it B first?Lucia Black (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The A-class thread

Because apparently it's needed to be started, so be it. --Niemti (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I Support A-Class. --JDC808 ♫ 16:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the sources brought up by Teancum have not been replaced (yet), I retract my support. --JDC808 ♫ 01:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What makes the following sources reliable: FLAREGamer, PlayStation Universe, Complex.com, Tom's Games, Manolith? --Teancum (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, major website, major magazine, major website, I don't know. --Niemti (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

After a check of reliable sources, FLAREGamer, Complex.com, and Manolith are neither listed as reliable or unreliable. PlayStation Universe and Tom's Games are under the check list of sources to be discussed for approval. --JDC808 ♫ 21:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You know this list is really outdated and rarely/never updated, right? And ridicalously selective (like having only 1 Amiga magazine - what, there were no more "reliable" Amiga magazines, other than Amiga Power?). I have no idea what FLAREGamer is (a blog by some gamer girls or something), Manolith is a minor website self-published by nobodies, but Complex is a major professional magazine. --Niemti (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the list is regularly updated based on discussions on the sources talk page. If you have issue with established sources please suggest new sites on that page--at that point we can see if they're reliable. I definitely can pass Complex.com, after digging harder it's definitely established enough. PlayStation Universe I'd have to say fails given their community journalism program and the nobody staff. That being said, I'm willing to pass A class *if* The FLAREGamer, PlayStation Universe, Tom's Games and Manolith sources are replaced with something more reliable. --Teancum (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Really? And yet PlayStation Universe is good enough for both Metacritic and Game Rankings. Tom's Games is really Tom's Hardware. And I refuse to take seriously a list acording to which, for example, all but one professional Amiga magazines were supposedly "unreliable" - that's just silly. --Niemti (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Metacritic and GameRankings are not Wikipedia, nor is notability inherited. With that I'll have to Oppose until those sources are either established as reliable by consensus or replaced. Regardless of the status of Complex and even Tom's Games as long-standing I'd like to get other's input as I know nothing about either of those sites, nor do could I find anything on their editorial process. At minimum FLAREGamer and Manolith need replacing, and I'll hold my Oppose until PSU, Complex, and Tom's are certified by consensus. Sorry. --Teancum (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

To replace FLAREGamer might be problematic, but necessary (I must admit I didn't even check this ref while editing, I don't know who had posted it and when). Manolith was just some random stuff for reception, so it wasn't even needed to be replaced. Also Tom's Hardware is a big and long-standing website, even with several local versions in other languages, and lots of traffic (and for example the Ita version is partnered with La Repubblica which is the largest paper in Italy). --Niemti (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'll clarify and say that Complex and Tom's I can see as reliable, as you mentioned FLAREGamer and Manolith aren't. I'm on the fence about PSU, but it depends on how soon you'd like this promoted. I'd like to put it through a test at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources, but if you want this promoted quickly I'd suggest replacing it if possible. --Teancum (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Yuna (Final Fantasy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131114122727/http://www.gamesradar.com/exclusive-interview-final-fantasy-x-2/ to http://www.gamesradar.com/exclusive-interview-final-fantasy-x-2/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120818033412/http://ps2.ign.com/articles/458/458474p5.html to http://ps2.ign.com/articles/458/458474p5.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/2013.10.14-181754/http://www.1up.com/news/snake-beats-mario-coolest-video to http://www.1up.com/news/snake-beats-mario-coolest-video

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)