Template talk:Prince of Persia

Video games Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Template

This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants)
Purple Francis (8 participants)
Gilman Louie (2 participants)
Yoshimitsu (3 participants)
Dr. Wily (9 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (3 participants)
Emote (2 participants)
Preston Arsement (6 participants; relisted)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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!
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]