Template talk:Prince of Persia

Next gen?

One of the headers is called "Next-Gen games", but the only game in there: Prince of Persia (2008 video game), will be out on current-gen platforms. I'm not sure what would be a better name, but the current one is a misnomer. Retodon8 (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Graphic novel

I just discovered there is a graphic novel in the works though this interview. The link princeofpersiathegraphicnovel.com doesn't currently work, but it's real. Paste the URL in Google, click the "Cache" link, and you'll get some links to YouTube, MySpace, and iTunes (itpc://firstsecondbooks.blip.tv/rss/itunes/). This is an official Jordan Mechner product, so should probably be added to the template. Retodon8 (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

PoP08 and Fallen King

Should these be of the same section? Both feature the same Prince and similar storylines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancingcyberman (talk • contribs) 19:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

C.O.N.S.I.S.T.E.N.C.Y.!

I urge every editors to keep in mind the style and the consistency in their edits of this template. Navigation templates are meant to ease navigation, not to show personal touches of the editors opinion of what categorization applies to what. To aid in this endeavor, consistency and style are very important.

And please do not be stingy when you are not short of space: Do not hide the full name of an article when user do not expect it. Fleet Command (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning! – Conflict of interest

Hi, everybody.

Today I made a major rollback to this template because a recent edit warring by Byakuya Truelight (talk · contribs) and Cineplex (talk · contribs) has taken place.

There is two important matters you should know:

1. According to Wikipedia:Navigation templates, a navbox must only make navigation between articles easier, not to provide a categorization of the subjects of the article (be it official, logical, promotional or canonical), especially not from a personal point of view! Neutrality is one of the pillars of Wikipedia and it must be taken into consideration in navboxes too!
2. Please be civil and discuss all major changes in talk page before committing them. If your change is obviously an improvement, you can do that without a discussion in talk page; however, according to Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, should you encounter opposition, you must discuss in talk page rather than initiating an edit war. Please bear in mind that in an edit war, everyone is involved not just the two parties involved. A whole world is watching Wikipedia and a whole world is affected by an edit war.

Fleet Command (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa, I wasn't warring. The majority of the change had already been made, I just slightly supplemented that change by cleaning it up a little and making it more accurate.

Byakuya Truelight (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, now that I look at it, it's actually CLOSER to what I suggested, and I didn't even make it like that. ^_^

Byakuya Truelight (talk) 07:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

And now, we have Dude527 (talk · contribs) again, having a conflict of interest with us without discussing it first. Dude527, you really should read what I wrote above and then try to reach a consensus before performing another dramatic change. Fleet Command (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to edit war, as I was not aware of a previous edit war taking place here (Although by the looks of it, it wasn't a war, just played up a bit). However, if we've gotta adhere to pillars of Wikipedia here, shouldn't we adhere to all of them? My only gripe is that we have NO citations supporting the separations of the games, and it seems logical to do so, but I can not find anywhere where the 2008 installment is named the "Ahriman series". Nor can I find anywhere where people propose the popular name for the original three games is the "Original trilogy." Further, I see other games with separate, unrelated universes sharing the same name, such as The Legend of Zelda, or Call of Duty, and none of these franchises subdivide their installments into specific, related universes in the navbox. I simply see very little support for subdividing the game in this way, as it is not supported by any sources (Again, find good sources calling the 2008 installment part of the "Ahriman series" or the first three games part of the "Original trilogy", and I'd be a little more willing to accept this). Nor do I see this format in any other navboxes for games. I understand the concept of a navbox making for easier navigation, but unnecessary subdivision does not necessarily equate to easy navigation. And, again, if we're adhering to WP:NPOV because it is a pillar of Wikipedia, we must also adhere to all of the other pillars of Wikipedia, including sourcing. In that, this format is false. Further, I do not believe anybody here is violating WP:NPOV or WP:Navbox anyways. Be careful pointing accusations. The Guy ^(edits) 19:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

First, please don't make things dramatic: Just because your edit is undone or the word violation is used, it doesn't mean you are accused or insulted. You just made an edit which is reversed twice. (Once by me and another time by Cineplex). This means at least two Wikipedians do not agree with you and hence a consensus must be attained before further edits.

Second, if you look above, you realize that I also did invite Cineplex and Byakuya Truelight to enter discussion instead of straightforward undoing of your edits. All you guys need to do here is to keep a cool head and reach a consensus.

As for needing source, WP:V strictly applies to material in main namespace. For navbox, our reference is the article and, as always, consensus. (Our reference is articles because we are dealing with articles themselves, rather than their subject.) As I said, a navbox's primary aim is to ease the navigation between related articles, not to categorize their subject, be it a logical, promotional, official or other sort of categorization.

Last but not least, the fact that other navboxes do something in a certain way is considerable: Consistency is an important rules, yes. However, it is not a binding reason. In Wikipedia, consensus is a more binding reason.

Please begin now: Propose your edits and discuss their pros and cons. Fleet Command (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You have the wrong impression of my tone; I was not insulted, and did not intend to dramatize. I simply felt that it was already dramatized by being called an edit war, when no real edit warring was actually occurring: My edits were not even within a week of one another, and Cineplex and Byakuya Truelight had each only made one collective edit. Further, Cineplex was the only one that rolled mine back; Byakuya Truelight simply tweaked Cineplex's edits, not necessarily indicating opposition to my format. In fact, about a week prior, Byakuya Truelight tweaked my format, not rolled it back, which could also indicate acceptance. Quite simply, there was not an edit war going on, not when there were only two major rollbacks within two-and-a-half weeks. That was the point I wanted to make regarding your comments not related to the specific conflict. As an addendum, for future reference, I have been editing Wikipedia for over two years now, and have participated in several consensuses and conflicts of interest; I generally know how things work around here, and this, to me, doesn't seem like a conflict of interest; it was simply played up to be one.

Now, onto comments about the conflict. For one thing, I would like you to direct to where it says WP:V only applies to material in main namespace, but WP:NPOV doesn't. I'm not saying you're wrong, I am simply saying I cannot find it. Still, with our reference as the article, there is nowhere in the article that calls the first three Prince of Persia games the "original trilogy" or the latter two the "Ahriman series;" official source or article reference, those three applied separation titles are still fabricated. Even assuming we had an article reference, it would still be down to official sources, no? An article wouldn't contain such content without an official, reliable source. I think this is unnecessary categorization according to universe, and it doesn't necessarily make for easier navigation. I am also aware that consensus is a more binding reason than consistency for the navbox; again, I've been here over two years. However, it wasn't consistency I was going for; just what works for other articles, and what should work here. For example, if the community of Call of Duty editors categorized that series into timelines, they would likely have Call of Duty, Call of Duty 2, and Call of Duty 3 in the "World War II series", Call of Duty: World At War and Call of Duty: Black Ops in the "Treyarch series" (They'd probably come up with a better name than that; I'm just giving an example), and they would probably have Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 in the "Modern Warfare series". This seems logical, but it's not necessarily valid: Their current categorization of lumping all the series together, despite not being related, works better in that they have no solid namespaces in which to categorize these series'. Same principle here: The names are user-fabricated, not from the articles, and lumping all the games together in "Console" and "Handheld" categories would likely work better, taking less risks. Further, it is my belief that splitting the series into three separate universes is tailoring to the more savvy readers; newcomers to the topic (The readers to whom we should tailor) will not know the difference between the three universes, and the navbox does nothing to tell them what's up with that. It makes it more confusing to navigate, therefore, for the readers who want to read about the topic front-to-back, chronologically. In essence, it seems like it's trying to do what you're saying it shouldn't do; categorize the games according to a logical pattern. I am not trying to do that; I am trying make the navbox easier to navigate for new readers of the topic. The Guy ^(edits) 18:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, well, since it seems like no one's actually talking about the disagreement itself yet, I'll try to get things rolling by asking directly. Looking at the way the template looks now, what do people think should be changed, specifically? Also, if anyone has a problem with the names 'original trilogy' and 'Ahriman series', then what would you suggest in place of those? Byakuya Truelight (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest forgoing this template altogether in favor of my previous one, which did not categorize the games by universes, just placed the games in "Console" and "Handheld" lumps. It is not important to categorize the games by universe, because newcomers to the topic (we should assume all readers here will be, as we want to bring "ignorant" readers up to "knowledgeable" level) will not know the difference between the three universes, nor that there even are three universes. I believe we should just go with my previous format and lump all the games together, letting the articles to the job of differentiating the games for the readers. This is how it should be. The Guy ^(edits) 18:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think your format has a problem: It's messy. Mess makes navigation difficult. Besides, some PoP games are released for multiple platforms. As for the universe-based format, I think it is the best format since:

1. Number of games per distinct continuities is limited, hence the navigation becomes very easier
2. After having read the articles, it is self-evident that all PoP games are explicitly part of a different distinct continuity: One series whose primary theme is love, (with a secondary evil vizier theme,) one series whose primary theme is The Sands of Time, and one series whose primary theme is battle with Ahriman. These distinctions are very difficult to miss.

There are other distinguishing storyline elements that ignore; PoP story has always been rife with goofs, so much that fills volumes. (If you ever wanted to have some fun by knowing some, let me know.) Fleet Command (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

How does 'Zoroastrian series' sound to everyone? Because using the name of the antagonist as a name for the whole series seems a bit strange. Byakuya Truelight (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I would opt for categorizing the Sands of Time series into its own distinction, as this series is indeed called the Sands of Time series (or trilogy); we could pull multiple sources on that from the article's subject matter if we wanted to, and it's obvious that that's appropriate titling, as even Ubisoft said "The Forgotten Sands marks a return the the Sands of Time storyline!" in press release for The Forgotten Sands. However, I do not think the themes FleetCommand is describing as "clear" are actually so -- I think they are clear, but we should not use them for titles of categorization; I think that's inappropriate. I would opt for a setup where the Sands of Time series games have their own section (as, again, we can easily find sources for its title, and it's arguably the most popular of the franchise, warranting separation). However, Prince of Persia is not popularly recognized as a part of the Ahriman series, and again, that's very blatantly a user-generated name. Same with "Original trilogy". It is for this reason I'd support a setup separating the Sands of Time games from the rest of the games -- put Sands of Time series as one category, and put "Other games" as the other, in which we'll put the first three games, as well as PoP 2008. I think this works better, as PoP 2008 doesn't belong to any actually "series" (yet), and is arguably a standalone spin-off in the universe. As for the original three games, they're not really a series... The first and second game are related, but PoP 3D is a spin-off that isn't clear on whether it's the same characters or universe of the first two, and the story is very clearly unrelated. I think this is "clean" enough for your tastes, yet uncluttered with unnecessary organization and user-generated titles enough for mine. The Guy ^(edits) 22:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid your recommendation is ever more problematic than your original. It is confusing. Besides, I hardly agree with your interpretation.

However, we needn't title our categorization if we can't find a good title for them. Simply, delete the subgroup title name. They'll still be in three different categories.

Something like this: (Please disregard link names or minor differences; get the main idea.)

Fleet Command (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that mine is confusing, but I don't need to fight that, because I agree with your above submitted version: Deleting the subnames is fine, as the user-generated names was the main thing I disagreed with. I'm willing to overlook what I see as unnecessary organization in exchange for deleting the user-generated subnames, which I see as a major problem; the categorization being a preference, obviously. I'll edit the template to accord with this version.

One other small thing, however: Should we split the "Related articles" section into "Related media" (containing the film and graphic novel) and "Related articles" (containing characters and Jordan)? Also, shouldn't the film and graphic novel bear their titles? The final product I'd envision would look something like this (I've also changed it to bear my previous rendition of the video games, just so you can clearly see it isn't confusing, in case you would change your mind; but still understand I agree to your above changes, too, and simply prefer this version, but am applying your changes):

See? Not confusing at all. The Guy ^(edits) 01:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that you consented to my suggestion, I shall consent to yours. Yes, we divide the section. Now, we seem to have a consensus. I am going ahead and committing the change. Fleet Command (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)