Can we update the LTD article? (Shipping-Related Issues Thread)

[Danseru-kun]

I know its a good article but there are a lot of new arguments in the forums and the outside sites that needs to be addressed. If people here care about skeptic shippers, I think it really needs updating.

I know this issue will never really get resolved since shipping triggers all sorts of feelings and sentiments but many feel that the TLS article is not as credible anymore since it did not revise itself when criticism of it still goes on in other sites. Because of this, even if not all of the forums members really actively support the article, the face of the site is affected it's credibility.

Many feel that TLS comes off as prideful and close-minded for not accepting that its article needs improvement, or at least, updating. I know the writers are busy and all but I guess we should at least discuss this.

As a shipper, I really care about the image of the TLS article and we all know that shippers create a great disturbance in the force and has billion feels that cannot really silenced.

 

[Dashell]

I kinda.. no I whole heartedly agree with this. I know a lot of people say "Oh well it's an old article, get over it" and such but.... it does still bother a lot of people. And I'm not just talking Cleriths here BTW.

If that point about the Celes/Locke deviant not being in the book is really true, I think that should at least be addressed (I'd still like to see a scan of that page though). You don't even have to announce that you updated it, but just changing it should be fine. Hell I say remove it and keep the FTOIL translation up. Not that Ted Koppel isn't awesome, but I think the page speaks for itself.

 

[Shademp]

Just to avoid confusion, do you think Squall_of_SeeD's article should be updated, or Ryu's news report?

I think that a response-article to Squall_of_SeeD's feature would be the least complicated thing to do. SoS is too busy to update his own article and I think a response-article would raise more attention rather than just adding bits to his analysis (which btw I would feel hesitant to doing without his direct involvement).

I can only help with the discussion regarding *how* we publish this, but somebody else will have to proofread the thing and check that none of the arguments are outrageously close-minded. I am not involved in the LTD discussion and therefore I am not qualified to judge the quality of an article in this subject.

 

[Danseru-kun]

I think both.

Ryu's news report appears to many people that its using the FTOIL as a sole basis for Cloti being canonized by SE since a lot is unconvinced by that page alone. It actually offends a lot of people until now. I suggest there is a disclaimer saying that it's not really a seriously written article and the readers will be directed to SoS's article.

To the SoS's article, there are a lot of criticisms that should be addressed and new arguments for example:

1. The argument that FFVII is the only game where the supposed romantic confession has multiple versions when other couples with that optionality like Celes/Locke has a different treatment by not specifying the optionality at all. This is not confirmed yet but it's a good rebuttal. All in all, I think the "Page 232" issue should be discussed further.
2. It's argued that the 8 quotes describing exchanged feelings between Cloud and Tifa can apply to platonic or filial feelings or "companionship" as well and cannot really absolutely confirm romance.
3. Argument that SE never says that Cloud loves Tifa and the indication of Tifa being a mother of their family or Cloud's light does not really prove this.

Yeah, I agree that it could also be less problematic to write a separate article for the new arguments as a continuation rather than revising the old article only.

 

[Shademp]

I suggest there is a disclaimer saying that it's not really a seriously written article and the readers will be directed to SoS's article.

I suggest you collaborate with Ryu on how this disclaimer should be written. When you reach an agreement, he can add the disclaimer there.

Yeah, I agree that it could also be less problematic to write a separate article for the new arguments as a continuation rather than revising the old article only.

Excellent. Will you be writing this new article? Somebody needs to decide and say "I'll take the ring to Mordor" or else it won't be done. Just mentioning this to decrease the odds of this idea dying.

As a shipper, I really care about the image of the TLS article and we all know that shippers create a great disturbance in the force and has billion feels that cannot really silenced.

Quoted because I appreciate whenever somebody cares for the site's image. =)

 

[Danseru-kun]

Excellent. Will you be writing this new article? Somebody needs to decide and say "I'll take the ring to Mordor" or else it won't be done. Just mentioning this to decrease the odds of this idea dying.

Sorry, but I think I'm more suited to be the likes of Samwise Gamgee, just supporting till the end. I don't think I'm that knowledgeable or had access on FFVII canon materials, I also know just basic Japanese as well so I'm not really suitable for the job. I'm too much of a noob to write an article on behalf of a site of mostly FFVII veterans. But I think I can at least suggest improvements and explain the critics' side.

 

[Shademp]

Sorry, but I think I'm more suited to be the likes of Samwise Gamgee, just supporting till the end.

Then I shall leave it up to you to find Frodo Baggins. Keep the discussion going and make sure this article happens, one way or another.

 

[Tifabelle]

I'd be more in favor of writing a new, updated article rather than updating the old one. For a couple reasons. First being that the article was, at the time, a perfectly good article and stands as how things were at the time. And it was and has always been presented as an editorial piece (ie: that author's own words/thoughts/conclusions). Secondly, I would never support rewriting or altering or adding on to another author's article. I'd be ok with linking the new article onto the end or at the beginning of that article, but not altering that article in any way at this point nor removing it for that matter. So if someone wants to write their own updated editorial, that's cool.

Speaking of which, anyone is welcome to write an article for the front page provided it is well-written (no grammatical issues or glaring errors or giant wall of text). People always have been welcome and invited to do so.

btw, and I guess it'll come off as kinda rude, but I think it's sort of unfair to make a thread saying something should be done and then not being willing to do it yourself. idk. That said, if you do want to help but don't feel like you have the capacity to (like not being able to read Japanese), two or three people can collaborate and write an article together if they want!

 

[Dashell]

btw, and I guess it'll come off as kinda rude, but I think it's sort of unfair to make a thread saying something should be done and then not being willing to do it yourself. idk.

I'll do it

 

[Cthulhu]

Do it, fgj

 

[Dashell]

tomorrow



actually I need some info first... I wish someone besides Tres had the 20th AU... since he's disappeared off the interwebs

 

[Splintered]

I'm tentative about throwing another LTD article on the front page, but I also don't like the idea of messing with someone else's article- and that person has repeatedly defended his article. If nothing else, I think the way its presented as LTD IS OVER causes more drama than the article would have necessarily done.

So... I dunno. If Ryu consents I actually like the idea of having him edit his article to address the issues, but if not I guess I wouldn't mind a point-counterpoint article. It beats having to fight about it annually.

 

[Gym Leader Devil]

Dude, I don't care what changes anyone here is mentally envisioning. There will still be a fight over it at least annually Anyway, if Ryu is considering the possibility of editing the article my two cents are for leaving it alone. Let someone add a new article if more needs said.

 

[Dashell]

Idk what everyone is complaining about. Every time an LTD article pops up, this site gets tons of activity

 

[Shademp]

I'll do it

Idk what everyone is complaining about. Every time an LTD article pops up, this site gets tons of activity

Make it so, Frodo Baggins.

 

[Dashell]

Vendel+
Replying to Thread
Can we update the LTD article? (Shipping-Related Issues Thread)

uh oh

 

[Vendel]

This idea is asinine. Two and a half years after the fact, when most of the internet has accepted the facts for what they are, you are now going to appease a few shippers?

Sorry but to revise the FTOIL entry just to address the arguments of lunatics who insist that the page means anything and everything other than what it actually says, is to give credence to their ramblings.

And you know what will happen if you revise it? Nothing. They will still be up the fucking wall about it 2 and a half years later.

 

[Dashell]

When new information comes out, old information should be updated.

 

[Vendel]

When new information comes out, old information should be updated.

There isn't new information. It's the same old shit that keeps getting brought up over and over again. They just find new ways to do it from time to time.

If TLS revised their shit related to the LTD every time a new argument was invented they would have to revise them on a weekly basis.

 

[Dashell]

There kinda IS new info.. but point on the second thing you said. I just personally think it'd be better to address these points rather than ignore them.

 

[Max Payne]

I'd be more in favor of writing a new, updated article rather than updating the old one. For a couple reasons. First being that the article was, at the time, a perfectly good article and stands as how things were at the time. And it was and has always been presented as an editorial piece (ie: that author's own words/thoughts/conclusions). Secondly, I would never support rewriting or altering or adding on to another author's article. I'd be ok with linking the new article onto the end or at the beginning of that article, but not altering that article in any way at this point nor removing it for that matter. So if someone wants to write their own updated editorial, that's cool.

Speaking of which, anyone is welcome to write an article for the front page provided it is well-written (no grammatical issues or glaring errors or giant wall of text). People always have been welcome and invited to do so.

btw, and I guess it'll come off as kinda rude, but I think it's sort of unfair to make a thread saying something should be done and then not being willing to do it yourself. idk. That said, if you do want to help but don't feel like you have the capacity to (like not being able to read Japanese), two or three people can collaborate and write an article together if they want!

I agree with all dis post

It's kinda ehhh to want other people to do all of the work, I mean you can help a bit if you think it'll improve shit round here.

 

[Lex]

Yeah people are welcome to write front page articles and or submit work as part of the site's open staff policy, it'd be great if we could get more people who have something they want to contribute to do this.

I'm really not in favour of editing Ryu's article. Link to it or whatever in a new article - It'd be different if we were talking about a bare facts page, but although the pages in question may be examining facts that are now outdated, they're no less valid and it's also written as an opinion piece examining the given facts at that time. Things like that aren't supposed to be edited so far down the line IMO.

With the new information should come a new page/article, and it's cool that someone is willing to do it.

 

[Danseru-kun]

I'd be more in favor of writing a new, updated article rather than updating the old one. For a couple reasons. First being that the article was, at the time, a perfectly good article and stands as how things were at the time.

Yeah I apologize if that's what the thread came off as, I understand that it's kinda wrong to spoil it just because new things arrived. But I just got the impression that the article is flexible that it gets updated occasionally. I apologize if it also came off like I want to mess up with someone else's article, it's not my intention. I just want to know what this site thinks as a whole to this idea.

btw, and I guess it'll come off as kinda rude, but I think it's sort of unfair to make a thread saying something should be done and then not being willing to do it yourself. idk. That said, if you do want to help but don't feel like you have the capacity to (like not being able to read Japanese), two or three people can collaborate and write an article together if they want!

Sorry if it came off that thay, I was already defending TLS and its writers in other sites but since I was just a new member I don't know much about its history that I lose the arguments. I never even played FFVII.

But I can help of course, I didn't say I wont. I just meant I just can't be the sole main writer.

I'll do it

You have my sword I'm in.

I'm tentative about throwing another LTD article on the front page, but I also don't like the idea of messing with someone else's article- and that person has repeatedly defended his article. If nothing else, I think the way its presented as LTD IS OVER causes more drama than the article would have necessarily done.

So... I dunno. If Ryu consents I actually like the idea of having him edit his article to address the issues, but if not I guess I wouldn't mind a point-counterpoint article. It beats having to fight about it annually.

That's what I'm suggesting, his defense of his article is not easily seen by everyone and one has to dig the forums to find it. I'm not saying that the content should be changed, I just think it could benefit with additions. I already contacted him about this and I hope he could reply soon so that I'll know if I'm offending him or anything.

I'm not suggesting this just to please the shippers but because the imperfections of this site is can easily be exploited. It comes off to others that we are proud and would not listen to the minority. And I also encountered a people who had really bad experiences of being flamed just because they disagree with the LTD. That's why I suggested this idea, and I'm sure this takes not just the effort of the person who suggested it.

Guys we need an axe, bow, Sean Bean, Sir Ian Mckellen and four midgets

 

[Lex]

If either of you feel like you need it or want me to, I can proof read it for you when it's done/ before you publish as I've done that a few times before. Just PM me or something. Might be a good idea to ask Ryu to do something like that in fact since he's well versed in the LTD debate.

 

[looneymoon]

No matter what you do guys, the rabid dumb shippers are gonna misconstrue whatever you publish as biased and mislabel the site as a "Cloti site."

I mean go for it if you want, but it's not gonna change the fact that people are dumb.