Template talk:Prince of Persia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Next gen?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

C.O.N.S.I.S.T.E.N.C.Y.![edit]

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)

Better layout for the template[edit]

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 commit the change. Fleet Command (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh! You've done it already! Fleet Command (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Wait, were you referring to splitting the "Related articles" section? If so, I didn't do that already and that change can still be applied. All I did was eliminate the subnames; I didn't want to make any more drastic changes without a consensus on them. The Guy (edits) 17:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
It's very nice and civil of you. You have my consent. Fleet Command (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)