Template talk:Final Fantasy series

message: 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.  68.96.240.238 (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bravely Default/Second Removal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, that's what I thought originally. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing the FF7 Remake under FF7 

message: 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 , one of the main antagonists  and one location   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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ogre series 

message: Okay, let's see if we can reach a consensus (that is, majority agreement). According to what I've read above:
* is in favor of the row-based User:PresN/FFBox3.
* opposes the comprehensive multi-column and row-based designs that list all FF works, preferring the old conditional template.
* prefers the current category-based template or else the more concise User:ProtoDrake/FFnavboxTest.
*I (Iritscen) prefer the last version of Izno's row-based design or else the concise User:ProtoDrake/FFnavboxTest coupled with specific navboxes for each game's page, where appropriate.
* prefers the multi-column User:PresN/FFBox2.
* also prefers User:PresN/FFBox2, or else the concise User:ProtoDrake/FFnavboxTest.
* also prefers User:PresN/FFBox2.
* has not voted. I assume he still prefers the row-based template here that he initiated. (This assumption does not affect the outcome of the vote, as you'll see below.)
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:
* 1 vote for the new row-based design (ProtoDrake)
* 1 vote for the conditional version (Blue Pumpkin Pie)
* 1 vote for the current version (Dissident93)
* 2 votes for the older row-based design (Izno and myself)
* 3 votes for the multicolumn version (PresN, Axem Titanium, Sergecross73)
* 3 votes for this concise version, presumably in combination with a game-specific navbox stacked above/below it on each game's page (Dissident93, myself, Axem Titanium).
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Vote review

message: 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)
thread_title: Cleaner version of the template

message: The other day I decided to "be bold" and put a revised layout in place. I'm not surprised that it was reverted :-), but I wanted to argue my case. My original attempt used the existing 4 x 4 structure, but THIS is my latest attempt at the revised layout, where I moved to using 3 x 4 + 4 columns in order to let FF 1-3 compress vertically and take up only one line. I think my previous attempt may have been off-putting because it starts with three nearly-empty game boxes, but now they are cinched up nice and neat in the top row. Here's why I think this overall approach is an improvement on the existing template:
*Reduces visual clutter by removing all those individual character articles. We already link to a main Characters article for any game that has any individual character articles, and those Characters articles then link to the dedicated articles. When you consider how lopsided the distribution of character articles is, with VII having eight character articles and other games having none, it's a design nightmare to try to squeeze all those in here in a visually pleasing way.
*Makes room for listing the whole titles of most games. Currently Final Fantasy X-2 is squeezed into X's box as simply "X-2", a nearly invisible second-class citizen. The IV and VII Remakes are squished into the column headers. By giving each title its own line, I was able to expand nearly every game title to its full length. This puts each game on even footing, makes them easier to find, and makes the overall layout easier to process visually.
I would argue that the greater height of the template doesn't matter at all, because it's auto-hidden at the bottom of each FF page and has to be opened by the user. We should prioritize aesthetics and ease of use over compactness. If you compare the current template and my revision side by side, you might find that my revision looks better. If not, then at least I tried. But I thought I should float this idea to get people's opinions on it. If anyone has any idea on how to take my proposal and reduce the whitespace further without compromising readability, I'm all ears. --Iritscen (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaner variant on current layout 

message: Should Final Fantasy Trading Card Game be added here? Mika1h (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Final Fantasy Trading Card Game]] 

message: Just wanted to mention that I made an attempt to retain the lists of FF characters that have their own articles after they were removed. I think they're a useful part of the navbox but I've always agreed that they take up an awful amount of space in the box and create a very lopsided load that's proportionate to how much attention an FF game has received. So I have put them into mw-collapsible 'div's. I would have liked to use a template to do this, but out of the several Divhide-style templates I tried, I could not find one that worked within a table like this, so I had to use slightly ugly HTML directly. Nevertheless it's not too hard to edit the markup. Hopefully people find this to be a good compromise on how to keep the character lists.
P.S. @Axem Titanium, sorry I removed your links with arrows pointing to the games with their own templates. You can add those back in if you like, though I wasn't totally sold on them :-)
--17:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible to specify something other than Show/Hide? Maybe +/-? I'm not objecting to the new implementation out of hand but I'm wondering if there are any accessibility concerns because of this. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See template now. How does that look to you? --Iritscen (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall I don't mind it? Collapsed it looks perfect. When uncollapsed, it forces the character list to be on a new line, which increases the whitespace on the template. Is there a way to keep it in-line? That would help with opening and closing them quickly as well---currently the show and hide buttons shift around when they're toggled so it's impossible to toggle them quickly without moving the mouse. This is a minor concern overall, just a personal peeve. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good point. I wasn't sure why there was a linebreak being inserted before the list of characters, but it turns out it was my fault for using  instead of . The show/hide button moves less now, but unfortunately I think it's inevitably always going to move somewhat because of the addition of more content centered on the same line. --Iritscen (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better than before at least! I don't have any further concrete objections but if anyone is an expert on accessibility (screen readers, etc.) and could weigh in on that, that would be great. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crouching lists, hidden characters 

message: There seems to be a problematic WP:CENSORSHIP issue within this template leading to fans deleting any form of related but unofficial Final Fantasy media, even if notable. Is there an actual Wikipedia policy banning such things from being added to navigation, or is it just an issue of vehement fans not wanting their series to be "tarnished"? I am unaware of any such policy blocking related things from navboxes - all WP:NAVBOX states is that "the articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent".  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of any policy of this kind and I'm not intrinsically opposed to it, but you would need to seek consensus for inclusion, just like anything else. Complaining about fans and censorship is not a convincing reason for inclusion to me. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship of related media