Template talk:Final Fantasy series/Archive 1

Category

Should this template have Category:Final Fantasy games? I think it should, since it looks like it is only used in FF game articles. CyberSkull 23:16, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

No, simply because there a number of games listed in the template that don't belong in that category. Spin-off titles like Final Fantasy Mystic Quest, Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles, Final Fantasy Tactics, and belong in the Category:Final Fantasy spin-offs category. – Seancdaug 23:48, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Simple template?

Is it just me or is the template becoming a big too big? I was considering something more simple like:

— Cuahl File:NotAfraid.gif 7/7 — 18:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that the template was fine the way that it was and should be restored to it's former design. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emokid200618 (talk • contribs).

I also think that the old template was fine the way that it was and that this one doesn't have enough links, mainly the Final Fantasy XIII series. I also think that the XIII series should be put back onto the template since there's no reason to not have them there —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emokid200618 (talk • contribs).

Second proposal

Above is my second proposal for a smaller template — CuaHL 02:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Final Fantasy * 50

It seems to me this is a rather large template, and that repeating the words "Final Fantasy" about 50 times is redundent. For the series, instead of having "Final Fantasy I -- Final Fantasy II - ...", why not just have "I -- II -- III --- ..."? I think this would make this template much for concise and useful. Jacoplane 23:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Or perhaps replace "Final Fantasy" with just "FF". Jacoplane 23:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

A bit like...

Do you mean something like...

— CuaHL 02:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I like this proposal better. I think you should be bold and edit it in right away :).Amren ^(talk) 03:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Me too. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it looks horrible. Does no one favour the simpler version? — CuaHL 18:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I still favor the third version. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I like the headings instead of the simple version's writing to the left of the items. The headings make it look better.Amren ^(talk) 22:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll be happy with anything that is considerably smaller than the current version. --Commander Keane 05:33, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Right. Well I changed the template... let's see what people think — CuaHL 19:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks pretty tidy but maybe you could separate the different console eras by placing a dot or a bolg line in between.--Squall1991 09:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hide link

How does this hide link work? I see that it disappears the box below it, like the TOC. How can I put this on another page/template? D. F. Schmidt 05:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not 100% certain how it works, but I'm confident enough to implement it on other templates. Basically what you want is all the <div> code. You can see that the title section is in it's own div section, and the table (which could really be anything, it doesn't have to be a table) is in it's own div section. There is, I believe, code in Wikipedia's Javascript that probably detects these div sections by the class/ID they use, and inserts HTML/code to do the hide/show. If you don't understand this, and you want this added to a specific template, I'd be happy to do it for you. If you do try it, make sure to use "Show preview". =) --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 06:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Italics in titles discussion

There is currently a discussion re: italics in titles at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (titles)#Italic_in_templates. Anyone with an interest in this should participate in the discussion there. Thanks! —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 06:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

FF Legend?

Is there a particular reason that the games from the Final Fantasy Legend series are not included in this template? Are they not considered to be true "Final Fantasy" games, or is it an oversight? --Duke33 18:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

They are part of the SaGa series. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah - i saw that, but maybe this template should link to the "saga" series? For those of us that aren't hardcore fanatics, and know the difference, it's kind of confusing. --Duke33 22:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, in Japan, the game was called something else. So it doesn't count as a true FF game.

Mario Hoops 3-on-3

Should Mario Hoops 3-on-3 be included as a spinoff title? After all, the game does includes Final Fantasy characters...--TBCTaLk?!? 06:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• No I don't think that is nearly enough of a case for it's inclusion. It's already kind of a chunky template. Deusfaux 10:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe you could put it in related titles...if you made related titles separate from spinoffs ie. Erghiz; Kingdom Hearts; Kingdom Hearts II; Chocobo Series etc--Squall1991 09:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Italics vs. bold

Is there a reason why the main series is bolded while all the other titles are capitalized? Axem Titanium 21:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

x2

I think FFX 2 should be removed from teh main series and put in the spin-off section. Most people dont consider it part of the line anyway. If you keep X2 whats keeping VII spin-offs and XII spin-offs from being in the main series?? Barcode 19:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Related Titles

I think some of you guys are forgetting this is a template that appears on every FF related page, and its already really chunky. We do not need to include every game that's ever had a tenuous connection to Final Fantasy. SaGa games - ???? Vagrant Story - what... the use of a similiar or same world? Ehrgeiz - some characters appear in it?

Chocobo series and Kingdom Hearts, the case for them has been made and I think most people accept their inclusion at this point. The other suggestions that have been edited in so far, teeter on a very small relation, and shouldnt be bulking up the template, just to appease people who would like to see their names there.

In fact, I would move to suggest at this point, that the entire "Related games" bar is removed entirely. It's a Final Fantasy template after all right? Why should it have to use up space talking about non Final Fantasy games? Deusfaux 01:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Furthermore, I have changed some of the headings to make them shorter, and I would also possible suggest covering entire series like FF:CC, as "Cystal Chronicles Series", to cut down on the thick redundacy in the template thats contributing to its size.Deusfaux 01:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• TACTICS - Even if the world is the same as in other Final Fantasies, that doesnt stop it from being a spinoff. You have to consider the game as a whole, and not just one facet of it (setting/story). They are fundamentally different sorts of games, and they work just fine in the spin off section, as they are Spinoffs from the main turn-based (for the most part) Main Series. I'm sure most will agree on this point. Remember, most of the spinoffs DO share elements like story or setting with the Main series, but because of gameplay or otherwise, shouldnt really be thought of as true sequels.Deusfaux 01:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Unreleased games

I propose for the unreleased games to be added. It seems the proposal was never fully accepted as it isn't available on the main article page and either way, I believe this should be changed. Because all it does now is limit my navigation choices and I don't see how that could possibly be helpful. (Djungelurban 12:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

Not to be curt, but not all choices are worthwhile. A navigational template like this is a quick reference: it should under no circumstances serve as a substitute for either the greater detail of an actual article, nor for more robust organizational/navigational solutions like categories. Final Fantasy through Final Fantasy XII are released games, and they are well-developed and comprehensive articles. Final Fantasy XIII, at this point, is not even a major stub: it's a series of half-formed sections strung together with hearsay and rumor. Which is fine, since the game isn't out yet, and information is relatively scarce. But it's not yet in the same league as the other games in the series, and there's little benefit to leading those looking for encyclopedic content to such a embryo of an article. It adds length to the template, diluting its usefulness by forcing readers to sift through more text, and adds little back in terms of information. In future, it will obviously belong there. For now, it does not. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XIII

I think that the Final Fantasy XIII series needs to be re-added to the template, it's just a nuisance to not have them on the template.--67.174.128.249

i agree El cid the hero 20:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it just my computer or does the template not appear on the Final Fantasy XIII page anymore?--Emokid200618 00:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think XIII should be on here, but it appears there's been some discussion before. The XIII article appears somewhat decent by now (although Agito and Versus are still pretty weak). As for Sean Daugherty's point, the same can be said for Ivalice Alliance and (to a lesser extent) Compilations of VII, which are still on the template. Kelvinc 10:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It was removed because it was an un-released, upcoming series. Template talk:Metal Gear series has a similar issue with MGS4, which turned into an edit war. UnfriendlyFire 22:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XIII addition

We are still waiting for a consensus to add FFXIII to this template. A few reasons include that it was removed without consensus. In the Metal Gear series' template, the MGS4 was added with consensus. Any comments or objections? Sjones23 02:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, we need to see if there is still a consensus for placing FFXIII back on the list. Sjones23 02:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

One more thing I forgot to mention, the VG navbox guidelines were disputed for some time now and are no longer active. Sjones23 03:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Improved template?

Looking at the Dragon Quest template, I think the Final Fantasy template could stand to be a bit more inclusive of the sidestories and spin-offs. So I propose:

With all due respect, I think the proposed template is a little bit too inclusive. The main issue is that it's really big and clunky, which is why the current version includes links to sections of List of FF titles which would name all the spin off titles that are in your version. I have reverted your implementation of your version because there has obviously not been enough time to determine consensus for or against your proposal. I would suggest bringing this issue up at WT:FF as well to gauge opinion. Axem Titanium 01:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Then, alternately, would something more like this work:

Butterfly0fdoom 02:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is the SaGa series listed on this?

I really don't think its appropriate to be listing the SaGa series here as a "spinoff" of Final Fantasy, as its not connected to the FF series in any way. I know the first three gameboy titles were renamed "Final Fantasy Legends" in the US for the name recognition, but really, that alone isn't enough to call the series a spinoff, since in the games' native country, there was never any intended connection between them. And before anyone mentions it, this is, in fact, different than the Mana series, seeing how its original title in Japan included "Final Fantasy Gaiden", making it appropriate to place in this template. Personally, I think SaGa should be taken out of the template. Anybody else have any thoughts on the matter?Rorshacma (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

To avoid a Japan-bias, it should be included. Regardless of its name in Japan, the English name (on English Wikipedia) has "Final Fantasy" in it, so there is no way you can argue that it's not related, at least in some small way. I've changed the wording in the template to say "related" instead of "spin-off", if that helps. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

But Fabula Nomura Crystallis and Crystal Chronicles are not just "related," they are integral parts of the Final Fantasy series. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, either way, "related" shows a stronger connection than "spin-off", in my opinion. Is there a better word you have in mind? Axem Titanium (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support reverting to the version that had links to sections of List of Final Fantasy media, to be honest. Look at your comment in #Improved template? ;) Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, you're right, most of those links for the related series aren't terribly relevant in all of the articles this template appears in. I'll try to come up with an implementation of this template that would have them hidden by default and have the show/hide tags. Sound good? I'll work on that soon. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)