Talk:Kaileena

message: So, the new look of the kaileena page is good, but all it did was get rid of all the old information which was good, and replaced it with a bunch of fluff. I have yet to find an actual reason to not revert these edits back to what they previously were. If anyone thinks to look here, and maybe write anything back, then please tell me why the current page should stay. -- Makaio 01:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fan opinions? My editions? I'm sorry, you have something mistaken. The previous version was complete fact, like this version, it was not opinions. I also wasn't the only person behind the bulk of the previous edits, alot of other people have contributed to it as well. Not only that, this page was made to build off the soft redirect in the page you mentioned. It is only natural that there is more information on a game by game basis as that if it was on the actual page, it would be too huge. Now that that is out of the way, I agree that it didn't have the look that it needed. But this isn't a step forward in the developement of the page. -- Makaio 20:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Overhaul 

message: Why was the image of Kaileena from The Two Thrones deleted?
:Most likely because it didn't have a license description. Then again it may have been deleted during the steady decending quality of this page. -- Makaio 01:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image deleted 

message: I just discovered that a large piece of this article was stolen from Prince of Persia: Supporting Cast on IGN. This should be rewritten.
Also, to the people above, you can sign your posts with four tildes (~) written as if it were a word. Without the sigs conversations are hard to follow, and it's way too much work to find out who said what, and when. Retodon8 02:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright infringement

message: This page is completely ridiculous. It's written in-character, in-world and is about as un-factual as you can get.
-- what even makes you say it's un-factual? All the information is true. I believe you just know nothing about the game or the character. The source of most of the information here is the official Pop Swordsmen site. I believe you can't know better than the game developers. Please obtain some information before you bother writing such a ridiculous and useless comment.
 
--- --- What's not to understand? None of this is "true", it's fiction. However, despite this it follows none of the usual rules for relating events of a fictional character, and details information from the point of view of a storyteller or narrator, rather than the nPoV required of an encyclopedic article. I'm going to edit it again in a second, revert it if you want, at least it'll give you an idea of what I mean when I say "un-factual". EDIT: There, done. See new comment below.
:Well, look at the positive side, at least there's a picture of the character. :/ -- Makaio 02:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the hell is this. 

message: Title says it all.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit me  §  Contributions ♣ 04:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed.  Extensively re-edited and reorganized to remove all of the "advertising-like" text and create a neutral perspective. --Bishop2 17:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is so unneutral 

message: Hi all. I just made a big cleanup of this page to make it sound less like a page torn out of the game's instruction manual and more like an actual encyclopedia article. The flowery language and verbose nature of the previous version was completely out of place - even the most ardent fan of the series should agree we don't need a section detailing the dark and tragic nature of the Island of Time, or a two-paragraph spiel on how she realises that "she's done with running". This isn't a gorram novel, it's an article about a bit-player in a video game. We don't need sentences like "It is up the Prince to set things right" as if to somehow set the mood.
Comments and reverts welcome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.153.112 (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the "revamping," due to the fact that, due to lack of sourcing, it looks like total fan fiction; repost with sources.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 04:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the reversion you rolled it back to Ddoesn't look like total fan-fiction? Have you actually READ it? It doesn't read at all like an encyclopedia article. It's completely in-universe, non-POV and out of place. The above revamp may not have had sources but it was at least a lot more fitting than the current one (Which, by the way, doesn't have sources either). Seriously, I don't see at all how this current version is acceptable by any standards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Great Unwashed (talk • contribs) 10:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, I reverted it because they looked like lies; there was no sourcing whatsoever of those statements. After I reverted it, I did a bit of research and I discovered that they are true, which is the main reason why I said to repost with sources. I haven't even heard of a Daeva or whatever continent or land they've come from, and I've played every single console version of the games. THAT'S why I reverted it: to someone who has played the games, but not read whatever source has this information (my viewpoint), it looks like total fan fiction. I also didn't say this version was better. Yes, I actually have read this section; I'm the same person that said "this is so unneutral," which is not even a whole page above this section. Yes, this reversion is unsourced, but it is believable, albeit un-neutral, as opposed to that version that made seemingly outrageous, unsourced claims of her origin not detailed in any game, to date. Like what I said above, I only found the truth after I reverted the edits. The reason why I haven't reverted them back is because they still look unbelievable without proper sourcing; I am, in no way, opposed to the edits.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 18:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  nPoV revamp