Template talk:Koei Tecmo's Warriors series

Removal of Dragon Quest Heroes & more
Yeah, so, I've been thinking about it, and, both in theory and technically a lot of these games have nothing to do with "Musou", aside from having similar mechanics. They are not considered to part of the franchise nor the IP by the developers. Any objections?

Titles include Mystic Heroes, Dragon Quest Heroes: The World Tree's Woe and the Blight Below, Dragon Quest Heroes II as well as Bladestorm: The Hundred Years' War from the "Related" section, as it has more in common with Kessen III than DW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkKyoushu (talk • contribs)
 * I definitely object to removing the two Dragon Quest Heroes titles. Reliable sources commonly tie the two together. Polygon, USGamer, Eurogamer, PlayStation Lifestyle. I can understand arguments like "They're not part of the main series" or something, but to call them "not related" is fundamentally not true. The template isn't particularly too large either, so its not like we're in need of trimming or something either. Sergecross73   msg me  14:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If anything, we could almost add a new tab for all the musou entries based off of other IPs - the 2 Dragon Quest titles, Hyrule Warriors, Beserk, the upcoming Tecmo Koei All-Star entry, etc. Sergecross73   msg me  15:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Outlets speak of a Warriors-style game, but that doesn't make it a Warriors-franchise game, the same way Bloodborne isn't a Souls title, despite the mechanical similarities. "Musou" or "Warriors" is often being used as a genre tag, as that style of game has long expanded beyond Omega Force, with titles such as Devil Kings and Fate/Extella. (Again, akin to Souls-like.) That said, the Square Enix producer of the Dragon Quest franchise and Dragon Quest Heroes specifically mentioned that it's not a Musou. From his official Twitter. Kyo~ (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, terrific argument if you're arguing its not a "mainline Dynasty Warriors entry" or something. I'd agree. But it's merely being put in the "related" field. Terrible argument for saying they're not even related. Even looking at your own example: Bloodborne is listed as a "related title" on the Souls series page. Two titles/series having a common developers and similar gameplay is a common and acceptable reason for being added to a "related" field. Sergecross73   msg me  16:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Eeek! I was mixing up Mystic Heroes and DQH with their placement in their template. Now I feel really silly. You're right. Mystic Heroes and Bladestorm, I'd still argue do not belong there, though. Though, Mystic Heroes itself might fit into Related as well, as it is conceptually similar to a Warriors game too.Kyo~ (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. In regards to Mystic Heroes and Bladestorm, I'm indifferent. They seem to be related as well, but in a looser sense. I'll leave that one up to you. That being said, as someone who monitors a number long-running series templates, changes like this require almost constant monitoring, as there's always people just passing by who make a change without explanation, and there's not usually a ton of experienced Wikipedia users who are monitoring it. So in short, because there is a loose connection, they still may keep getting re-added down the line if you don't keep an eye on it... Sergecross73   msg me  18:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Topics that do not have articles
This is the first time I've ever run into this. I'm attempting to add Gundam Reborn to the box, but I keep getting reverted over it citing NAVBOX, and I don't know what to do. But... nowhere in NAVBOX does it say anything about topics that don't actually have articles yet, and it actually mentions red links as a thing that occurs. I'd make an article for it myself, but I don't actually have the game. Despatche (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It says right there in WP:NAVBOX "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.". If a dead article is on a template, it should be removed.  Kyoushu~  ►Talk Page  14:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not even remotely what that sentence means. It says, quite literally, that there should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the entire template itself to justify having a navbox for it. There's no possible way to misunderstand this unless one does it on purpose. Despatche (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The entire point of a navigation template is to help one navigate. Adding items that don't have a wiki-link to an article does not help the reader navigate through the subject at all. WP:WTAF is a pretty commonly held editing philosophy, I'm rather surprised this hasn't come up for you before... Sergecross73   msg me  17:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)