A fact from Final Fantasy XIV: Endwalker appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 May 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Square Enix, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Square Enix-related merchandise and video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Square EnixWikipedia:WikiProject Square EnixTemplate:WikiProject Square EnixSquare Enix articles
While I understand that there is not much information on Endwalker currently, and that articles for expansion are usually written sometime after said expansion's release, but I feel like it'd be easier to stay on top of all the forthcoming information and keep it updated rather than trying to go back and do so after the fact. I also checked the notability guidelines and this does seem to pass it.NightFire19 (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually a bad idea in practice to "stay on top of" pre-release information for a subject because you end up with a series of one-sentence additions that read like low-context speculative information and it all has to get deleted to be re-created as a holistic overview of the subject after release. The subject is notable, but from a content-writing perspective it's better to keep the expected gameplay changes at the parent article and only create this article once it's out and everything is known. --PresN22:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk pageorWikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral, and I detected no copyright issues. The image should not be used. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, User:Cwmhiraeth! Some recent news inspired me to come up with another possible hook. What do you think? I'm pretty sure I can find a free-use image of Soken to replace the current one as well. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Approving ALT2 (without the last five words). All facts in the hook must be present in the article. I'm not sure what you mean about the image of Masayoshi Soken; one could usefully be added to his article, but could only be used at DYK if it were included in the Endwalker article. The Naoki Yoshida image is ineligible for this reason. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quick update on this. I spoke to a Flickr user who agreed to change the license on one of their photos of Soken. Just walking them through the steps now so I can upload it to Commons and add it to the article. Should be resolved soon... Axem Titanium (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on getting the image. It is appropriately licensed and I am approving ALT2, as well as ALT0 and ALT1. You should be aware however, that there is only one image slot in each prep set, so not all images make it onto the main page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So...I've read the "how to" guide, and it's vague as hell, which I know is for the best, but it doesn't actually give meaningful information. I've already cut down the summary section by more than half, and have struggled to find more ways to elide detail without creating confusion. There's several bits of context that are required for the overall through-line to make sense, particularly because this is the conclusion to eight years' worth of storytelling.
As it stands, the summary is at (approximately) 950 words. Removing a further 250 words would be very difficult without dropping necessary context. At what point can we say the summary is of appropriate length? By comparison, the Endwalker summary is now 200 words shorter than that of Shadowbringers, which does not have the "excessive detail" template. EzekielRaiden (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to myself here, but I've managed to get the summary down to less than 850 words, and I really don't think I can do any better than that. Since (a) this talk page hasn't gotten any action in months, (b) this is already hundreds of words shorter than when the template was added, and (c) other FFXIV articles have longer summaries without the template, I'm removing it. EzekielRaiden (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to myself again because it's probably needed. Guys, we need to stop repeatedly embellishing the summary section. It's good that we're updating the post-release patch content. But with the successive edits to the Summary section, it is now almost exactly the same length as it was before I trimmed it back in November. I know that being accurate is important, but we have to show some restraint here. The 700-word limit is arbitrary and should be broken when it's warranted, but ballooning up to almost 1200 words is a clear sign we need to cut back again. EzekielRaiden (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm not going to change it or anything right now, but I'm pretty sure Golbez here is going to be a case of being an entirely seperate character from their Final Fantasy IV iteration, compared to Gilgamesh (Final Fantasy) (who's usually explicitly said to be the same character between installments). Although it's obviously meant to be a reference to Golbez from IV, it might be a bit better to remove the link because it implies they're the same character rather then a recurring element. Noilaedi (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral, and I detected no copyright issues. The image should not be used. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
