Talk:Characters of Final Fantasy VI

Minor Characters

I added profiles for all the minor characters that I didn't see listed. Owzner, Patriarch, Gau's dad (Crazy Old Man) and Vargas. McJeff 21:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Unitialized Pointer?

So that Relm's sketch was glitchy due to an unitialized pointer. That's really fascinating. Is there a reference of some sort? Don

Kefka

Now I admit I'm not as well-versed in protocol here as some, but I pretty distinctly remember that Kefka had his own article before being merged into this page. Why is it that his primary article has disappeared, while those for the main playable characters have been left alone? There's a much, much greater range of actions and things to talk about with him than any of the main characters, so that can't be it. Is it because he's the villain? In that case, why do we still have an article for Final Fantasy VII's Sephiroth? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.153.179.203 (talk • contribs) .

Bluntly, because all of the player characters came up for a deletion vote, the verdict of which was to keep. This page came about as part of that discussion. Kefka Palazzo was not up for AfD, and the decision was made shortly thereafter to redirect the individual article here. The previous article was frequently criticized for its high fancruft quotient, and the bulk of the article was an eight paragraph "biography" that essentially said repeated the same information contained in the story section of the main Final Fantasy VI article. As it is, the biggest reason for maintaining articles for each of the player characters is because there are relevant, non-biographical things to be said about them (special attacks, etc.) that don't automatically fall into GameFAQs territory. With villains like Kefka, the only thing we can really "talk about with him" other than a short, non-redundant biography is battle strategy, at which point WP:NOT a strategy guide comes into play. Also, please sign your posts. – Seancdaug 21:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Errr, apologies about that. And yes, I suppose I can understand that, but that still brings up the question of why Sephiroth retains his own article. Is the information there less steeped in fancrux? Or is it because he's been in so many different games, and a movie? I ask this out of curiosity, mind you, I'm not particularly familiar with that character and I'm not actively questioning the collective judgment of the community.--Wyborn 23:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if that is the answer, it doesn't explain why Kuja, Sin, or Seymour get their own articles, as they've only been in one game each. Thanos6 17:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sephiroth gets his own article because he's quite probably one of the two most recognizable figures to emerge from the series (the other probably being Cloud). He's demonstably well-known, and has been depicted fairly frequently in other media. That is not to say that his article isn't deeply steeped in fancruft, though. For the other characters mentioned, they have their own articles, at this point, only because the process of paring down those articles is difficult, and long-term. It took a mass-AfD to get Kefka's article merged here, and short of going through that process again (which is not what anyone wants, I suspect), we need to think long-term. – Seancdaug 18:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I still say the best way to think long-term is to give everyone their own pages... :) Thanos6 18:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Seancdaug's justification for keeping Kuja, Sin, and Seymour's articles is that FFIX and FFX sold more copies than FFVI, which is something that I think only fuels Kefka's case for an article. See, Kefka is the second-most notable villain after Sephiroth (though, unfortunately, Sephy is way more notable than Kefka) due to his uniqueness, his lines of humor, the way players fondly remember him, and most importantly his evil laugh (which NO other villain has). I've never seen anyone think of Kuja, Sin, or Seymour as memorable in a fond way, even though their games sold more (Kuja is remembered in a negative light, and Seymour is hardly remembered at all). Crazyswordsman 16:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That has never been my case for keeping any of the above articles. I don't think we should keep those articles, actually. As I have now said countless times, the only reason we were able to merge the Kefka article here is because there was an AfD that drew enough attention to the issue. Barring another such event (which I don't think anyone wants to repeat), the process of paring down the existing information, relocating it to a more suitable home, creating an acceptable list entry, and building the consensus necessary to finally enact the change, is a slow, laborious process (which is not at all helped by the fact that there are far more editors who add fancruft than remove it). The fact that people still complain about Kefka, even after the AfD discussion, should indicate that.

Also, I would also like to point out once more that "popularity" is not a worthwhile measurement in this argument. That many people think "fondly" of Kefka is meaningless. Subjects are judged by their notability: not many people are fond of syphilis, for instance, but it's certainly notable enough to have its own article. Kefka's overall notability is affected by the simple fact that approximately 90% fewer people played Final Fantasy VI than Final Fantasy X. If more people hate Kuja than love Kefka (I'm not saying this is true, necessarily, but let's pretend for the sake of an argument), than Kuja probably is more notable. Audience reaction, of course, is not the only measurement of notability: a strong case for notability can also be made if a particular subject is particularly revolutionary, for instance. But we do need to cite sources which support that claim: us saying that a topic is notable does not make it so. A lengthy biographical article which makes minimal attempt to establish verifiable notability (as has been the case with every previous iteration of Kefka's article) is non-encyclopedic. This is as true for Kefka as it is for Kuja, Seymour, or any number of other character articles. And that's why I support the merging (albeit gradual) of all such articles. – Seancdaug 17:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, in Seymour's case, a GoogleFight of Kefka vs Seymour Guado reveals that Kefka does not only beat Seymour. He walks all over Seymour (439,000 hits for Kefka and 25000 for Seymour Guado. Adding pages that have Seymour's name on them only probably adds about another 100,000 at most, and Kefka also destroys Ultimecia on Google). And your saying that there have been 90% fewer FFVI players than FFX players is an outright lie. It's probably about 50% fewer at this time. And numbers and statistics aren't the only thing that decides notablilty. If this is the case, then I shall request a merge of Seymour's article to the list of FFX characters. I don't care if Kefka has an article or not. All I want is either all the villains sans Sephiroth to have their own pages or they all get merged (Sephiroth I single out because we can all agree that he gets his own page). So either it's Kefka and Seymour get their articles or neither of them do.

And the mass AFD you were thinking of seems to have been done by another contributor to the FF project if I am not mistaken; maybe there's bias in that? Crazyswordsman 03:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, Kefka is a revolutionary villain in the series for being one who does not act with a purpose; he does what he does because he hates. On the flip side, though, I have been told that this wasn't the Kefka in the Japanese version; the Kefka we know and love (hate?) was a creation of Woolsey himself.Crazyswordsman 03:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

After doing some thinking, I'd like to ask if it should be mentionned in the article that Kefka is a kafkaesque character. He pretty much fits the description, and his very name is derived from Kafka. Dali 21:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted as WP:NOR. If you can find a source in WP:RS to cite, and I sure hope there is one, it becomes valid conjecture, and can be added. I'd personally like to see Kefka get his article back for two reasons: 1.Ultimecia has one now and 2. This list is too long. Crazyswordsman 15:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I submit Kefka's article to requests for unprotection, I think the character is way more notable than half the player characters of FF6 (for whom we have articles) and deserves his own article. some support would be appreciated, thanks. Nightmare X 04:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I got sprites

..Of the minor characters. I can upload them without much effort (there are no legal issues because I ripped the sprites). I just need to know the process by which we do this. Crazyswordsman 05:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

One thing: ripping sprites IS messing with legal issues. - Armor Nick 07:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Banon and Duncan

Due to the fact that the sprites for Banon and Duncan are the same, and the fact that Banon and Duncan are never present at the same time, and neither ever explicitly die, I have assumed since first playing this game that they were clearly the same people and intended to be interpreted as such. I am surprised to find no mention of that here. I cannot clearly remember if it is ever explicitly stated, or implied, but I had thought it was. I will look into it further. Also in Rachel's article you state that "she pushed him off of a collapsing bridge" which really sounds like you're saying she tried to kill him. Heaven forbid anyone should get the wrong impression. -rav July 7 2006

Uh, wow. That's not much of a point. It's never implied in any way (I started playing awhile ago and am currently in World of Ruin; my memory's still fresh). And the pallette swap...are all the NPCs that aren't on the screen at the same time the same person?—ウルタプ 03:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Disdainful tone duely noted and not appreciated. I don't wanna play through this again untill the GBA release so it'll feel somewhat new, so you're gonna have to wait untill then for me to make my real case. But I would point out that at this point in the series (unlike FFIII) Pallette swaps are relatively rare, especially among named characters. Also Banon would be the ONLY character whom you ever actually have control of in this game to be a Pallette swap. The only possible exceptions would be the ghosts, who aren't named, and Mog, who is a moogle... and if you wanna be bitchy, Biggs and Wedge, in all three exceptions though they are designed to be indiscernible. The fact that Banon is at one point a Player controlled Character leads me to believe he was too important for a pallette swap. And I'd at least like to be able ot make my case before it's condemned. But please at least someone consider rewording the Rachel bit. -Rav, July 10 2006

Regarding Kefka ..

Sorry im new here and I dont know how to reply to topics.

Anyways

I agree a Kefka should have his own article. Gaming journalist and FF fans(who played FF before VII) have always fondly remember Kefka the most. EGM pointed out two of their most memorable moments in FFVI are the Opera Scene and where Kefka poisons the water supply.

Also this comes directly from gamespot "General Kefka, on the other hand, is a fascinating case study. No matter what the player thinks of him, there's no denying that Kefka is one of the most personality-filled villains in RPG history. Before Kefka, RPG villains had been shrouded in mystery; townspeople would whisper hints of the Evil One's existence, but the Evil One himself would only fly in at the eleventh hour via Deus Ex Machina Airlines. Kefka, instead, is onstage from act one, scene two. His mind is not merely warped, but is seriously bent. He has an arsenal of one-liners most Hollywood villains would kill for. He is like a little boy frying ants with a magnifying glass, gleefully amoral; not only uncaring but also unaware his cruelty has any moral implications. It has been said that the audience will hate a good villain ... but love a great one. Kefka achieves the greatest honor a villain can receive: he is well liked." source http://www.gamespot.com/features/vgs/universal/finalfantasy_hs/sec1_6_3.html

from FFONLINE.COM this was conducted in the site's message boards and its members who is their favoraite Final Fantasy characters (dating from I-IX) and Kefka was ranked #2 falling behind Celes. And here is a very nice write up about him on that page "Psychology of Evil dictates that men like Kefka could never exist in the real world. In our entire history of civilization, no ruthless dictator or cold-hearted conqueror has ever thought of themselves as ‘evil.’ In their mind, what they did was justified and was for the greater good of the people. In some cases, they act as if they were the hand of righteousness. Yet, for some reason that cannot be fully comprehended, Kefka is a popular villain that we all love to hate. His actions seem to have no purpose: he is the clown prince of madness spreading destruction and pestilence while freely admitting that he enjoys every minute of it! Simply disturbing. It is frightening to imagine what obscene thoughts must traffic within that twisted brain perched on his sinuous body. Kefka’s goal is also equally vague: to destroy. Life is blasphemous and he reveals his magnum opus to total annihilation. Of what, Kefka? The planet? The universe? All of existence?! You’ve got a wee bit of work ahead of you. You know, maybe he is just plain crazy…" http://www.ffonline.com/news/news.php?article=2001-11-12&page=5

All in all I dont see why a character with such a huge following would not get an article.

It's not a popularity contest. We don't "award" articles based on how popular a character is, even though such arguments are an undeniably important part of determining notability. The other part of the issue is whether or not anyone would be looking for Kefka outside of the context of characters from Final Fantasy VI. Since he's only appeared in the one game, the answer to that one is "probably not." The only other reason to create a seperate article, per WP:FICT, is if there exists a surplus of relevant information that becomes too large and unwieldy to keep here. And that should progress organically: don't create a new article and then look for information to pad it out, add any new information to where it currently belongs (here), and create the new article only when it becomes necessary to do so. Doing it any other way is an open invitation to fancruft, bias, and poor writing, and fictional character articles are a magnet for this kind of problem (see Sephiroth for one such example). As it is, the Kefka section of this article is pretty much stable, and has been for a considerable length of time. Indeed, the most significant recent changes have been to trim it back. Which suggests that there's no real structural purpose to spinning the section off into its own article. – Seancdaug 04:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)