- /Archive 1
The majority of navboxes now have images. There are FFL2 and 3 which I struggled with, and any others don't have navboxes or I've missed and do have navboxes. If I missed, it probably means I tried but failed. Anyways, before I move onto the next discussion, which is adding more content to navboxes and possible reogranizations (I'm not a fan of that "Archives" section and think it could be reworked in a way), I'd just like to talk about the categories. Currently our Category:Navigation Templates is a mess. Basically everything is lumped in there, and sure that's partly my fault from merging jobs and abilities, but it's a mess nonetheless. I think it could be reorganized. Firstly, "Navigation Templates" is outdated as it refers to back when the templates were just called "navs", and when they weren't based on a metatemplate. Since they are now "navboxes", we should instead call the category just "Navboxes". However, "Navigation Templates" also refers to things such as "See Also". Those can stay under Navigation Templates, with Navboxes as a subcategory. Thinking about it, things like See Also could possibly get their own subcategory, and maybe their own metatemplate, but that's another discussion. f Under that, we should almost certainly make subcategories for the Navboxes. I think, "Release" (FFVI, FFVII, X2 and spinoffs), "Abilities" (Black Magic, White Magic, Time Magic), "Series" (Main series, FF series, Chocobo series), "Lists" (things like Allusions, Translations, FFU Episodes), and anything else can stay on the main category. Basically:
Nothing too complicated, ideally. Just one other thing. Could we 'name' the templates to give them different parts of the category? Like, [[Category:Release Navboxes|Main]] or [[Category:Release Navboxes|Spinoffs]]? Anyways, once categorization is done, the next part will be much easier. | |||
"Abilities" is a terrible category to have at that level. Abilities navs are just a kind of series-wide nav. So... where do Weapons et al go? We call these things "types". So "weapon" is a type". It's not an ideal word but it's what we have. "Type Navboxes". In there we can have "Abilities Navboxes" and "Equipment Navboxes".
Lists... uh, yeah that's probably fine although they are sort of type it's still a quite distinctive thing. Except things like the Weapons nav also contain lists.
Releases is fine, Series is fine. I wouldn't re-organise the category. We used to sort things in categories, like FFVII would be "FF 07", or something, and that might be a good idea but we need to have a proper system in place first.
I also don't like the idea because I don't like classifying games as main series, spin-offs, sequels et al. I get why we do it on the main page, and perhaps on an FF series template, but aside from there I just prefer to consider them an in-scope release. Like the articles basically do.
Okay, for FFU Episodes I would probably put that in a category called "Release Type Navboxes". This would be catted into "Release List Navboxes", to keep it away from Release Navboxes (which just focus on the main release navs) and List Navboxes (which just focus on series-wide lists). The same applies for anything, if a nav focuses on a release and a type, then we would make a new cat for it that be a sub of two cats.
I think that's it. See Also is sort of a utility template. But if we're going to keep that as is. So to clarify:
- 0 Navboxes - - 1 Type Navboxes - - - 5 Ability Navboxes - - - - 9 Release Ability Navboxes|Release [if applicable] - - - 6 Equipment Navboxes - - - - A Release Equipment Navboxes|Release [if applicable] - - - 7 Release Type Navboxes|Release [if applicable] - - 2 Release Navboxes - - - 7 Release Type Navboxes|Type [if applicable] - - - - 9 Release Ability Navboxes|Ability [if applicable] - - - - A Release Equipment Navboxes|Equipment [if applicable] - - - 8 Release List Navboxes|List [if applicable] - - 3 Series Navboxes - - 4 List Navboxes - - - 8 Release List Navboxes|Release [if applicable]
JBed (talk) 14:28, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
A few points:
| |||
If we have non-Navbox navigation templates then the Navboxes should be split into their own category. So Navboxes will be a subcat of Navigation Templates. I was just making a side-comment on my confusion of what classifies something as a navigation template.
- "Release Type navboxes only applies to FFU? That's my only issue with it. A subcat containing one thing seems kinda useless."
Well, otherwise we would probably have to cat it in both Release Navboxes and Type Navboxes. You could argue we don't have to but it would still make sense since it is both restricted to one Release and fulfills a Type.
And future-proofing and currently Chocobo Stories.
That's how I see it. JBed (talk) 15:46, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. I'd actually understand the subcat in that regard. If there are no objections, I can go categorize like that now. I'll wait and see if anyone has anything in particular to say. Just to double check, it's:
| |||
Okay! That's done, was a quicky. Now:
I'm not sure I'm completely satisfied with some of the contents of the navboxes. For instance: I'm really not fond of the "Archives" section. It's just shoved at the bottom of the navbox, the average reader likely doesn't know what "Archives" is (I certainly didn't when I first saw them) and doesn't really contain content, just lists to other stuff. Lists like those can go in the new "Below" parameter of the Navboxes. Or...I was thinking we could put them as a header at the top of the Navboxes instead, and call it something like "General". I don't know, I'm just not fond of it at all and think something should be done about it. Secondly, I've mentioned this before, but with things like "Jobs and Abilities", they make the templates long as hell. My proposal: while the rest of the template can be shown by default, have the Jobs and Abilities automatically hidden, but they can be shown if "Show" is clicked. Who agrees with that? Though, if we add many more things, could we just have everything hidden by default? And there's a reason I'm proposing that. I really think that Enemies can go in the navboxes as well. Honestly, so can Equipment. Anything in the Archives probably can now go in the navbox templates, I really don't see why not anymore. The original issue was space, but it no longer is when we can show/hide. So what's everyone's thoughts? | |||
I strongly object to shoving everything we can into the navboxes simply on the basis of being able to, the same reason I've always been a bit iffy about moving all the jobs and abilities/enemies into it. With Equipment, I'm not even certain how that would really work - many weapons and armor don't have their own pages, and those that do, the equipment isn't really the focus. I would say keep it as it is. Regarding what to do with Archives, I have no objection to putting it near the top - actually, I think it would work fine without a header right under the title, like how the expansion packs are in XI's template. It's not something that really needs introduced in most cases. | |||
Link to "List of Enemies" I think is better than having the whole bestiary in the template. The "archives" section is a bit ambiguous though indeed. "Gameplay" sections could include lists of enemies and equipment? | |||
Mhmm. I do agree it'd make them excessive, but my response to that is normally just that space isn't an issue. Of course, if people don't want enemies etc in the template - which seems to be the case - then yeah, I'd better not add them. Gameplay sections could include the lists. I'm not sure though, the tricky part is I don't like those headers either. With Terms, Races and the like, it was easy to put under "Lore" headers. With Gameplay, it's ambiguous as well. Abilities obviously are too big to go there. Unlike Archives, I do think we could make use out of them. If we were to make more use out if gameplay sections, I would agree that yeah, putting enemies and equipment there would be sweet. I'd agree with Jimcloud's point about putting the Archives content the same place as XI puts expansion packs. They could also inversely go to the bottom (and appear the same?) but that's up to preference. How about having most content go to the top or footer parts of the nav, while the gameplay-related stuff goes to Gameplay? And that section appears above Media/Music? The Gameplay section would still be small, but there'd be one on each navbox, and it'd serve a purpose to the common reader. | |||
Quick update- I've begun switching things around as described (an example would be here). One issue I've run into though is games that list other games in the above sections. For instance; FFX used to list games at the top. I moved them to "below", but I think there might be another solution. How about moving the games to the "Media" section, as "Related Games"? | |||
Right, then. So, Techno made This thing, but didn't quite have the time to make a forum post about it before his internet got cut off. Enter the Jimcloud. The change to note here is the splitting of the Gameplay section from one bit into multiple bits, for easy categorization - Gameplay as it is happens to be a bit of a mess of barely related things, which is why they were all shunted to the bottom into the nonsense category "Archives" before. The name for the section currently known as "Equippables" was a subject of much dithering between Techno and myself, feel free to dither further on the name if you like. There doesn't really seem to be a good catch-all word that we could find, but if you happen to think of one, all the more power to you, my friend. | |||
Final Fantasy VI: The Interactive CG Game being in the lore section is surely a mistake? | |||
Correct, it is :D Fixed. Anyways; can I assume there are no major objections or ideas for a replacement of the word "Equippables"? | |||
Uh? Did you post this message before or after I suggested "Inventory" to you? JBed (talk) 05:10, May 10, 2014 (UTC)
Before, I believe. "Inventory", "Mechanics" and "Other" is what we currently use. Not sure if Enemies should still go in mechanics, by the way? | |||
Mechanics is a loose term. Enemies are a mechanic, and enemy articles are purely gameplay (besides some short story sections for minor plot relevance but not significant enough for storyline article).
Characters are also a mechanic. As is player control, and AI control. There are a lot of mechanics. JBed (talk) 13:33, May 10, 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, in which case, Mechanics is probably fine. I don't want to link to the Characters list twice on the navbox if we already do in the title. ...Though thinking about it, actually, you've said before you're not a fan of hiding links in header/group titles...so it's possible to move the links to Mechanics instead. I'll probably need more thoughts but it sounds doable. | |||
Few last things
Okay, so now this navbox project is nearly over, I think. But a few last things before I think we're "done". Firstly, could things like Armor, Weapons, Black Magic and such have bg images and colours? Mainly because I think how they currently appear is boring by comparison. I'm fairly sure we can add colours and bg images to them if we create classes for them, or by using "style" parameters then only creating classes for the bg image. So I think it's possible, but I want to know if everyone would be keen on that idea, or be able to provide bg images? Secondly, this is a discussion more specific to one navbox, but Thirdly just a final check; is everyone absolutely okay with our Navboxes as they currently are? Would people like to see things done differently? One possibility, by the way, is to add images to each section. So, for our Characters section, we could add an image to the right for each. But that's just a thought. Our current navboxes with text seem fine. Finally, I think I know the answer to this one, but are we sure we want to keep the Navbox names as they are? Code name is fine and all, but it's just the name "FFVII" or "IVTAY" as a template could be anything, while "Navbox IVTAY" is absolutely telling of what it is. Pros are that the name says more about it, allows any new template to be created with that name, avoids confusion. Cons are it would be a fuckton of moving and bot work and it requires 7 more characters than it did before every time it is inserted. I would rather rename them, but that's just me. If they stay as they are it's fine. After these, we might just be finished. | |||
I also think the armour etc nav templates stand out compared to the more flashy game templates now. I think we should keep the series' colours as black & white (as that seems pretty congruent with the series' feel anyway, but maybe it could be changed with white background and black text? Then it'd be easier to add pics? What the illustration should be though...could be tricky in some cases, like {{Enemy Abilities}}. | |||
I would like to see the other navboxes with background images and colors like the series boxes do, yes. I don't have much to contribute in that regard, though :\ Re: Series, yes, it needs fixing, but I have no clue where to begin fixing it -_- I'm not being very helpful, huh? I would keep the navboxes how they are, and I would keep them where they are, just so save on characters. But that's just me. Jimcloud out! | |||
Hmm. Yeah, there seems to be plenty of support for adding bg images to the other navboxes. Should they also have the FF titletext font? As for the white/black thing; it's possible, but it doesn't seem necessary. What I was thinking was that they get their own colours instead. For instance, "Blue Magic" gets a blue background, "White Magic" a white one. And then there would be an image of a Blue Mage for the former, image of your typical White Mage. As for the image adding; it shouldn't be too hard on a black background, the gradient should solve that. Enemy Abilities...hmm. Images of typical enemies like Cactuar could do the trick? Not sure. | |||
No to section images.
Your argument for rename is also off. "IVTAY" couldn't be anything. It's the code for a release so it is the nav for that release.
Series template like that, except also a section for "Other" for the remainder (that's easy to auto-gen too, I just didn't think at the time).
If we want to do bg images for the other navboxes we can set up a side JS project to auto-gen it (along with the release classes). I also think black and white should stay constant throughout all series navboxes. 2.102.229.98 22:00, May 15, 2014 (UTC)
I actually agree with no section images; I'm just throwing it out there so people know the functionality exists and can be used. But I think it is unnecessary in most casts. It could be anything related to IV: The After Years. It could be a sideicon, it could be an infobox for it, or it could be a navbox for it, it's just that in our case, it is the latter of the three. But if I showed it to a random user who had not seen it before, they would not know what it is...admittedly the problem with that argument is that "random user who has never seen it before" probably shouldn't be editing something related to it before they know. Literally exactly as that is? Alright, I'll work on it. I would say black and white stay constant, but it seems like a missed opportunity to colour some things, like the examples I gave above. I don't mind too much of course. A side JS project sounds fine to me. | |||
- "But if I showed it to a random user who had not seen it before, they would not know what it is...admittedly the problem with that argument is that "random user who has never seen it before" probably shouldn't be editing something related to it before they know."
Right, and a user can tell what {{A}} and {{-}} are by just their names too?
Also realistically it can't be an infobox. Infoboxes needs things with common fields. So "Character" can be an infobox. It's singular, and from its name we can tell it is used on character articles. There's only one IVTAY, it won't be an infobox for TAYs. And it won't be an infobox for a specific thing in TAY because it neglects to state that specific thing. And it can't be a sideicon. They don't have templates. Maybe if someone was in the edit page they'd think that they correlated to the side icons? Well I don't know why, given they would match with the navs at the bottom of the page.
Yeah, fair point, I guess. I don't want to fight too strongly for the name change, mainly because I basically know the answer already. From gathering opinions on what we should use for the images of the types; JBed, Jimcloud, and Tia voted "sprite", while BlueHighwind voted "artwork", so the consensus seems to be "sprite" unless I get more opinions. I assume that the people who haven't voted are either indifferent or, well, have yet to vote. The remaining question is, are we going with adding colours/classes for each type, or sticking with the "series" class for them all? This obvious does require side a JS project to generate them. I personally would vote to give them their own classes, but then the main problem there is we probably would never use these classes other than for their individual navboxes. OH, one final thing, which I forgot to mention. Do we continue to use "-" spaces in between links like our navboxes currently do, or do we use " · " instead? I would rather use the latter, and adding it wouldn't be too difficult (a bot or find and replace can handle it). But I won't add it if there are any objections. | |||
I made a navbox bg for Lightning Saga... is it alright? Monterossa (talk) 10:07, May 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Ooh, awesome! Implemented, thanks ^.^--
Technobliterator TC 11:18, May 21, 2014 (UTC)
Quick update; First, reasking my question about using " · " instead of "-" for the spaces in between navboxes. Secondly, we now have sliding navboxes, enjoy ^.^ Thirdly, there is only one thing left to do on the navboxes. It's making the type navboxes pretty. So,
| |||
One quick thing. I noticed most of our templates on the wiki were rounded. So I made the navbox rounder, to make it look more like the gallery templates. I can revert of course, if people don't like it. Or I can keep it as it is and change some things? EDIT: nvm, will have to take a bigger look later than updating the whole wiki at the moment | |||
I think round corners will look terrible.
Also I want to see a wiki discussion for supporting using different colours for the type-in-series navboxes (e.g. Enemies, Armor). Because in the past I know there's been opinions either way. JBed (talk) 18:09, June 1, 2014 (UTC)
BUMP. I have gone back on my idea of rounded corners. Furthermmore, I no longer agree with my original idea of giving each Type navbox their own colours. While I think it would be kind of sweet to give them their own 'type' colour, the navboxes do cover series topics, so series fits. Now I just need more opinions. | |||
Well, either way re: type navboxes is fine with me. And rounded corners seemed like a silly idea to me from the start. So, uh, is that it? Yeah, I think so. There you go. | |||
I'm fine with apply this redesign to the Armor, Weapons, etc, templates too. We could probably find extracted sprites of spell effects and weapons from sprite-based games to do images for them; I know Spriter's Resource has such things.
Sadly, no advice on the Series template, looks like a mess yeah but dunno what would be better. No to adding more images to templates. I think they look good now, we don't need to get fancy with images all over it, it'll just distract. | |||
 Catuse says at 22:37, June 29, 2014 (UTC) "Somewhere a zealous god threads these strings between the clouds and the earth, preparing for a symphony it fears impossible to play. And so it threads on, and on, delaying the raise of the conductor's baton." | |||
This page is going to break template limit soon... Anyways:
| |||
I don't know why you think Series is a mess. If you think the changes proposed are any significant improvement then I am confused. JBed (talk) 22:49, June 29, 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think they're a significant improvement; I made it as an example of a possible change that we could build off of, but not something I'd actually want to put on the wiki. As for as it currently is ... while not as bland as it used to be, it's still a list of blue links, as opposed to the other templates with their subcategories, but actually creating subcategories is bad because it's artificially creating separations that aren't actually there... not sure if that makes any sense. C A T U S E 01:35, June 30, 2014 (UTC)
- Support Cat's changes. The series template is so hard to make satisfying anyway. And I do kind of like the sprites on section headers idea. So; does not one object to using · ?-- Technobliterator TC 20:48, June 30, 2014 (UTC)
- Support Cat's changes. The series template is so hard to make satisfying anyway. And I do kind of like the sprites on section headers idea. So; does not one object to using · ?--
Loading times
| Catuse says at 17:31, July 19, 2014 (UTC) "Somewhere a zealous god threads these strings between the clouds and the earth, preparing for a symphony it fears impossible to play. And so it threads on, and on, delaying the raise of the conductor's baton." | |||
Discovered a problem while checking Special:ParserSpeed* for something today: pages with too many navboxes take way too damn long to load! While ParserSpeed gives pretty gross overestimates of loading time (or maybe I'm just not ever on at peak hours <_<) I was still drumming my fingers at Warriors of Light for a good 10 seconds before the server got done. Some pages, like Vigilance (Ability) even break template limit. Actually, if we used navboxes more completely this situation would be a lot worse -- and it can only go downhill from here if we make more metatemplates, at least until Lua comes around (see footnote). Unfortunately, since I wasn't paying attention to how {{Talk}} in Lua (will leave a message on that template talk Soon™) | |||
I think the key thing is "at least until Lua comes around". That's the main reason I haven't developed any metatemplates since Navbox. :P The other key thing is "too many navboxes". It raises the question, why did they have so many navboxes anyway? If they had that many that made things take so long, then the answer should be just to remove some. Some pages I feel like add navboxes when they're not actually deserved. | |||
I think you don't understand the purpose of navboxes Techno. To navigate to related pages. If Gilgamesh appears in VIII, people may want to look for related VIII pages so rejecting them that feature because he is important in other games, that don't make no sense.
To be unhelpful (because we all know we need Lua to do anything about this), called it. And this is why you've not been allowed to touch the infoboxes.
It should also be mentioned that too many navboxes stops loading navboxes on a page. We had to remove loads from Gigamesh's article so it loaded properly. 92.24.164.139 20:38, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
On the subject of Talk, I rewrote it a while ago to be significantly less terrible than it used to be. So this reduced the slowdown of talk templates by, let's say, 50% (it might have been more than that). The impact is still a lot though, and use enough and you will slow it down a lot.
I was originally going to rewrite the Talk template in JavaScript until I figured out how to rewrite it like it is now. JavaScript is post-load, and also I was going to allow users to be able to determine how the talkboxes show. So there would be more lightweight options, and more, uh, CPU-intensive ones (rather than server-intensive as writing them in wikitext makes them).
That's still an option, but the only reason that route sounded like a good idea was because /we don't have server-side access/. 92.24.164.139 20:44, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
Response: I think you don't understand the purpose of navboxes Techno. To navigate to related pages. Well, other than coming to such a radical conclusion based on very little, you're incorrect. It's to navigate to, as you said, related pages. A barely related page does not deserve a link to navigate to. Why does Warriors of Light contain tons of navboxes of pages barely related to it at all? To be unhelpful (because we all know we need Lua to do anything about this), called it. And this is why you've not been allowed to touch the infoboxes. This made little to no sense so I can barely respond to it, other than "why you've not been allowed to touch the infoboxes". You're implying firstly that I didn't know why, and secondly that you have any authority to "not allow me to touch the infobox", but anyway, I get that. Groan. | |||
Uh. To clarify the first point, we can't assume that the player has played every game. If someone has only played VIII, or not even that, if someone is on Gilgamesh's page looking for information on VIII (which is not farfetched at all), then giving them the VIII navbox so they can navigate VIII-relevant pages only makes sense.
A solution to this problem is to make more specific pages. Give Gigamesh's appearance in VIII his own page so the VIII navbox only has to go on there. But that's not the case. Currently Gilgamesh#Final Fantasy VIII is Gilgamesh's appearance in VIII's main article. Thus deserves the navbox.
To clarify the second point, "called it" means I called it. I said load times would increase dramatically, and further additions to the template so it can do more has only made it worse. And the second part, it wasn't about implying you don't know why, because you do know why, but this is a good demonstration of the extent of why. I won't comment on the authority thing, because I know I don't. Though from past discussions of the infobox metatemplate on IRC you should know where and how I stand.
I apologise if my wording seemed like an attack on you, my comments were mainly tongue-in-cheek. The navbox thing though, explaining what deserves a navigation and what should go on it happens a lot. In this instance, the importance of something in one place has no effect on its importance in another. A summon in VIII gets the VIII navbox, so just because something is more important elsewhere doesn't mean it should not get the navbox for being a summon in VIII. 92.24.164.139 21:31, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
It did. But oh well, apology accepted. I will ignore it. Anyways: It is true we cannot assume anything, and that my point that people would not look for information on FFVIII on Gilgamesh' page was a hypothesis which I cannot support with evident (aka useless), but I do still feel like there is some point where we should say, "they have very little relation, and you can click on an FFVIII page there anyway, so the navbox is not necessary". At the very least I feel like removing some of the navboxes for spinoffs might work. If anything, I suggest this only as a temporary solution. Back to the point. The example you used was FFVIII. Something like VIII, I can kind of agree with. But what about something like, say, Tactics Advance 2, Chocobo Racing, or something more obscure? Does a navbox really belong on a page about a recurring topic? One that it is highly unlikely a user will use to visit? Okay, so we're not making any assumptions. But do we add a navbox at the cost of potentially breaking others just because it's slightly related? Other than that, well, pages like Black Magic, in my opinion, deserve no game navboxes. They already have their individual Black Magic (Final Fantasy V), Blk Magic (Final Fantasy X) and the like, which should contain them. Why should the all-encompassing page get any navboxes? To me, it makes no sense. An FFV navbox belongs on Black Magic (Final Fantasy V), and not Black Magic. The more specific page deserves it. The series recurring page does not deserve one for an individual game. Yes, you did call it that there would be issues. And I believed there would be none, as I was not prepared for articles with so many navboxes. If we go back to the whole, "let's wait for Lua" thing (for a different discussion), that might be the long-term solution to the problem. But as a short term one, I say remove the less related navboxes. | |||
I wonder if wrapping all the navbox code in an {{#ifeq}} checking for a variable such as "importance" would work. Rather than removing them, when Lua appears we can just leave the value unreferenced.
That'll solve process requirements and page-load issues. So we don't remove the navboxes, we just set them not to load. When code issues are solved, we can remove the {{#ifeq}} and allow them all to load again. And a bot can remove a parameter like "|importance=0" if it being there as a nuisance. 92.24.164.139 22:16, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
As a temporary solution, that seems better than what I was doing. Supported. | |||
Let's talk about navboxes for worlds. On the one hand we have {{Spira}}. A navbox, as it seems, for the series of Spira. On the other, we have {{Ival}}. There's an issue there, when not every Ivalice release is part of the "Ivalice Alliance". We also have {{CompVII}}, which all takes place on the same world. As well as {{LSaga}}. However, my thoughts in response to this: why don't we just change all these navboxes into world navboxes and follow a new format, the one I just applied to the Ivalice one? Perhaps it would require changing classes, or perhaps we can just use the same template name and class but give it a different title. I think this would be better. For a start, Final Fantasy VII is not technically part of the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII, but everything else is. So it's more inclusive. And the Spira Series is a loose term that only ties everything together because we rely on it to continue to tie everything together. Also, Final Fantasy IV Complete Collection is pretty loose too, not every release is part of the Complete Collection, it's just that nothing in that series has been released so far that hasn't been part of it, so we're lucky. Essentially, it's more inclusive this way. So this method is more inclusive for several reason. How I would do it? A "Titles", "World of x", "Important recurring topics" makes sense for a world navbox and is easy to add to. A recurring topic can just be anything appearing in 2/3 releases of the series (but I think that's how we did it before anyway?). "World of x" can give recurring locations, recurring regions, but it can also give links to the "List of x Locations" for each game. We on board for this idea? I think it's more inclusive, less ambiguous and easier to design. Don't think we'd need to change names, but I might be wrong. | |||
- "A recurring topic can just be anything appearing in 2/3 releases of the series"
Not technically the rule. With FFVII and FFX characters had to have major plot significance in two or more games. I guess with terms it's mostly two though.
I'm not sure I agree with what is being said. It is true that we use Complete Collection, Ivalice Alliance, and Compilation of VII as terms used to refer to the series as a whole because we latched onto official terms rather than coining them like we had to for "Spira series", but it is slightly more than that. We don't have a page for "Ivalice titles", but we do for Ivalice Alliance. And people decided that even though not every Ivalice title is in the Alliance, the ones that aren't should be listed on the page, because they have nowhere else to go. And that is why this problem arises. Similar deal with Fiend (Final Fantasy X)-- that is where we list enemy species, but as long as we use that page as the main enemy species page we have to list non-Fiend types on there. So "Fiend" becomes the article for enemy species in FFX even if it isn't all encompassing.
This is more of an issue for wiki layout and series articles than it is for navboxes. JBed (talk) 18:28, August 23, 2014 (UTC)
I agree. See, I think that Worlds make more sense than subseries, and sub-subseries, just because it solves issues with ambiguity. But then again, listing by releases and series makes more sense. Because someone is much more likely to want to look for a page containing information found in a game than in a world...gah. This is a complicated issue. | |||
- I still think world series is a terrible idea. aesthetically its messy and the content in it is already a repeat. games/literature drama fall under Media and related games in the games main template, whereas stuff like recurring topics is not in any way useful because it has to be arbitrary decided by someone what is recurring or not. and i am certain there are far more recurring terms than listed that it doesn't do justice to those that aren't. Another thing to note about categorization is functionality. Ok, so etro's gate is a recurring term - oh hey let me see what else recurs in two or three games only. people don't navigate that way - at least normal people don't. If they want to look for something its based on what it is before considering its recurrence. bad categorization is not useful. don't categorize for the sake of it - it'll never end. also worlds won't work on the basis of LR alone. Nova Chrysalia is not the same world as Cocoon or Pulse. Game is the more appropriate one and theres really no need for unifying navboxes.--Arciele Spira (talk) 04:16, October 13, 2014 (UTC)
Crystal Chronicles
This poor sub-series needs some love. Monterossa (talk) 07:19, October 13, 2014 (UTC)
- Super late, sorry I didn't reply to this earlier. The reason I didn't is because I was going to then didn't know what navbox bg to give it. I still don't really know which to give it. :|-- Technobliterator TC 22:51, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
A simple idea; I was wondering if we should add the personnel and voice actors who worked on the game/movie/etc to the release' navboxes. This would mean we only add the ones who worked in that game, so for instance, we would add Tifa's VA to Dissidia 012, FFVII AC etc navboxes but not to the FFVII one because there are no VAs in FFVII. Same rule goes for all pre-FFX games bar FFIV because that got voice acting in the remake. My only problem with this is I don't know where to put it. I would go for our "Media" sections, but does a list of Personnel fit in that? If we put them there we'll need to rename it. I don't really want to make a new header as it'll make the navboxes longer, and honestly our Media sections are fairly small. "Related Media" doesn't really work. I was thinking something that could make "Out-of-Universe" or something...hnnng. Thoughts? Good idea? What to rename the section? | |||
Out-of-Universe is fine with me. C A T U S E 19:35, December 26, 2014 (UTC)
- Second that. After all, we go into real detail on this Wiki so I don't see why we shouldn't do that.—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) ∙ 08:48, January 1, 2015 (UTC)
- I am fine with calling it "Out-of-Universe" if other people have no name for it I guess. I'll just go ahead and update them later if no one objects/has a better name.-- Technobliterator TC 15:46, January 1, 2015 (UTC)