Template talk:Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy

Template Revision
Hi with the recent development of Final Fantasy versus XIII into Final Fantasy XV I move that the template be revised into this template or similar to this:

In my opinion now that it is already part of the main series, it is not right to put Final Fantasy XV in the "Other Games" section, yet it should not also be mixed up with the Final Fantasy XIII section. So I propose having its own portion in the template as possible future sequels and spin-off may also follow suit.

If the proposed template (or any other proposed templates agreed upon) is uncontested and/or supported by the majority of the people in a week, then the majority of the editors agree that the edit must be made and it will be executed immediately.JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I think it's silly to have two sections with one item each. I'm also not sure why FFXV's status as a main series Final Fantasy game has relevance on not being in an "other games" section for a Fabula Novis template- it's certainly on the main line in the main Final Fantasy template. -- Pres N  18:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * With the rebranding of Versus XIII to become FFXV, it's debatable that it's even still a part of FNC. I agree with PresN that it doesn't make sense to have two sections with one item each. It also doesn't make sense to put XIII and XV on their own line as "main games", since this is primarily a FNC template. At this point, both side-branches of FNC (Agito and Versus) have been rebranded (to Type-0 and XV) to move away from the so-called main branch of FFXIII. I think it makes more sense to group all of Lightning's games together. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarifying point, the beginning of the E3 trailer had "Fabula Nova Crystallis" written there. I doubt they would have put that there if they were taking out of the series. (Idea: delete the specific FNC template and have it more like the pages on the Final Fantasy IV and is sequels, with just a kind of extension within the navbox for those pages. That would negate this problem.) --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I contest the proposal as well. Too many subsections for so few titles. I say keep it the same as it was prior to the re-naming, unless/until SE classifies it differently. Sergecross73   msg me   20:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Change the template then the content exists to justify it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)