Talk:Final Fantasy IX

Toshiyuki Itahana was the Main Character Designer of FFIX

It's clearly shown in the intro FMV of the game that Toshiyuki Itahana was the main character designer. Please watch the following video and pay close attention during the time from 1:23 'til 1:31 and you'll see his name: Final Fantasy IX Intro FMV

The other main character designer, Shukou Murase, doesn't work for Square Enix and never did. G-Zay (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not notice Itahana's name there. Still, if he is listed below Shukou Murase and once mentioned he did not design some of the protagonists and antagonists, he should not be listed as the sole character designer. Also, problems emerge from the Hiroyuki Ito credit as designer; in the staff credits, Sakaguchi was said to have "conceived" the game, with Ito only being credited as director. I know you are passionate about Ito, but to list him as an uncredited designer for a game, a reliable source has to confirm him as a major contributor to the game design. Prime Blue (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Bishonenosity?

What does this word mean? Every search I do results in a reference to IGN's review of FF9. Is this a real word? 216.10.193.20 (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Bishonen means "pretty boy" in Japanese. Check out the wikipedia article on it. In context, "plenty of the bishonenosity that made Sephiroth such a hit with the ladies" presumably means that the interviewer thinks both Sephiroth and Kuja are very pretty boys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.1.66 (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Garnet vs. Dagger

Was there ever a reason given for the former being used over the latter? As far as I can tell, reviews and articles about the game constantly refer to her as "Princess Garnet", maybe mentioning her "Dagger" alias, but for the vast majority of the game she's called Dagger unless the player opts to change it to something else. Is her depiction in other media enough for Garnet to be used per WP:COMMONNAME or should we stick to what the game calls her? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 05:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I just axed it from the plot summary. That kind of trivia is better for the sub-articles anyway. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 18:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Sales

March 2003 is a long time ago, regardless of it only being 200,000 copies extra it's still important. People understandably might ask how much it has sold now and have no information.Brayden96 (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• It is a long time ago, however, 200,000 more copies since then isn't notable at all, and if your only source to begin with is the iOS promotional page, then we shouldn't put it. Find another reliable source that states it first. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Final Fantasy IX. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ign.com/articles/2000/08/15/final-fantasy-ix-melodies-of-life-single
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070421003854/http://www.the-magicbox.com/Chart-USPlatinum.shtml to http://www.the-magicbox.com/Chart-USPlatinum.shtml

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) 17:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

February release dates

Should we be including timezone-related date differences that secondary sources do not mention? I simply think going with a worldwide February 13 in the infobox and then explaining the differences in prose is more ideal than doing separate regions there. Pinging VG regs @Sergecross73, Ferret, and Lordtobi: for their opinion. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Correct, Feb 13 WW is sufficient. In the whole scheme of things it matters little on whether or not it fell into the next day in certain regions. Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It fell in Feb 13 in different region not the other way. NA is the only region it fell on Feb 13 so I have edited it accordingly. SkyPikachu (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Also sources do mention the date as Feb 14th. SkyPikachu (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• First-party sources do, but not secondary ones (unless I'm wrong and you can provide them). Also timezones do not work that way, we go with the earliest official date regardless. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• IMO, we should just use the official schedule. If it was deliberately released in NA on the 13th and in AU on the 14th (and that is represented as such in sources; cf. The Awesome Adventures of Captain Spirit), we could use that split as-is. However, if the release is officially on one date, and the next-day release in other regions just happens to be the case due to time zone complications, not so much. After all, our globe spans more than 24 hours, there's always at least two active dates, sometimes three. The latter appears to be the case, both FF NA and FF PAL reported "available today" on Feb 13. Lordtobi (✉) 09:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests § Final Fantasy IX

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests § Final Fantasy IX. Does the article still meet WP:FA? and is a re-review needed? — CR4ZE (T • C) 15:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Reviews

• Backstab #24

207.229.139.154 (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

References