Template talk:Final Fantasy series/Archive 2

"Related" vs. "Sub" series

I think the semantic distinction is minimal and making a change such as that obfuscates the difference between games and non-games on the template. FF is primarily a video game series so having the non-games in a separate section is useful. On the other hand, who are you to say that FNC and FFCC are "sub"-series and Chocobo is only "related"? That seems like a WP:OR distinction to me. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a minimal distinction, Fabula Nova Crystallis FFXIII (for example) is a core part of the FF series; calling it a "related series" and putting it next to Kingdom Hearts makes it sound like it's a franchise that stands next to FF instead of being part of FF. And the difference with Chocobo is that Chocobo doesn't have "FF" in the titles of its games (except in a few English localizations due to cash-in).

Not having a distinct film/animation section allows us to save space by not listing FFVII AC and LO:FFVII (they are part of the Compilation of FFVII) and it's also more accurate toward FF:Unlimited since it is a series (of OVAs, novels and games) and not just an OVA series. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want official proof of this, see http://www.square-enix.com/jp/ . SE's main series are shown at the bottom of the page and the Chocobo series is listed separately from the FF series. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the "sub"-series because they have their own templates/switches. There's no need to have an extraneous link on the main template. As for film/anime, I don't think there's a need to save space at this point since the template is pretty compact. Listing the film/anime separately including FFVIIAC and Last Order give an accurate idea of how many film/anime the FF series has right in the navbox. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that looks better this way :D Do you agree with how Chocobo is classified? Maybe the List of FF video games should reflect this aspect (KH is not listed there but the full Chocobo series is). Megata Sanshiro (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Chocobo is fine where it is. PresN made a point at Talk:List of Final Fantasy video games about KH with a link to an older discussion so if you feel strongly, I'd bring it up at WT:SE. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't Dissidia be listed under related series since there are 2 games? Also what about a new section under the main series dealing with sequels/prequels and compilations, for VII, X etc.? Not sure how to classify the online series' expansion packs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyros1972 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Tactics

I added Final Fantasy Tactics and it was removed, why? Can someone explain the reasoning behind this to me --Aizuku (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's already covered by the Ivalice template, so it was removed to save space. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That isn't how it works. This template is in horrible condition. There are probably ten or fifteen titles (of varying degrees of importance) not featured in this template. It needs a serious overhaul. The Compilation of Final Fantasy VII, Fabula Nova Crystallis, The Ivalice Alliance, et cetera should all be represented here as they are part of the series. A title is not limited to being featured in one template, and templates exist to link together related articles, not provide as few links as you possibly can while still being able to say it's possible to get to all of the related articles through proxy. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Except in practice, all the articles you mentioned ARE listed on the templates that are placed in proper usage. For example, how is it not redundant to have Final Fantasy Tactics on both this and the Ivalice template, when both templates appear on the bottom of the page anyway? I'm sorry the 15+ links on the Ivalice template don't fit in the switch in any way without looking unwieldy. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Dfsghjkgfhdg, and maybe the table just needs a new Compilation's section added in, that'll have Compilation of Final Fantasy VII, Ivalice Alliance and Fabula Nova Crystallis. Maybe even some sort of FFX version to get X-2 in there. It's silly that people have to go to the main games page to get access to these other titles in a table, when from any of the main games they can access titles that are only loosely related to FF, such as Kingdom Hearts.Patternofknives (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Just happened to look for the Tactics games down there and couldn't find them anywhere, which was annoying. It's nonsensical that "related series" such as Kingdom Hearts are in the template, but the Tactics games are completely missing. It's not up to me to decide wether it should be included summarized as "Ivalice" (or something similar) or every single game individually, but it HAS to be in there somewhere. The same apllies to Dirge of Cerberus and Crisis Core (put those behind VII in the main list in brackets, or put the games together as "Compilation of FFVII"). It's inappropriate to link something like "The After Years" or "Revenant Wings" but not the FFVII spin-offs that are equally important.MegaChaosGelee (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What is FF-related in this template?

Ergheiz was the first one i put due to FF7 cast being playable, i also see that itadaki streets also is a good one considering it's a series that has a large variety of final fantasy characters for 2 games. so i at least would call that one FF related. as for the others, i haven't heard of so i can't put my opinoin on it.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

attempted reconstruction

i originally attempted added two sublist to spin off games group. ones that are series, and others that stand alone. this would help so that spin off games wouldn't have to be just stand alone. and related series wouldn't have actual spin offs. but due to ambiguity, it was removed. though i wish that could be clarified. So if anyone has a better format, so that related series wouldn't have spin offs, and spin off games wouldn't have games that are vaguely related to it. I'm sure we can come to an understanding.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is the difference between "related" and "spin-off"? Is there a reason why we use both terms instead of just picking one? Axem Titanium (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

it's quite easy. it's a spin off the main series such as any game originally meant to be with a title of final fantasy (japanese) but not part of the main series. such as crystal chronicles, Legends, Dissidia etc. related games, are not final fantasy titles, such as kingdom hearts, itadaki street, Chocobo, and potentially Mana as the first game was called final fantasy gaiden (final fantasy legend) but the remake was named Shin'yaku Seiken Densetsu (Sword of mana). SaGa too as only the first 3 north American adaptations hold the name final fantasy in it. there was a huge discussion about it a long time ago, when we saw kingdom hearts under spin offs. related media isn't a final fantasy title, but still relates to it in some way. kingdom hearts has cameos, so does itadaki street, Mana? well you know, and SaGa is the same.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A spinoff title is related to the main series, but a related title is not necessarily a spinoff title. For example, Vagrant Story is definitely related to Final Fantasy Tactics, but it's definitely not a spinoff of it. Another example, on television: Millennium is related to The X-Files but it's not an X-Files spinoff. The Lone Gunmen on the other hand is an X-Files spinoff. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What about Ehrgeiz? It uses FF characters similarly to Kingdom Hearts, or even Mario Hoops 3-on-3 (and Mario Sports Mix). Why is Mana a "spin-off series" but SaGa is a "related series"? They both had the FF name back in the day in some form. On the other hand, Chocobo doesn't have the FF name for the most part. I think labeling something as a "spin-off" is a bit too OR. Instead, it should just be "related games" and "related series", since "related" is a neutral, judgment-free term. We can't know the developers' intentions about how related or spin-offy any title is (unless they explicitly say so). Axem Titanium (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Anything that was initially released as final fantasy (without the numbers) is a spin off (unless you want to argue there's a "side series"). Ergheiz i probably should've put it under Related series as it doesn't have anything final fantasy about it under than cameos, the same for itadaki street and kingdom hearts. SaGa was only released as final fantasy only in north america as a localization with the first 3 games only, the remakes have later been given the name "SaGa". So it's more easy to distinguish it. Mana on the other hand, isn't the easiest one. It was initially released with the name final fantasy "seiken Densetsu: final fantasy gaiden" but sequels have dropped the final fantasy and it's remake has also removed the "final fantasy" in it. So it's not the same as SaGa where the final fantasy title is part of localization. Chocobo series does however have a couple games with the title "Final Fantasy Fables" but because square enix announced it's not part of the final fantasy series, we can't put it in spin off. So it's more of a rogue type. If Ergheiz and Kingdom hearts are considered related due to the final fantasy cameos, than i suppose Mario hoops 3-on-3 and it's sequel Mario sports mix could make it in, but there's a bigger difference in that.

thinking about it now i would probably layout the section like this

• Spin Off Games

• Series = Crystal Chronicles, Mana, Saga (just to be safe.....)
• Stand-alone = Dissida (012), The Four Heroes of Light, Legends, Mystic Quest.

• Related Games = {kingdom Hearts] series, {Itadaki Street] series, {Chocobo] series, Ergheiz, (potentially more that we might have left out due to this section called series, and not exactly a spin off game but related to final fantasy).Bread Ninja (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't like that you lose the game vs. series distinction for "related". To be honest, I don't think the mere presence of the name Final Fantasy is enough to draw the line for spin-off vs. related. For example, Mana and SaGa both once had the FF name, but Kingdom Hearts is most definitely more thematically related to FF, despite never having the name. Same with Chocobo, highly similar to FF in content, but not in name. I think the only thing we can definitively say is that a thing is a series or a stand-alone game. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you like it? Why should limit to only related series, instead of all related games. You realize, the current format, has Ergheiz in the Spin off games only because it isn't a series. Mana did have the name in it once but was later removed, SaGa did not. SaGa only had the name in the english version for localization and PR. it's not an official final fantasy title and later remakes kept the SaGa title but i will still include it in the article due to. Spin-off is the only safe thing to call it as it's still a final fantasy game. Games vaguely related to final fantasy such has simply having cameos can make it in the related games section.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It's because the definitions of "spin-off" vs. "related" are vague. Kingdom Hearts has much more in common with mainstream Final Fantasy than SaGa, but KH is only called "related" when SaGa is a "spin-off"? Also, the localization thing makes it even more fuzzy in SaGa's case. If you make a decision either way (calling it spin-off or related), you're being biased and not neutral. Thus, we should categorize them by game vs. series (neutral, verifiable) instead of spin-off vs. related (opinion-based, unverifiable). Axem Titanium (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If we mention that in japan is was specifically named differently, I think that will help readers know that it's not a real final fantasy title. KH is related to final fantasy in gameplay, and cameos, but not in the sense that holds no final fantasy title. Nuetrally, the game is part of the SaGa series, which wasn't intended to be a final fantasy spin off. Like you said, it's a different from final fantasy. And game vs series is an easy win. Mana can easily be considered spin off as the original name suggest. "final fantasy gaiden". though it was droped it started off as such.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

What is a "real" FF title as compared to a "fake" FF title? If your exact criterion is the mere presence of the words "Final Fantasy", then the section should be labeled something more closely linked to your criterion, for example "Other Final Fantasy-branded titles". Axem Titanium (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

A real final fantasy title is a final fantasy originally labeled when it was originally released. not when it's being distributed. Mere presence of the word final fantasy admits its part of final fantasy. but if they're not numbered (with the exception of the first game) we can't put it in the "main series". so spin off is more appropriate. I only included it in there to find some negotiation. that and we should really go for simplicity.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, since you're proposing a change, the onus is on you to prove why the new organization is better. If your reasoning is simplicity, I would say that anything that involves a subnavbar is not more simple. I think the current division is the most simple and parsimonious categorization we can make that is neutral and factual. As you admit, the addition of FF to SaGa was merely a marketing ploy, and the same can be said of Mana, except the Japanese execs thought of it instead of the American ones. It's the same idea. They (Mana/FFAdventure) were never "intended" to be FF spinoffs, the name was just pegged on at the last second to make more money on name recognition. Or at least, that's what we as Wikipedia editors believe. However, we don't know that for sure, so we can't make this judgment and instead defer to a factual categorization, i.e. game vs. series. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

the same cannot be said for Mana started off as an actual spin off (as the name suggest). japan name is original, the English name is localization. We can only say that final fantasy was used as a localization name for SaGa and for Mana was originally a spin off. and a way to know for sure is that the remakes themselves have the name "SaGa". so it's not like it was a last minute slap on the tag and decide it's a spin off by the original by original developers. Mana was intended to be a final fantasy title at first but soon changed as they dropped "final fantasy" and later on it's remake also did not have the title "final fantasy in it. And i'm looking for simplicity within understanding, not within the actual format. In the format, i would like clarity. Allowing both stand alone games and series into the section without putting a stand alone in the spin off. Or having spin offs in related series. the sections took "games" and "series" a lil too literally.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source saying that Mana was "intended to be a FF title"? According to the sources at the Final Fantasy Adventure article, it looks like its original name was just Seiken Densetsu / Emergence of Excalibur. "FF Gaiden" wasn't added until four years later. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

the article doesn't actually say if it was released and then changed to FF gaiden. it just says that 4 years later they deveoped the game with it's predecessor name seiken densetsu: final fantasy gaiden. Initially, the development says it wasn't, but with the ltter suggesting to do it in similar vein, and later made the game. i would say it was intended later. the difference with Mana and SaGa was that Mana was being considered through development, not through distribution. That and the article says so itself in the opening paragraph "final fantasy spin of".Bread Ninja (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

But that statement itself is unsourced. Don't cite Wikipedia. My point is that it's unclear and you, as a person who did not work on the development of that game, cannot know how early or late the FF name was added. That means that when you call it a spin-off or related game, you are making a non-neutral judgment based on your own assumptions. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I dont think you are even looked at the development well enough to argue against it. what i was trying to say was that the game itself was developed with the name final fantasy in it. It's odd to assume that the game was developed after it's release. look at the development section one more time. it says they were originally going to use The Emergence of Excalibur as subtitle and 5 floppy disks for famicom. the series was cancelled and wanted approach something to final fantasy's liking. 4 years later a different game developed under the name "Seiken densetsu: final fantasy gaiden". Still i can see where you're going with this. SO how will you propose fixing this? i'm tired of one way or no way tactics in discussions.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Is something broken? I think the current organization is perfectly suitable. You're supposed to be convincing me why your change is superior. From what I can tell, your proposal is categorizes things ambiguously along the "related" vs. "spin-off" axis. It also introduces a subnavbox which is not preferable if it can be avoided, since it makes the template harder to read. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You say that, yet you made a change in the format.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you disagree with my logic? If so, then please explain why it's not an ambiguous, weighted term. Otherwise, you're just making a fallacious ad hominem attack. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

i'm just saying make your comments unanimous with your edits. you say you think the format is fine as it is, but you changed it. Either we make a compromise first, then change it or not change it at all. And i do believe there should be better clarity, related series and games, mix in games that are strongly related to Final Fantasy, with those that are actually part of final fantasy. It's harder to tell which is a final fantasy title and which isn't. Spin-Off isn't as ambiguous as you may think, you just never bothered to look into it more and expect me to give full answers. well here you go:

"any product that is an adaption, outgrowth, or development of another similar product: The paperback is a spin-off from the large hardcover encyclopedia."

from dictionary.com. i wanted to use the third one too, but it more related to a cause-affect, rather than media.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest asking WikiProject Video games for more input in this discussion, preferably in a new section in the WP:VG talkpage, since the section here is starting to get very long and circular. Lots of navigation templates (from high-quality articles) use the term spin-offs without any problem. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Headbomb's changes

Since he doesn't seem to be doing this, I am opening up discussion for the inclusion of the wikibook, category, and VG portal links on the template. While some other templates have this, I don't think they're appropriate for this particular template. The wikibook isn't really up to quality at the moment since the FF titles featured topic has been delisted. The category link is at the bottom of every FF page anyway, so it's clearly redundant. The VG portal is so ancillarily related to this template that it shouldn't even be there. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

it seems out of place....i vote for having the original.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Addition of a "Direct Sequel games" group

I think its now appropriate to add a direct sequel game group on the template as there is another game after Final Fantasy X that had the same format which is Final Fantasy XIII. Both games had a "...-2" on them and are with the "Final Fantasy" title as its main title on it unlike FFVII's prequels which used another naming like "Crisis Core". Also it will be easier for others to locate these specific articles to readers if we do add these. Lastly, It is appropriate to add this group because what the template is tackling is anything about the "Final Fantasy series" which include sequels, prequels, and movies created with a "Final Fantasy" name. For now I am focusing on defending on why do we need to add a direct sequel group on the template as these are the only games that bear the "Final Fantasy name" as its main name which was stated on the previous discussions but I am still open in the future to discuss on why to add a group for prequels, movies, etc... --Jeromesandilanico (talk) 24:53, 03 May 2011 (UTC)

All of the links you are referring to already exist in this template, contained within the optional template parameters which show links to the relevant FF game. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't read this as we were discussing it below. All main games have a template that link to their related games. To me that's perfect the way it is as if all were added in the main template it would be overloaded and confusing. Tyros1972 (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Saga / Mana Series

The Saga series should not be included as it only shares relation by US marketing. I have not found any ref. to indicate that the series was somehow a spin-off or shares any relationship to the FF Franchise. If you want to keep Saga then find some RS that supports a valid relationship / spin-off as I have seen none and you cannot go by a marketing name change outside the country of origin to classify it as spin-off or being related.

As for Mana the first game does appear to have been a FF spinoff, though the rest of the series (including the GBA remake) are not. So I think Mana Series should be removed, but the first game can be considered FF related and if that is what classifies a spin-off then it should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyros1972 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The first three SaGa games have "Final Fantasy" in the title; this is an indisputable fact. Whether it was a US marketing team or a Japanese marketing team that added the name makes no difference because Wikipedia should not have a country-specific bias. What could possibly be a more "valid relationship" than the name itself? To what extent are individual FF titles related to each other beyond merely having the FF "brand name"? One could very validly argue that the gameplay/story/whatever of Final Fantasy II and Final Fantasy XI are as different from each other as FFII and any SaGa games. The only strict criterion for inclusion in this template is the presence of the FF brand, which SaGa indisputably carries to the same degree as Mana. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

the argument isn't based on gameplay. The issue is whether it really is related enough to the actual final fantasy series. However apparently using the brand name for marketing reasons is relevant enough to be added in the article.Lucia Black (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The first 3 Saga games are called Saga, they do not have FF in the title. The FF title was added only for the US version. Even the first Mana game does not use the FF title in it's EU release (Mystic Quest). The actual Saga games were NOT developed as FF spin-off games, that is the point. It has nothing to do with Wiki being international, these games are simply not FF related. All FF spin-off games share more then a US name change (music, characters etc.) in some way. The first 3 Saga games are only related by name AND it was a change, this was not how it was actually developed or planned. FF Gaiden does indeed have evidence of a spin-off like any FF game, for example Chocobo and music is found in it - whereas Saga simply has no relationship whatsoever except for the US English localized release. Furthermore if you want to make wiki FF series "international" then Europe gets their own spin-off series called "Mystic Quest" (Mystic Quest & Mystic Quest Legend) that simply isn't found in the US/JPN as it is purely marketing name changes. Where do you draw the line? To me it's the country of orgin and how the games were developed - not how the were marketed to the international community. Tyros1972 (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You may as well add "Chrono Trigger" to the spin-off since it was marketed in the US as "Final Fantasy Chronicles" and I doubt anyone would agree the game is related to the FF series except for US marketing of the PSX re-release. Tyros1972 (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you're forgetting the purpose of a navbox, which is to aid navigation. If a random reader, who is not intimately familiar with the when or where of the application of the "FF brand name" to the game known in North America as "The Final Fantasy Legend", this user will be confused as to why it is not represented on this FF template. Furthermore, said user will be hindered in his/her ability to navigate articles related to FF. As for Chrono Trigger, a link to FF Chronicles already appears on the Chrono Trigger template. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, concerning the nav box though I think it adds to the confusion that US gamers still have today. As long as the spin-off series link stays off the main article and unless anyone else has an objection? I will undo the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyros1972 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

What confusion are you referring to? We're all for decreasing confusion here, lol. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

US Gamers to this day still think the FFL games are spin-offs, you can find sites and links in Google calling them part of the series. That's why I said I think it just enforces that, however, as you pointed out it is a nav box and should be listed as it is part of the FF series history (even if it's limited to the US). I have a problem with listing the Saga Series as a "spin-off" along with all the FF Spin-off games as it isn't, but that's a different wiki page. Do you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyros1972 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if that's a misunderstanding that can be addressed in a navbox, said reader would have to see that in the article. See also the discussion above about "related" vs. "sub" which gets to some of the issues about multiple interpretations of fuzzy terms like "spin-off" or "related". Axem Titanium (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

No don't think it can be corrected in nav box. We can rename it to FFL (instead of Saga) but can't see any benefit to that. Thanks I will read above. Tyros1972 (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Reorganization

I think the way the current parameter system is being used is convoluted and confounding to the purpose of having such a navbox. The goal of a navbox like this should be to allow users simple navigation between related topics. However the current system where games spun off from an entry in the series are only included in the navboxes containing those parameters flusters easy navigation. For instance a user reading about Final Fantasy VIII might be interested in reading about Final Fantasy X-2 and its absence would be confusing to them. This is especially convoluted as minor titles with little relation (such as Ehrgeiz) are included while major titles (like XIII-2) are absent. I think overall the use of parameters for this series is a good idea as it relates to the characters, music, and different ports of any given game - but the template should be reorganized such that spinoff titles and media are in the main navbox since that suits the general reader much more effectively. 70.113.92.82 (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Basically you are talking about adding a prequel/sequel category on the navbox and in there list direct series expansions (films and games). I don't have a problem with it and may make it a bit easier, but it can get very long esp. when you start adding all the expansions with XI and soon XVI where do you draw the line?. There are some games that aren't related to FF at all like Saga and Mana I'd like to see removed, but that was decided to remain for now. Tyros1972 (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that there are parameters for specific games that revolve certain game. For example final fantasy iv and vii have several spin offs and sequels. Also just because they have a "-2" doesnt mean its part of the main series.Lucia Black (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

He is not talking about spin-offs as they are already listed. A spin-off is somehow related but not tied to a specific games story. What is not listed are all the prequels and sequels that are tied to a specific games story in "Sequential Order" (i.e. they take place before or after a specific game) that is not a spin-off. I agree they are not part of the "Main Series" but they are also not part of a "Spin Off" either. Tyros1972 (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

When you click Final Fantasy IV's link on the main template, the template changes to show what related articles are such as the DS remake, it's sequel, and its remake and compilations. The other games that dont fit to a specific FF game in the main series fall under "Related Game" or "Related Series".Lucia Black (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing that? It brings me to the FFIV page and not a sub page listing all that. I am sure it's listed on FFIVs main page but not sure what you mean? I would find it hard if I wanted to click on the After Years or X-2 as Anon mentioned above. Tyros1972 (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

When you are on Final Fantasy IV related articles this template in those articles changes to show Final Fantasy IV related articles. A new group titled "Final Fantasy IV" and holds everything Final Fantasy IV-related articles into that group. It is right above "Main games". Same thing happens with other Final Fantasy Games that have several games. The ones that have too much to put into one group get their own navbox template such Final Fantasy VII and games that set in Ivalice (Fina Fantasy XII and tactics) etc.Lucia Black (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I know what you're saying, though I don't see that from the template links to FFIV or FFVII they just point to their main articles and not a sub page like you're talking about. FFIV points to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_IV and FF VII points to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_VII. I am not sure how users are going to see anything different? It should point to a sub section listing (that would be perfect) but it doesn't for me.

You should be seeing this. As for Final Fantasy VII, it has it's own template. For Final Fantasy VII's template look at template:FFVII

^^This is what the template looks like when you are on Final Fantasy IV article. If you do not see the group "Final Fantasy IV" above "Main games" then it might be a problem on your end.Lucia Black (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

OK yes I see it now. I was looking for it to go to a sub page with a listing, it's at the bottom. I wouldn't even know it unless you told me and then I scrolled all the way down looking for it. Then again I wasn't reading up on it either, so have to keep that mind. That's fine actually and makes a lot more sense then adding all the prequels and sequels to every game in the main template. Case closed as far as I am concerned :) Tyros1972 (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

yes. All navboxes are at the very bottom.Lucia Black (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I would back this, and maybe the table just needs a new Compilation's section added in, that'll have Compilation of Final Fantasy VII, Ivalice Alliance and Fabula Nova Crystallis. Maybe even one for FFX for X-2, and FFXI for it's expansions. It's silly that people have to go to the main games page to get access to these other titles in a table, when from any of the main games they can access titles that are only loosely related to FF. Adding in an extra line with these 3 to 5 links would not make the table too complex, and would better serve people exploring the FF series.Patternofknives (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

you can still type it in and manually search it. Their are other articles that are hidden until you access that article. And there are too many articles to make sections for those subseries. They already have their own navbox.Lucia Black (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't address that you can easily access items less related to core Final Fantasy than the proposed additions, from any main article - you could just manually search them instead, freeing up more space for core series elements, which should be the priority of this nav box. It's good to be selective about what is in the base template of a nav box, but at the moment this box has selected the wrong things. There's no reason Ehrgeiz should always be viewable over, say, FFX-2. The related games section is a mess, it's vague about what should go in it (and could technically hold the sequel games) and the films and animation section has two selected titles without much explanation as to why - anyone who is a newbie to the Final Fantasy series and using this navbox to find out more about the series would think that just those two items exist. Regards Patternofknives (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with which one is more important to be always viewable, its that ergheiz isnt really final fantasy specific to put it under hidden. Even if one is new to final fantasy it isnt hard to find. Theres alot to say but your focused on the wrong thing.Lucia Black (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Wiki states that the purpose of a navbox is to facilitate navigation between related articles, and one should ask "Would a reader really want to go from A to B?". In the case of Final Fantasy, it's likely that someone may want to go from FFII -> FFX-2, while unlikely that someone would wish to go FFII -> Ergheiz. This box doesn't allow for the former, one that is more likely to see traffic. Instead they have to go FF7 -> FFX -> FFX-2 which is inefficient, clashing with the purpose of a navbox. The base navbox too minimal for such a large series, much smaller series and organisations have more comprehensive base navboxes.

It would be better suited to have a collapsing template like This one. It would keep things looking neat, but allow us to include a better overview of the basic FF series in one place. What would you think of that? Patternofknives (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ergheiz is independent, therefore it will always remain visible. Navbox does exactly as you say a navbox is suppose to do, but the less related is hidden until accessed by one more related. The series tends to have several subseries. If one wants to go to final fantasy x-2 they can search it. It doesnt habe to be all in the open.Lucia Black (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that logic if flawed. 'One can just search for it' applies to anything, and is a circular argument, we may as well not have a navbox if that's the answer as a reason not to improve it. Would you have a specific argument against moving to the layout I suggested (This one)? For example, how it would not improve usability and ease of browsing the series?

P.S I don't mean Ergheiz shouldn't be visible, I mean it's flawed that it's always visible when other core titles that would see more click traffic, such as the sequels, aren't. Regards Patternofknives (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly a helpful format as it already does the same thing, and that particular style of format is only popular in wikia. When one clicks Final Fantasy X, it shows all topics more closely related to Final Fantas X, such as music of the game, Final Fantasy X-2 and its music. Ergheiz is visible again, because there is a section dedicated to games that are related to Final Fantasy but not the main series. Alsoit is subjective to believe any other game such as Final Fantasy X-2 is a core title.Lucia Black (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, I would disagree. And the style format exists in wikipedia, so is perfectly valid. But we're just going to go round in circles, so we'll have to wait till there's more input from others to come to a conclusion. Patternofknives (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Put them all together. Its ridiculous to have a template for a series that doesn't list most of the things that are part of the series.

• They'd all fit just fine if you copied the information to a single template. Dream Focus 07:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

  oIm not so sure. For now, im not against adding the X-2. However I dont agree adding all of them will fit in the navbox and the navigation will remain the same. Adding all of these will make the navigation more difficult.Lucia Black (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

  Some of them can remain closed by default, you clicking to open them. I've seen longer templates though. Dream Focus 20:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Then there would still be no real reason why we need to compile them together if they will only act as separate entities that can be automatically closed.Lucia Black (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Forgot that then. Having them all open, not that large. All articles of this series should be connected by a navigational template though. I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be. Its all connected. Those interested in learning more about the series, can easily navigate to all of the articles for it this way. Dream Focus 21:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

  Nav box design is a back and forth struggle between wanting to linking all related articles about a subject and imposing limits to avoid giving the reader information overload and paradox/paralysis of choice. The current template chooses to organize itself hierarchically around the "main" series of games so a naive reader would only see character and related articles to the main series entry AFTER they reach the main series entry. While this has the unfortunate side effect of making FFII -> FFX-2 more difficult than FFII -> Ehrgeiz, I think it's an acceptable compromise that avoids bloating the template with too many links, which can overwhelm a naive reader. My rationale is that if you already know what FFX-2 is, you're familiar enough with the subject matter to just search for it directly; the marginal benefit to this non-naive reader is minimal compared to the confusion that a naive reader would experience seeing weird words like FFX-2 (or FFIV: The After Years or whatever) without first reading about FFX. This design has been adopted by a number of other templates like Template:X-Files episodes. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge back Final Fantasy X template

I was wondering if we can merge back ffx and x-2 back into the main template, although has alot of links, it can be well organized and not need more than a single group.

for example it would look like: group= Final Fantasy X, list=Music, Final Fantasy X-2 (music) Characters(Tidus, Yuna Lulu, Rikku) Spira. Im uneasy about Spira and considering AfDing it because its nowhere close to the level of Ivalice or Gaia.Lucia Black (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)