Template talk:Final Fantasy series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Square Enix (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Bravely Default/Second Removal

Bravely Default may have various similarities to certain Final Fantasy games, but it is very specifically NOT a part of the Final Fantasy series. It is considered a spiritual successor to Final Fantasy: The 4 Heroes of Light, but it isn't an actual sequel to it. It doesn't take place in any of the Final Fantasy worlds, nor does it carry the name, nor does it contain the iconic staples of the series. Please don't spread misinformation. Please remove it from the Final Fantasy template.

Thank you. (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Its related to it in some form and fashion and as a bonus for Bravely Default: For the Sequel, the game offers Final Fantasy: The 4 Heroes of Light bosses similar ot how Kingdom Hearts has Final Fantasy characters in it as cameos.Lucia Black (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Now that Bravely Default is a series and not just a single game, it should probably be moved to the "Related series" line. UOSSReiska (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What is this template about?

If the main series section of the template is about the MAIN series it has to contain just I to XV. Djsnake86 (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. If we're going to add follow ups to numbered games, then X-2 and XII Revenant Wings also should be added to the main series. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Direct sequels to a main game should be added, as they're also main games. This means X-2, XIII-2 and Lightning Returns. Revenant Wings would be a spin-off.. -- DarkKyoushu (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2015 (GMT)
I agree with DarkKyoushu above, as well as Jeromesandilanico, who made a suggestion back here that was ahead of its time. Now that there are three direct sequels, it makes no sense to leave them out of the template. Readers should not have to click on a main game like X to find out that there is another main game that was a sequel to it, especially when the template is otherwise thorough in listing every conceivable related game that is not a mainline FF entry. Since adding X-2, XIII-2 and Lightning Returns to the main series listing would lengthen that line considerably, I'm making a callback to Jeromesandilanico's suggestion of a new line in the template, underneath "Main games", called "Direct sequels". Any objections or suggestions, or should I go ahead and try it, and we can look at the results? --Iritscen (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Eh, there are over 130 releases in the series, though a large amount don't have their own articles, so I wouldn't say that the template lists "every conceivable related game". It lists all of the related series, which are sometimes just one game. In any case- having a "sequel" line is complicated. FF4 has The After Years, FF5 has Legend of the Crystals (but it's an ova), FF7 has a whole series of games, which have their own template (do any of them count as sequels, since only the movie is later in time?), FF10 has a sequel (in its own template), FF12 has a sequel (but that sequel is part of a related series which has its own template), FF13 has 2 sequels (do we list them both? Also, they're in their own template), FF14 has a remake and then that remake has expansion packs, FF15 doesn't have a sequel but is part of a series (which is in the FF13 template)...
Basically, it sounds nice in theory to have a "direct sequels" section, but it's actually a muddled mess. There is probably a better way to organize things in the template besides the "external template"/"sections that only pop up when you're on one of their pages" thing we have now, but I don't think a "sequels" section is it. --PresN 20:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I was thinking about only three sequels for the entire mainline, and forgot about the FF VII prequels (Crisis Core and Before Crisis) and sequel (Dirge of Cerberus) and FF XII's sequel. I think that OVAs could be ignored in the "Main games" listing, but having so many pre/sequels still makes for a challenge in terms of neat presentation. I played around with putting the related games in their own collapsible sub-box, as seen here, but I'm not sure I'm satisfied with the results.
Still, I notice that the rebuild, or whatever you want to call it, of FF XIV, "A Realm Reborn", gets its own link in parentheses after "XIV", which makes the exclusion of the actual independent games X-2 and two XIII sequels even stranger. Maybe the ideal approach would be collapsible areas after each roman numeral, e.g., "IX · X (related) · XI", where clicking the "(related)" after "X" turns into a link called "(X-2)", clicking the "(related)" after "VII" turns into "(Crisis Core, Before Crisis, Dirge of Cerberus)", etc. But it doesn't seem that it's possible to make text expand to the right like that, and replace "(related)", without writing a custom JavaScript for this template. I'd love to know if anyone has any other ideas. --Iritscen (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, just playing around with ideas, not sold on it: --PresN 02:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I like that! My only notable concern with it is that not every reader may understand that the column headers are game titles meant to be clicked on. Here's a slight variant on your idea, with full game titles for the column headers so that the eye is more likely to see that each title is a blue link. This required dropping back from eight titles per row to five to allow for smaller monitors. I also made some small corrections to the actual titles listed under each game:
Feel free to go with your version; I'm just tossing this out there for comparison. --Iritscen (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the template has needed a simplicity overhaul for a while now. Cut the game-specific display-only-parameter stuff. This navbox has never been so big that it actually needed that functionality. I have had a first-cut draft sitting at User:Izno/Sandbox#Final Fantasy for a while now. --Izno (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I think all three of us can agree that the "game-specific display-only-parameter stuff" should ideally be a global part of the template so that you don't need to click on the articles for Final Fantasy IV, VII, X, XII, or XIII and read for a while, or scroll to the navboxes at the bottom, just to find out that there were major follow-ups to these games.
Taking a look at your draft, it seems like your suggestion is to just have a new row for each game. You've even made a row for games with no sequels, in order to link to all articles pertaining to each game. I like the comprehensiveness of that, but you've only done it for some of the games. There may be few related articles for FF I-III, but their absence seems potentially confusing. Yes, they're listed in "Main games", but that row has its own issue: since you already have links to each mainline entry at the start of each row, the "Main games" row adds nothing of value, except that it lists the first three titles.
I wanted to see how tall the navbox would get with rows for each game, so I augmented your navbox draft (I decided to combine I-III into one row to fully replace the "Main games" row, and I made some corrections and updates for the rest of the mainline games):
Maybe it's okay if the table is that tall? The navbox goes at the bottom of the article, after all. Are there other examples of big navboxes out there? I tried looking at some major game series' navboxes, and none were as complex as Final Fantasy's, including Dragon Quest's. Maybe none of them have the number of works that FF does.
Both your version of the navbox and PresN's accomplish the goal of listing each sequel or prequel alongside its original game. At the moment, I think it looks better to have whitespace in the many-row design than it looks in the multi-column design, but what do you guys think? --Iritscen (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
What probably happened is that I got sick of trudging through the live template's behavior to ensure I got every link into the sandbox navbox. :^) Usually navboxes aren't that tall, but I've seen ones on that order. I think it's fine not to have every game have a devoted |group=; we only really need that if we have lots of sub-game articles for a particular game. --Izno (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it took a while to collect the additional articles that I listed there, and I still probably missed some (just made a couple fixes, in fact). I think the main question is whether it would look odd or confusing if only some games had their own row. If we don't give a separate row to the games that have no "additional works" at all, we would only have rows for Final Fantasy 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15, which I think might confuse some readers ("Where did 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 11 go? Why are just these games here?"), or simply look unappealing.
That's why I like the approach of just listing them all separately (besides the first three, which are from the "pre-story" days and have little to say about them in terms of related articles). There's probably not a perfect way to do this because of the sheer complexity of what we are trying to map, though I'm still very open to anyone else coming in with a clever idea. Otherwise I think it's just a matter of finding what annoys us the least and yet actually lists all the FF games. --Iritscen (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure I like the multi-row design, as most of the rows are really empty. I tried populating the multi-column a bit more with music, character articles etc. (though I didn't add the individual character articles): --PresN 18:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The columns version has the same issue with lots of whitespace and additionally has the "small screen" problem as well as the "where to put the hangers-on articles" problem. And more games get added means more rows (which are big) get added... it's not viable in the long term. --Izno (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
That version of the multi-column looks nicer than your first draft since it makes better use of space with the additional articles (and I like the specific tweaks and fixes that you made to the items listed in the table). Unfortunately it is true that soon we are going to start hearing about XVI and maybe even XVII, which means that we'd probably have to go to four of those big rows.
Additionally, the amount of space taken up by a single popular game like VII causes its whole row to get taller. Even if we left out the individual works in the FF VII Compilation, other rows are likely to get taller, like the row with XV on it, as more works are produced in that "universe". So it seems to me like there is a greater impression of wasted space in the multi-column format, even if the total amount of whitespace isn't actually much greater than in the multi-row one. --Iritscen (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
P.S.: I've discovered in the course of editing both of your templates that the multi-row one is much easier to update. The nature of table markup lends itself more readily to simply adding a new row for a new game, whereas reorganizing the multi-column grid to go from, say, five-by-three to four-by-four (once there are 16 titles), then redoing the layout once again for 17 titles, etc., will take more time for future maintainers. --Iritscen (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I think part of the reason the multi-row version seems to have so much empty space is that it fills the screen horizontally. Below is a version of it that makes use of wrapping for some rows. (There are also some little improvements/additions taken from PresN's last table, and I made all prequel/sequel game titles bold so that they stand out more visually and match the bold of the row header game titles.) The goal was to make the table narrower so it appears to waste less visual space. In order to get the table to not take up 100% of the screen width I had to hard-code the width in pixels, which is not a good thing, but maybe someone else can get "width:auto" to work. Does this look better or worse? --Iritscen (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I might be missing something here, but this solution doesn't actually eliminate much whitespace, does it? It just sort of moves the whitespace to the left and right sides of the screen rather than the middle. I also don't think bolding prequels/sequels helps, since "bold" generally means "link to the page you are currently on" in navigational templates, and it's kind of a subjective, in-universe distinction anyway. The way Wikipedia does navboxes has some pretty fundamental problems, but I think the version you posted at 15:31 is probably the best compromise right now. —Flax5 20:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
You're correct, I'm only changing the appearance of whitespace, not decreasing it. I was curious whether it would look better if the space inside the box was more fully used, but perhaps the box also looks more cluttered as a result. I'm not experienced in editing navboxes, as you can probably tell :-) Good point on why bold probably doesn't help. Thanks for the input.
Let's see if we're arriving at a consensus. We have one vote for the table at 15:31 so far (though if we used that table, I would apply to it the small fixes to the game listings which were made in my 19:47 table, just not the bold formatting and line-wrapping). --Iritscen (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

FFXIV or ARR on main line?

PresN just added a subgroup for FFXIV. That's cool, I mostly agree, especially because I'm hoping to spin Heavensward into its own article with Dev and Reception sections soon(ish) so the subgroup will be a little less lonely. My question is if we should link to Final Fantasy XIV or Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn in the "Main games" row of the template. I'm actually slightly leaning towards the latter because I think that would better serve the readers for navigation purposes. At 3 years and counting since the end of original FF14 service, links to said article are increasingly not what regular readers are looking for when they look up "Final Fantasy XIV". Thoughts? Axem Titanium (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I really think it should be the original. I agree, ARR is certainly much more popular than the original game, but it's still a remake/reboot of that original game. It doesn't make much sense to me to have "FF1, FF2... FF12, FF13, the reboot of FF14, FF15" on the main line, any more than to have Final Fantasy IV (3D remake) instead of the original. And you'd have to specifically link it as something other than "XIV", since that's not actually its name. If readers accidentally go to the original when they meant the remake, there is a hatnote right up at the top.
Though, the thought occurs to me- the section below, the related games section, is just a pile of names. Japan-only GREE mobile games get the same prominence as FF Tactics. Is there a way we can split that up, somehow have a "main spinoffs and remakes" section (with a better name), so as to put ARR and some others in more prominence near the top, since as you say readers are likely to be looking for them? --PresN 21:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I have a somewhat unauthodox suggestion: instead of the main section being linked to the main article, do not add a link. Instead, have the two versions in the template section. Something like: FF XIV (heading, unlinked), XIV (original, linked), XIV: ARR (linked, with suitable subsections for any future articles related to standalone expansions should they arise), Music of XIV. That's not a very clear representation, but I think it might be good enough. On a side-note, Axem Titanium, I would be happy to do some digging for sources regarding Heavensward if you like. Make the job a little easier on you. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a slightly different use case than FFIV 3D because ARR represents a continuing active service that has wholly eclipsed the original in terms of mindshare/notability/every other metric other than badness, whereas FFIV 3D is a singular rerelease which is definitely less notable than the original. I think the reason we kept "XIV (A Realm Reborn)" for so long in the main series line was being cognizant of that fact. If, in fact, we decide not to keep both links in that line, I would personally list it as "XII XIII XIV: A Realm Reborn XV", rather than simply "XIV". You lose a little parallelism and gain a lot of navigation benefit.
Re:ProtoDrake. Yeah, for sure! I haven't started a compendium of links to sources yet so go crazy. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh right, context for why I made a subsection in the first place and pulled ARR out of the main line- Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Final Fantasy series/archive1, HurricaneHink commented on it in the FFseries FTC and I agreed that it was odd. --PresN 22:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is odd and unorthodox, but I think it's a net benefit to navigation to only include ARR, if you were forced to pick one. As time goes on, the "original" will only diminish in importance compared to ARR and I think ARR can be considered the "heir to the title of fourteenth main series Final Fantasy game". It potentially threatens the current FTC but I hope to have ARR as a GA soon as well. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, this is what I'm proposing:

Axem Titanium (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with ProtoDrake's suggestion to link both, and would have made the same one myself: Something like ... XIIIXIV (original, A Realm Reborn) ● XV

The "problem" is that unlike, say, original FF1 NES, the "original" FF14 isn't available anymore and has been superseded / replaced by a "new" FF14. It's a unique situation that isn't exactly comparable to spin-offs, expansion packs, and so on; there really are "two" FF14s, confusing as that is. SnowFire (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah that's the rub, isn't it? Unlike any remakes like FFIVDS where the original still exists and is playable, the original FF14 no longer exists at all and can't be played by anyone. The original FF14 was in service for 774 days from its launch on 9/30/2010 to the end of service on 11/11/2012. As of today, ARR has been in service for 861 days since launch on 8/27/2013, so even if ARR ended service today (it's not), it would still have a longer period of active service functioning as "the fourteenth Final Fantasy game" from a historical standpoint than the original. Of course, we could always return to linking both in the main series line like we have for the past three years or so. This proposal assumes our goal is to only link one, with my argued preference for linking ARR. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this helps the discussion or not (it's certainly OR), but I can think of very few instances where when the term "FF14" is used without qualifiers in casual conversation, it isn't referring to ARR or Heavensward. (At least, among the group of friends I have who play the game, the common parlance is to refer to the current game as simply "FF14" or "14", and to use terms like "1.0" when referring to the pre-ARR game, or "2.0" when referring specifically to ARR pre-Heavensward.) Still, the original FF14 is absolutely historically significant as one of the only (if not the only?) extant example of a released MMO which was shut down, substantially redesigned, and relaunched. UOSSReiska (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Listing the FF7 Remake under FF7

Just wondering if the FF7 Remake should be listed under FF7 in the main series, like A Realm Reborn currently is. I ask instead of doing this myself because FF7 is not the only game in the main series with a remake (FF4 had one for the DS, even though it wasn't as drastic), so I'm not sure what the best way to handle this is. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

So, ARR is only in the main series line (and after some debate, including just have FF14 and linking it to ARR) because it not only remade the game, it replaced it- you can't play the original FF14 anymore, and ARR is more popular by far than the original. When you say "Final Fantasy XIV", there's a very good chance that you actually mean the current incarnation of FFXIV (ARR), not the original. The same is not true of FF7R - you can buy and play the original FF7 today, doubly so on Steam, and the remake isn't likely to replace the original as the "definitive version" of FF7. If that changes, sure, but right now its just a remake. --PresN 03:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I thought originally. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Ogre series

Should Ogre Battle be added as a related series to Final Fantasy? In Final Fantasy XIV there are many references to Tactics Ogre: sets of equipment [1], one of the main antagonists [2] and one location [3] [4] from the latter game also appear in FFXIV. More importantly, Tactics Ogre is largely considered to be the spiritual predecessor of Final Fantasy Tactics. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

No, cameo appearances of bits from Ogre Battle in one of the many FF games and some inspiration possible taken for another doesn't make it part of the series. If we cast the net that broad there would be dozens of games attached simply because they were JRPGs in the 90s. --PresN 04:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
While I mostly agree, it should be noted that we are talking about one of the mainline games, and Nybeth Obdilord is a major boss in the game. But the most relevant thing to me is the relation between Tactics Ogre and Final Fantasy Tactics. It is nearly impossible to find a review of the original Final Fantasy Tactics that does not mention Tactics Ogre. The template for the Ogre series even mentions FFT as a related game. Again, I agree that there are many games that could be related to Final Fantasy somehow, but I see things in a different way here. We have the same mastermind behind TO and FFT, and the two games have become so intrinsically related that they are often mentioned in the same breath. I cannot see any other game from any other series getting this much close to Final Fantasy. I get it that it is a little bit of a stretch to add the Ogre series as related to Final Fantasy, but maybe adding Tactics Ogre as a related game might be feasible as a special case. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Conditional behavior -- let's get rid of it

This template, unlike every other navbox, has a bunch of conditional behavior for no obvious reason in this day and age. I'd like to get rid of it. I started a rewrite in my sandbox a while ago but which has obviously not kept up with the times. --Izno (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The goal of the conditional behavior was to provide details on a chosen FF game at the top, but on this talk page back in 2016 we agreed that it was better to try to make a global template that covered all the games at once. If you recall, I took the design of your sandbox template and expanded it to cover all games instead of only 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9, and added the newer games that had come out at the time, through 15. The only catch is that it makes for a tall table, but this draft seemed to be most widely-accepted. The only reason I didn't move it in over the existing template was that no one replied to my final request for consensus, and I guess I wasn't feeling bold that day. Did you have any concerns about my FFNavBox2? It's basically just the completed version of your original proposal. --Iritscen (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Iritscen: Oh, I didn't realize there had been previous discussion! :) I have no large issue with your sandbox copy, though we a) need to double check that it captures all the links on the current copy and b) need to fix the redirects (or remove them). --Izno (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
(We can iterate from your copy once it's live. Let's just do it!) --Izno (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
All right, I just did it! I updated NavBox2 with changes that were made in the past couple years to the previous template before replacing that template. I also removed any redirects from the new template except two, the ones for Zidane and Vivi, because it seemed odd to remove links for the main characters of that game when there are character links for 6, 7, 8, 10, and 13. But I understand that they no longer have their own articles, and BRINT is the rule, so someone can remove those two if they want. Iritscen (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Looking at it as it stands.... Yes, it's simpler, but it's also outputting due to its size. As I described here, I was scrolling down through the article for Final Fantasy Awakening, and it just hit me in an unpleasant way. It wasn't tempting me to navigate through it, but just to leave it. In fact, its size is putting me off making any improvements, which goes against what Wikipedia is supposed to be. I approve of simplification, but this just feels overblown. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
To be honest, I think this template was much harder to contribute to before. The conditional markup was quite intimidating to work with. It's true that visually the template comes across as a big wall, but it's all carefully organized and nothing is hidden based upon which page you're viewing it from, so it seems like it should be easier to tell if something is missing or incorrect. Iritscen (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree in some respects. But.... Where's Fortress? And Tactics is part of FF the same as Crystal Chronicles. And Fabula Nova Crystallis presents a whole other headache... Thinking about it, we can do any organising here, but in the mean time we can have an "autocollapse" state on infoboxes in articles so they're not a huge monster hitting readers who scroll to the bottom. That could sort part of the problem. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Since "Fortress" is a cancelled game, I don't think it belongs in the table. But as to your next point, are you asking why "Crystal Chronicles" gets its own row and "Tactics" doesn't? I've decided to give "Tactics" its own row too now, so let me know how that looks. Re: Fabula Nova Crystallis, we could just list every title there, even XV. No reason why it can't be listed twice. I'll try that now and we'll see how it looks. I think it's impossible to present Fabula in a way that doesn't result in at least a little confusion. That's because Square did a very confusing thing with that whole plan/event; it's confusing to learn about no matter how you approach the subject. As far as autocollapsing, that sounds like a good idea, I'll do that now. Iritscen (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Iritscen:I agree with the point about Fortress, it can just be something in the dedicated Ivalice navbox. And yes, the Tactics bar looks fine. Also, I've been thinking about the issue of FNC... Why not create a group dubbed "Other subseries" or something similar (potentially less clunky) which can act as a home for FNC along with the VII Compilation and Ivalice. Plus any future subseries projects SQEX might decide to create. I was on the point of doing it myself, but I thought some consultation was wise. I just don't feel comfortable lumping the Type-0 games in with XV or XIII, as they're technically not based in the same world. Plus, as the list stands, it's still sufferring the same problem which you mentioned below: "to be comprehensive". Unless we're putting limits on that comprehensiveness as the last version was. And this also begins raising the question of whether the other navboxes are needed (which I think they still are), and whether the code for them should be reinstated on this page as it got lost in the rewrite. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought about making a new row for FNC. I didn't think we should duplicate links already in the table, since FNC involves two different mainline games, but maybe you're right. However, I think that the VII Compilation belongs on VII's row, because the compilation does not involve any other mainline games. As for the world of Ivalice, since it can be boiled down to two things -- FFXII and the Tactics games -- should we just rename the "Tactics series" row as "World of Ivalice", and add XII to the list of games on that row? Lastly, I'm concerned about your comment that we are not being comprehensive. What are we missing? I reviewed the entire "Final Fantasy video games" category the other week in order to try to catch everything. In theory, the game-specific navboxes could be obsolete if this template is actually able to be comprehensive. If there is anything those boxes contain that we are missing in this "master" box, I'd like to know about it. Iritscen (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Iritscen: Wait, I've had an idea. Why not use the Persona series navbox as a partial template. That handles a whole series with related media, and does it in a fairly organized way. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm definitely interested in how other complex series handle their respective works, but Persona's arrangement doesn't impress me. I went here and I saw three separate navboxes; it's pretty bewildering for me as a Persona newbie trying to understand how everything is related. The first box, for only the Persona series, is good; it's just a different approach from what this new FF box is trying to do, which is to be comprehensive. Part of the idea behind this is to avoid controversy over what should be listed and what shouldn't be. Iritscen (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
() We can try using a Template:Navbox with collapsible groups. Numbered games (FF1-15) in one group and the others in the other group? --Izno (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
(And we could merge the other templates here if we did use a collapsible groups template.) --Izno (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I like the suggestion of separating mainline entries from the rest, although I don't think we should collapse both sub-boxes by default since the whole navbox is already collapsed. I'm going to try out the things we talked about so far. Anything we don't like can always be reverted. Iritscen (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the original over this current format. its all over the place and hard to navigate. so long as the main template has the main articles, then I don't see a problem why some don't show up. I think the only thing the original was missing was a direct link to fabula nova crystallis204.153.155.151 (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem during the era of the previous navbox was that editors couldn't agree on what the "main articles" were! I suggested adding FF X-2 to the list, as well as other sequels like XIII-2, and the idea was rejected because it would open the gate to including all the other prequels, sidequels, etc. You'd have run into the same problem getting "Fabula Nova Crystallis" listed. So in theory this navbox will settle all those arguments by being comprehensive. Iritscen (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: I don't know about this new format, ProtoDrake :-) Yes, it's more concise, but don't you think that people are mostly going to be interested in seeing which works are related to which mainline game? It seems that we're thinking about the FF universe in two different ways: your version groups the FF works by type, and my version groups them by the number of the mainline game. I never really got to know what made the game-oriented format unpleasant for you. Would you find my version easier to read if each game still had its own row but the types of works were broken into columns that ran down the table, such as "Characters", "Sequels", etc.? Iritscen (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Iritscen: No, I think columns wouldn't be an improvement. After due consideration, I see your version has better merits in terms of actually finding things. I've reverted my changes accordingly. The new arrangement as it stands now is sort of growing on me. It does make edits a lot easier going by game, though it may present issues when a new mainline entry appears and there's no proper info to create Character or Music articles for potentially years. And since individual infoboxes (FNC, Compilation) appear to be remaining for the moment, my issue with all but the main Compilation of Final Fantasy VII article being missing doesn't apply. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
If there was a problem with including Compilation of FF7 and Fabula nova crystallis, all that needs to be done is include them in the subseries. I just looked back at the original version and Ivalice was another one that was missing too. if those three are included in the box, non-fans will still find the key articles easier. (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm glad it's growing on you :-) I had the same feeling at first -- the table design wasn't mine, I just completed the list of mainline entries, and when I first saw the resulting Wall of Final Fantasy, I thought it was a bit much. Over time, though, I've come to like the design. Hopefully others will too.
I was going to ask about the VII Compilation before. I thought about breaking it out, however I don't think it deserves a separate row in the lower section like FNC did; I think that would be confusing when the other mainline games have all their plot-connected works on their mainline row. The catch is that putting everything on VII's row will wrap it around to a second line on some people's screens (though it just barely stays on one row on mine). I've committed that change, so you guys can consider how it looks, or revert it if you want. It's true that this edit makes it look like people are really nuts about FFVII: "Look at how many articles it has!" But ultimately that makes sense, since Square(-Enix) has spent more time with VII's world than any other. If it rubs you guys the wrong way to have a two-line row for VII, I would suggest that we make an exception for the character articles on that row, removing the individual entries besides Cloud and Aerith, in order to leave room for the Compilation breakdown. Iritscen (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
sorry if I wasn't clear, I'm 100% against more verticality for the navbox (unless you're referring to the one above me). i'm also against hiding the articles too. Compilation of FF7 is confirmed to being a subseries. Final Fantasy series are individual stand-alone titles, so X-2 and XIII-2 and Lightning Returns were never part of the original series. I'd call them main series adjacent if that makes sense. The main Final Fantasy franchise article even recognizes that design since it separates direct sequels into their own category. Compilation of FF7, Ivalice, and Fabula Nova Crystallis all have their own navboxes so its overkill to separate it like this. It also hides more popular articles at the bottom too, like Dissidia. (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
after doing a quick look around, Characters have their own navbox too at the top of the article. I was thinking "wouldn't it be great if there was a music article that covers the entire series". and silly me there is, and that has its own navbox too at the top of the page instead of the bottom for all music related articles. so I think the navbox even more redundant than it needs to be. (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I was kind of replying to both of you, but I might have misunderstood your point. Are you saying it would look better if VII's row just had the link to the Compilation article like it did before, and we made a new "Compilation" row in the "Additional works" section for the individual works in the metaseries? In general, I strongly disagree with the idea that sequels such as X-2 and XIII-2 don't belong right next to the games they are sequels to, and this template was designed around the philosophy that all related works should be found on one row. In the case of VII, I don't object to breaking out the Compilation somewhere else, though. As far as the navboxes on the individual articles, it makes sense for them to focus on articles related to the one the reader is looking at, but it doesn't take away from the usefulness of having a master navbox that shows everything related to each numbered work. By contrast, the previous navbox ignored sequels altogether, which I found to be a bizarre decision. Iritscen (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I suspect the reason why X-2 and XIII-2 aren't in the same row is because the according to the Final Fantasy franchise article, they're not main titles and it used to reflect it closer to that article. Unless the franchise article is outdated and organized incorrectly, I prefer something as close to this [5] as possible. The only thing missing in my opinion is Fabula Nova Crystallis link, Compilation of Final fantasy link, and Ivalice link. What if we added a "direct sequels" section instead? (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Could someone make an edit to show that for example purposes to see if its a good idea? I would try to make it myself, but I'm not familiar with this navbox at all and most likely screw it up. (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I think this version is better [6]. You don't have to scroll all the way to the bottom to find the latest final fantasy. I was just working on previous version, so I couldn't remove the conditional parameters without screwing it up. Another option is having FFXIII-2 and XIII: Lightning Returns in the "Direct sequel" group and Fabula Nova Crystallis in the Subseries group. I also think that Final Fantasy IV, Chocobo, and Crystal Chronicles could have their own templates. And if you want to know my basis on that, its because those subseries have more than 3 video game article and in my head that warrants enough to have its own navbox. (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't look bad, although it takes us back to the conditional behavior we were trying to move away from. I do wonder what the point was of those conditional game-specific additions if each game also has its own navbox that lists all of the articles related to that game. Should the conditional links from the old version of this template just be moved into the separate templates for each of those games?
Also, if we are going to use this template, I would at least agree with your alternate suggestion of listing XIII-2 and Lightning Returns under "Direct sequels". By the way, I know this is coming from the old template, not you, but "Subseries" is not actually the correct term for "Crystal Chronicles" et al.; "Other series" is more accurate, especially if Fabula goes on that row, because it's a metaseries, not a series. Anyway, let's see if any other editors want to weigh in on your proposed template. Iritscen (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
[7] so theres this version, added XIII and also XII sequels because I forgot about it. (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
It looks good. I would just say that the conditional behavior still makes it an unpleasant template to work with, so if we're going back to this one, then the conditional links that appear for each game should be moved to that game's existing navbox (if the links aren't there already, which they probably are). It looks like only VII, Fabula, X/X-2 and Ivalice have their own templates, as the other games/series don't have many separate articles devoted to them, so it wouldn't be much work to compare those four navboxes against this template's conditional links. Iritscen (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

i made them here, just in case someone objects. So if anyone thinks this is better, they can create the templates.

I don't think I'm missing one. (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

if no one is against it, could someone create these navboxes for me? so we can try out the version with "direct sequels". (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm against it. FFVI has so little content that a dedicated navbox seems like overkill. As it stands now, I think the current set-up is adequate. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The more recent and relevant final fantasies like FF15, Type-0 Brave Exvius, and Dissidia FF NT get pushed further down the list and I think that's bad organization because those are currently the more relevant Final Fantasy and should have easy access. The spin-offs section is collapsed and I don't know why. Fabula Nova Crystallis and World of Ivalice groups repeat the same links to the main series group if uncollapsed and they have their own navboxes with easier navigation. Its just too inconvenient to have a "master navbox" for Final Fantasy in my humble opinion, there's just too many pages to cover and makes it jarring to look for something specific. I dont know about you, but i think not all pages are created equal. I know other Navboxes have this problem too and its nothing new, but i think FF has found a good balance and thought other Navboxes should take notes from this one at the time. Final Fantasy IV (not VI) has over 5 pages related to it, more than chocobo series. I think it deserves a navbox iMHO along with Chocobo and Crystal Chronicles. (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
How about this then? Plus, we're trying to sort it out, not thrust the newest entries at people. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
This is a compromise i feel comfortable with. However, i don't think the spin offs should be collapsed. (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Currently the whole navbox as well as the "Additional works" section are collapsed by default, which can be changed by editing "state=" and "state3=". We did that with the taller format box in order to avoid having a giant template at the bottom of the page. Probably those could both be set to "uncollapsed" now. Other than that, I think this format works decently. Iritscen (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Iritscen Which format do you mean? --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The last one you posted above. It's not what I originally wanted, but it accomplishes the two main things I did want: removing the conditional behavior (which was also Izno's original reason for starting this topic), and listing the sequels. So I'd be content with it. Our IP editor friend is just asking if you can leave the "Additional works" uncollapsed. Other than that, we seem to be at a consensus, so you could replace the current template with this one. Iritscen (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

More discussion

@Izno: @Iritscen: @ProtoDrake: @ I only saw this discussion just now and I'm not going to lie; I think the new version looks like ass. The first line looks lonely and threadbare but the rest of it is a confusing mess. Information about each individual game gets spread across four or five rows and some of it even gets hidden under the Additional Works tab. Consider the reader: I finish reading the article on FF7 and I want to know more. I reach the end and I have to hunt across multiple rows to find the related information I'm looking for. I don't even think to click "show" to find the Compilation row because it's not obvious that something FF7-related would be hidden there. In trying to be a replacement for all the FF sub-navboxes, it ends up biting off more than it can chew and decreases navigability, not increases it. Izno opened this discussion with the assertion that the conditional behavior was bad, but didn't really explain why. I would like to hear more of his reasoning. Also @PresN: and @SharkD: since they were involved in the original discussion to implement this form. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Axem Titanium: I didn't mind the old system. I got involved in the conversation when I saw the navbox change, and trust me it was worse before the version shown here in terms of white space. The version there now was a compromise to stop a conversation that seemed to be going round in circles. I'd not object to going back to the old system if this one wasn't working out. --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
The conditional formatting was a) difficult to update, b) introduced duplication, and c) clearly failed user expectation--that is, that I can navigate between any Final Fantasy information as I please. Please avoid being needlessly inflammatory. I have no issue with this version (or something like it), but apparently others do. That version has a lot of whitespace but I'm not bothered by that--most of these templates are collapsed in general and even where they are not collapsed, they rarely dominate the page just because they're at the bottom. --Izno (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
The purpose of a navbox is to aid navigation. The current version fragments information related to a single title across multiple sections of the template in an unintuitive way. From what I can glean reading above, the difficulty in updating the old format was ameliorated by simply looking at the template documentation which showed a preview of all possible states right there. I don't find that duplication on a navbox is inherently a bad thing, as long as it serves the needs of navigation. At the end of the day, I think grouping links by game title is more semantically intuitive than grouping links by format/medium. The goal of this template need not be navigating between *any* Final Fantasy information. The series is huge enough that a reasonable end user is unlikely to jump from FF4: The After Years to Music of FF12. And we have other templates to navigate between reasonable semantic jumps, including {{Final Fantasy characters}} and {{Music of Final Fantasy}}. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Just for the record, the documentation on the original version was awful to read, and the template was awful to edit. Reading the docs only helped an editor a little in modifying the template because the main issue was the complexity of the nested brackets, which took time to absorb and navigate when editing.
That aside, it seems to me that the crux of this problem is that we want different things from the template, and we're almost evenly divided between the three versions (which you could call conditional, game-based, and category-based). Should we hold a vote to pick which of the three is preferred by the majority? Personally, I think the game-based version is the best combination of readability and editability, and the whitespace stopped bothering me after I had looked at it for a while, but maybe I'm biased. --Iritscen (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
In what way was the old documentation hard to read? The only moving part was one parameter which should never need to be changed once placed on an article. Ease of modification has never been a requirement for templates, only the mainspace---templates have long been established as complex bits of wiki code that should primarily be handled by experienced editors. As for the main discussion, I think the category-based organization is straight out. I have a strong preference for the conditional organization but I think it's still too early in the discussion to hold a straw poll of any kind. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps I shouldn't say "awful", but the issue with the docs was that it was a huge wall of similar-looking templates to scroll through, and then a note at the end that you weren't even supposed to supply a parameter for VII, X, XII, or XIII since they had their own templates. Which brings me to the main issue I had with the conditional template: if you're going to have content that only shows on one game's page, why not just make a separate template for that game, as has already been done in some cases? Why make one template so complex when you won't even see all its content at once? --Iritscen (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Let's look at the problem from the opposite perspective then. What advantage is there to making many templates as opposed to just one? With a single template, it's more compact, for one thing. The complexity is ultimately invisible to the end user and once it's set up, there's really no need to make modifications on each individual page that it's transcluded on. One of the motivations for the conditional approach was to subtly discourage linkspam in the template when some driveby editor complains "why isn't my favorite game xyz listed in the template?" because it's already there. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I understand the desire to limit links. There are only so many FF works. They're not Pokemon; each one is article-worthy, and therefore each one is template-worthy. I can understand the argument that not all works (and articles on their music, etc.) need to be visible at once. I just think that it's more editor-friendly to either have multiple templates, one for each game's articles, or else one template that has all of its content visible. The second option makes more sense to me because it also gives us a place to put "Additional works", though that could be its own template on FF pages as well (multiple navboxes on top of each other are about as compact as a single large one, and this is commonly done, e.g. on Megami Tensei). It's the conditional template that I never understood the logic behind, and I believe it's a very unorthodox approach for a navbox, though perhaps other editors more experienced with navboxes can correct me. Ultimately I think we are all being guided by our own sense of aesthetics and what constitutes proper organization, so only a vote will probably settle things (preferably including as many past editors of FF pages as possible, not the handful we've seen participate in this topic). --Iritscen (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It's somewhere between unorthodox and unique in the conditionals, and I say that as the primary caretaker of the video games navboxes (and I've edited my fair share of navboxes outside the video games domain--where it is also unorthodox). Fundamentally, the contents of this template are not special. --Izno (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I've pinged the main WPSE talk page for more eyes. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello. (previously I agree the original version is superior. Not everything was in one template, but it was still accessible by other links in it. There are other navboxes that are more relevant to the specific topic for Music and Characters for better navigation. I don't think the conditional behavior is what made it work though. In my humble opinion, the conditional behavior was like trying to please dwarf planets (we want to call it a planet but its not big enough). I don't think we need the conditional behavior anymore. Crystal Chronicles and Chocobo series deserve their own templates. The other groups that had conditional Behavior were mostly made up of series that had non-video game articles. FF6 only had Terra Bradford and Kefka. we don't need that in the main navbox IMHO. I recommend going back to the original one but only removing the conditional behavior and work it out from there?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
My only big issue with the conditional template (besides the conditional markup) was that it didn't even the direct sequels to games like X and XIII. It didn't make sense to me that the Theatrhythm, Bravely Default, and Type-0 games had all the entries in those franchises explicitly linked to, yet it was as if X-2, XIII-2, etc. didn't even exist. As long as someone is willing to make new, separate templates for all the content in the current template that does not already have its own template, like Crystal Chronicles and Chocobo, and figure out how to fit the sequels into the main FF template, I would support restoring the original template sans conditional output, and moving that conditional elaboration into its own templates (which has already been done for VII and Fabula Nova, for instance). I also want to point to the Square Enix franchises template, which already covers (almost?) all of the S-E properties that are in the "Other games" and "Related series" sections of the current FF template. --Iritscen (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not in principle opposed to a Direct sequels row as proposed above. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I made Template:Chocobo series and Template:Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles. I haven't added them in their respected pages since I don't know if everyone is in agreement. Even though FF4 Complete Collection is a compilation game it has a new scenario called "Interlude" I was thinking of adding that in the sequels section and making it show up as Interlude instead of Complete collection. Does that sound like a good idea?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I actually quite like PresN's proposal. Is there any way we can come to a consensus on something of this form? Axem Titanium (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's a version with 3 columns, and all related articles included for main games. --PresN 21:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Other than FF7 being a bit long in the tooth, I quite like that version. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree that either of these versions are better IMHO. sorry.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
In what way are they not better than what's currently live? Axem Titanium (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, the spacing between each numbered game is too much and you have to memorize where each main title is. I just find it not that easy to navigate at all. 22:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Pumpkin Pie (talkcontribs)
It's a navigation template, not a final exam---you don't have to memorize anything. I removed the abbreviations for each game name since there's plenty of room in each column. I find it much easier to navigate related concepts compared to the live version which scatters relevant articles to the wind and even hides a ton of stuff in a sub-sub hidden box. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Even though its section off differently, I still prefer the current one over the proposed on (but keep in mind, I prefer the original version even more). Its just not as clean as the current or original one. And it looks too different from the rest of the naxbox that I've seen. Perhaps I'm bias, because I am most definitely pro-multi navbox and anti-Omni navbox. There is info that has proven to be impossible to convey if we tried an omni-template without repeating. FF13 and type-0 and FF15 are all related to Fabula Nova Crystallis and FF12 and Tactics and even Vagrant Story are World of Ivalice. I think we're going nowhere with this because we all want different things out of the template.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I mean, we can at least agree that the current live version isn't optimal for navigation, right? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
PresN, I think it works as the main ff template. We can make smaller dedicated templates for sizeable subseries that don't already have them. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
sorry, there was an edit conflict. Yes I agree its not optimal at the moment. but this version isn't more optimal then the current one. I"ll go along with what the Majority wants. the good news is I don't need the navbox to navigate. SO it'll depend on those who will actually use it the most.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Vote 1

Right. I think it's about time we settle this. There's been positive comments about PresN's arrangements above, but this is beginning to be dragged down into something akin to the above discussion, which resulted in a less than ideal template being put out just to create room to breathe. This below is PresN's proposed test box layout.

While there are a few adjustments which can be made (some serious gaps in XV's section, and several cases of double-linking), it can remain as is. As to series such as Ivalice, FNC, FFX -- basically the most substantial series with more than one or two games to their credit, they can have dedicated navboxes (as many already do). I know this leaves things up in the air like the large amount of VII-related content and the main template leaving articles out, but let's face it if this keeps going we'll never have any satisfactory conclution. Perfection isn't real, and pursuing isn't practical. I think it's time for the vote; Aye or Nay, do we use the version of the template created by PresN and use dedicated navboxes for larger sections of subseries. Please put forward your opinions on the subject @Blue Pumpkin Pie, Axem Titanium, PresN, Iritscen, and Izno:. My opinion below. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support. The above solution seems the best suited to both end this circular argument and create something that's navigable for the average Wikipedia visitor. Minor ammendment, PresN's third attempt (see below), seems better than the version previously supported above. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not easy to navigate and I don't think its practical.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Sorry, but I just realized another issue. once more Final Fantasy titles come out such as FF16, the main series will have to be redone, and even worst once we hit a prime number like Final Fantasy 17. I know it sounds like an issue we will have to deal with in the future more than at the moment. but I thought its still relevant.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Navboxes are supposed to be concise, this is just a big bloated mess with tons of whitespace. I actually prefer the current one to this still. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I made a tweak to the version above that fixes most of the whitespace. Does this move you at all? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While I liked it initially and experimented with it as part of the 2016 discussion above, I currently feel that it's harder to read a multi-column template than a version with a new row for each post-III title. I also think the format makes it harder to edit, and as Blue Pumpkin Pie points out above, we're going to end up with incomplete rows once more FF games come out, which will add even more whitespace. I'd rather have the whitespace limited to the end of each game's row, because it looks more orderly that way. I think PresN's row-based example below is more readable and easy to maintain (it's also similar to the format I was championing before). I am also open to the multi-navbox approach of having a general, short FF template (with the caveat that it should list direct sequels), and then placing a game-specific template above/below that in each article where it's warranted (again, like Megami Tensei). --Iritscen (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Recognizing that there are issues with the template at present (it was a proof of concept; in addition to ProtoDrake's comments the bottom half is also whatever was in the template in 2016 when I first made it), the idea was more "does a multi-column layout for the main series make sense". Blue notes that in a couple years we'll need to either switch to a 4-column layout or have a non-filled row, and years after that we'll have to have a non-filled row; I'm not terribly concerned about it being eternally future-proof, and was ambivalent between 3 and 5 columns beyond trying to make it visually clean so I'm sure 4 would be fine. So that said, let me try to sum up the options:
  1. The template at present: gets rid of the conditional formatting; makes it really hard to jump between articles related to a single game (characters, music not being near the game article or present at all)
  2. The old style: has conditional formatting (harder to update, I guess, doesn't let you easily jump across games because other sub-articles non-visible.)
  3. Multi-column: everything present, organized; may need rethinking in the future; long
  • No one seems very happy with the present one- it did not stop the conversation, it breaks things up, it may be easier to edit but it's not like a template needs to get adjusted often. With respect to Izno, Final Fantasy is unique in that it has 100+ articles and so many subseries that readers care about. It doesn't sound like we want to go back to the old way either, though- I agree that it was also hard to connect a game with its subarticles unless it had a conditional section, and you couldn't jump laterally because only one conditional was expressed at a time. I think we need to either have the column layout or have each game get its own row- I came up with the columns to reduce whitespace (most games don't need a whole row), but maybe that'd be better? Regardless, of the options shown thus far, I'm in favor of columns, so support. I mildly prefer 3 vs 5 columns, and think that it'd help to pull FF7 (compilation of) out into its own template. --PresN 20:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support some version of the multi-column template. The new game problem is a future problem to be addressed in the future; let not the perfect be the enemy of the good. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
This is what it looks like if you straight convert the column layout to rows. Even with the 1st three games arbitrarily grouped together, sharp-eyed editors may note that it's like an inch taller. (I did not attempt to fix the duplicate link issues of the column concept, this is a proof of concept only).
What makes the template bigger than it needs to be is the music and characters. if you remove those specifically, the template is easier to manage and also reasonably easy for first-time readers.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

(This probably won't get this any further, but I've made my own template. Let it be remembered that this is with new templates created for Characters, Music, and substantial subseries not yet given such. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)) User:ProtoDrake/FFnavboxTest

I'd support this. We don't need every single topic/list/page jammed into this navbox. We already have a Music of the Final Fantasy series page, so a dedicated navbox for that would be doable. Or perhaps one for just the video games, and another for related media, which would include music, anime, films, and whatever else that isn't strictly a video game. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I would also support a pared down template like this one. It depends on what our goals are. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Dissident93 and Axem Titanium: Since it's been brought up, I've done a test version of a FF Music navbox. This type of thing can be applied where needed to supplement the main navbox for the series as a whole. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


Perfect. Short and actually navigable. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I support this for the main Final Fantasy series being shortened. I'm not sure about having a new navbox for music and characters. there is already template:Music of Final Fantasy and template:Final Fantasy characters. Wouldn't it seem redundant to have two navbox for the same reason?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: The music navbox is being used as an example. Nothing more at present. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
In practice, I don't think we need a bottom navbox for music when Template:Music of Final Fantasy already exists. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd vote to delete that and replace it with the navbox, personally. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I was speed reading. I am ok with this. I recommend listing Fabula Nova Crystallis somewhere in the navbox.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Originally I was keen on the idea of "one template to rule them all", but after seeing the difficulties in organization that it presents, I think that multiple templates stacked on top of each other is probably the answer after all. As ProtoDrake said, new templates can be created where needed for each series/game, though I feel like we actually have everything we need now. Just a reminder that Blue Pumpkin Pie has already created templates above for the Chocobo series, FF IV, and Crystal Chronicles. --Iritscen (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@Iritscen: I've found the one for Crystal Chronicles, but I can't find the others you mentioned. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake: If you search this talk page for "thinks this", you'll find only one other occurrence, right above BPP's markup for the three navboxes. --Iritscen (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Here are the links again for template: Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles and template:Chocobo series. I didn't make Final Fantasy 4 navbox yet. If you think its a good idea, I can make it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (PresN's 3 column version) - There is a little bit more white space than I'd usually like to see, but overall I feel this one is much easier to navigate spatially. I much prefer the organization of like things together. (ie - everything about Final Fantasy X together, rather than parts split amongs the core games, character sections, music sections, etc.) I think its more in line with what a reader is likely to be searching for - everything about a specific game, rather than "all the characters" or "all the music" of the series. Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Can the navbox be renamed for this discussion? "PresN FF nabox No.1", "PresN FF navbox No.2", "PresN template NO.3" and "Dissidient navbox No.1."Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Vote review

Okay, let's see if we can reach a consensus (that is, majority agreement). According to what I've read above:

By my count, and counting both votes in the case where a user liked two templates (because my goal is to find the most-agreed-upon template), that makes:

That means we have a tie between the last two versions. Can everyone please correct me if I mis-stated your vote? If I stated accurately, then I think we just need to have a tie-breaking second vote between (1) the multi-column design (which would have anywhere from 3-5 columns) and (2) the concise version stacked above/below additional navboxes. First I think I need confirmation that I summarized everyone's view accurately. This has gotten to be a complex discussion, so I might have made a mistake or two. --Iritscen (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Mine is correct. Sergecross73 msg me 20:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • That's my opinion, but I'm also alright with the test design I made to be used if that's the ultimate choice. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't say I prefer the "current version". Just that in compassion to the one that was presented, I did. I'd prefer the one Blue Pumpkin Pie likes over that. If a navbox becomes too bloated or hard to navigate (which the row/column based ones are IMO), it has failed its only intended goal. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • If I were to rank my preferences, it would go multi-column > conditional > concise version. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm actually in favor of Dissident's version.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, which one do you mean? Dissident93 clarified above that he prefers the conditional version. Do you mean the current version? --Iritscen (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
What Dissident proposed was the original except it removes the conditional. The ones that used to have conditional behavior now have their own navbox (Crystal Chronicles and Chocobo) the only one except Final Fantasy 4. but if there's a push for it. it could work.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Please read Dissident93's comment above: "I'd prefer the one Blue Pumpkin Pie likes over that." He is referring to the original conditional template that started the whole discussion. But we needn't get hung up over that. I just need you to be specific in linking to the version of the template you prefer. Thanks. --Iritscen (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Vote 2

Okay, thanks for the feedback. Let's wrap this up folks :-) Feel free to disagree with my methodology here, but I'm going to present a simplified vote in order to settle this. I've struck out the following options:

  • The old and new row-based designs are not well-supported enough to have a chance of winning. I had mentioned Izno before so that I could ping his name in case he wanted to vote, but in his absence I am not going to assume that I know what choice he would currently make. That leaves only two votes total, mine and ProtoDrake's, for either row-based design. It's not too late for Izno to vote in this second, final round though.
  • The current version of the template actually has no supporters now that Dissident93 clarified his preference for the conditional version.
  • The conditional version only has two supporters, Blue Pumpkin Pie and Dissident93, so it also cannot win in a vote.

That leaves:

  1. The multicolumn version
  2. The concise version, which will be supplemented by special navboxes for games that have lots of related works

Please leave your vote below this point. [edit: Oops, I guess I should also ping ProtoDrake, Blue Pumpkin Pie, Dissident93, PresN, and Sergecross73. --Iritscen (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)]

  • I've gone back and forth on this subject, but when I have to choose between these two versions, I slightly prefer the multi-column approach because (1) you can get anywhere in a single click, instead of clicking on a game you're interested in, then scrolling to the bottom of that game's article to find the navbox with all the other pages related to that game, and (2) sequels are grouped with their main game rather than being jumbled together in a "Sequels" row. It's harder to maintain than separate, smaller templates, but it's probably worth the trouble. --Iritscen (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I actually object to the multicolumn version. It has a similar issue to that of the maintenance burden with the condition template. (Also, I believe someone stated there were numerous duplicate links--which we should not have per WP:NAVBOX and WP:NAV.) The concise version I have little (or even no) issue with. --Izno (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Between the two, I prefer the multi-column version. I believe we can address everyone's specific nitpicks with the implementation via wiki magic. The version proposed by PresN is a draft that can be improved over time. Thanks for taking point on pushing for a consensus, Iritscen. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Multi-column. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Multi-column - Sergecross73 msg me 23:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Multi-column - I don't beleive that the maintenance issues are severe- the code isn't more complicated than a wikitable (which isn't a ringing endorsement, I guess) but more importantly the column part of it shouldn't need to be updated except every few years at most. Most changes to this template are down in the additional items section, which is a standard layout. And yes, that was a proof of concept, and we should nail down what all the links are before switching- the biggest issue was that it originally had the Compliation of FF7 in the FF7 section and also in its own row. And yes, thank you very much Iritscen, for pushing this discussion out of the lengthy morass it had been stuck in. --PresN 01:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm still new at the voting process. but I noticed this wont make people happy. Can we allow alternative voting? Alternative voting process can be setup so that we rank which version we like best and which we like the least. That way even if we don't get our first choice, we at least get our second choice (or the majority). The voting is just a little hasty.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that exactly what they did? Had a vote round where everyone posted their top pick, eliminated the bottom options, then had another round where everyone got to move down to their second pick if they wanted? --PresN 19:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
"Hasty"? It appears these discussions have been ongoing for weeks. That's the opposite of hasty. And as PresN notes, it looks like that's pretty much already been done anyways. Your suggestion sounds more like "calling for a redo", which also doesn't make any sense. Sergecross73 msg me 19:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
How is the above (first entry in January and now extending to four subsections) "hasty"? It's taken ages to get this far. Blue Pumpkin Pie, haven't we had enough endless debate and circular arguments here? We're seeing a clear majority after lengthy discussion and an elimination round. This isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, hasty. Dragging us back into it all over again won't get anything useful done. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Poor choice of words with hast. I meant only one is being pushed to be given attention and those who support it do not want to discuss about what should be achieved. I wouldn't call it majority vote for multi-column. That's why Ranking votes would work. we've been discussing it and I know some of us are getting a little salty about it, but it looks like the end of the day people just want to look at 1st choice, not second or third (alternative voting). Would you take into consideration my second or third choices available? Because I do support Dissident's version, but I rather have the current one than the multi-column.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Setting up a system where people pick their first/second/third/fourth/etc options is only going to lead to a horrible web of results where it'll be impossible to discern a consensus though. It'll likely lead to a situation like:
Template A has 3 1st choice votes, 2 2nd place votes, 3 third place votes, and 1 fourth place vote,
Template B has 2 1st place votes, 4 second place votes, 2 third place votes, and 1 fourth place votes, and
Template C has 1 first place votes, 6 second place votes, 1 third place vote, and 1 fourth place votes.
I mean, what's the consensus in a mess like this? It's not any more clear than how we did it the first time. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but other than things not falling the way you want them to, I don't see a valid reason for redoing this. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
A lot of the votes summarized in the Vote Review already take into account multiple preferences (with equal weight even, which is stronger than ranked choice). I don't think one person expressing additional ranked preferences would have changed the results of the first run-off into Vote 2 which moved the top two candidates forward for a final consensus. Ranked choice voting is fine, preferable even for ballots with more than two choices, but it's clear that it wouldn't have changed the outcome. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I just wanted to maximize satisfaction, even if it meant that none of us get our 1st choice, if we all have a common second choice, that would be ideal in my humble opinion. I am not worried about the votes too much. I do see 3 oppose and 3 support for this multiple columns for main series. So unless i'm counting wrong, thats a tie for the current template. this is just a hunch, but even if we do move it to the multiple columns, I don't believe it will last very long. Someone else will bring up the issue once again and would want to discuss it. Its just too unorthodox and someone else who will try to use it may not be happy. I know it sounds like its comprehensible at the moment, but it doesn't look like a normal. Is this really the best template for the long-haul without any disputes?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I did try to take multiple preferences into account, as explained by the other voters. I actually considered a ranked vote system, but I didn't want to introduce the complexity of assigning different weights to each level of preference. Ultimately, what I did was an approximation of that approach. You might be right that this template will be overturned by another group of editors in a year. That's the way the cookie crumbles on Wikipedia, unfortunately. At least for now we have a consensus of the preferred template, so someone cannot simply change it away from multicolumn without involving some other editors. By the way, you have miscounted the votes: out of the 7 people who voted, you and Izno objected to multicolumn, and the other 5 were in favor of it (Iritscen, Axem Titanium, ProtoDrake, Sergecross73, PresN), even if it wasn't our first choice. So the majority has in fact gone for the multicolumn. If someone wants to go ahead and institute that template (I'm short on time myself), we can go about tweaking it or addressing concerns that different editors have about it. --Iritscen (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
@Iritscen: Done, and I've done some tidying and tweaking of my own. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Cool, thank you. --Iritscen (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Well I don't think it will be a matter of 1 year. possibly weeks. People don't notice until the template is changed. if that's the truth, then that's that.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, thank you for the brainstorming, but unfortunately it's not really practical or how we generally work towards a consensus. And the fact that you decided to bring it up just as we were finally come a consensus, that just happens a consensus you don't support, pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of this proposal. Sergecross73 msg me 22:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not very upset about it. if that's what the majority wants, then that's what they want. I'm a final fantasy fan, so i'll manage.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Haven't waded through the above back-and-forth but between the column view, character/music-less view, and individual row view, I think ProtoDrake's mainline/additional format (just above "More discussion" heading) handled the whitespace/organization best (referenced as Dissident's version in the vote above). I think the "additional" hidden drawer could be lopped off, as was in subsequent proposals, but the whitespace in the column version is no more efficient than the individual row view. (And is it compatible with screen readers for accessibility?) My 2¢ on an apparently wrapped discussion (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 05:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
@Czar: That box was actually put into place after that discussion, around Feb. 20, but the subsequent objection from multiple editors was that it was too jumbled because articles related to a given FF game were scattered across each row. The "Additional works" indeed could have been a separate navbox, but that wasn't really the problem people had with it, so we moved in another direction entirely over the next round of discussion and voting. As to your last question, I don't have experience with screen readers, so I don't know how well the current template will "read". Maybe someone else can weigh in on that. --Iritscen (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Cleaner version of the template

Hello. I do not mean to return to the old discussion because I am not questioning the validity of the new design. I like it, it is functional and a great idea overall. The thing is: I believe it could be shortened, or made to look cleaner and more concise. By removing the names of the characters and adding three articles yet to be created (sequels for FFIV, sequels for FFXIII and a list of films and animation), the template could be simpler to look at, in my opinion, while still maintaining all the pertinent information about the series. Since this would imply a change that might not go well with everyone, I present my proposal here and ask for feedback. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


I've never heard of a page dedicated to sequels for a single game. How would that look like? Final Fantasy IV only has one sequel (and technically one interquel) The sequels for FF13 are in the Fabula Nova Crystallis already.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Final_Fantasy_series&oldid=836308470"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Final_Fantasy_series
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Template talk:Final Fantasy series"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA