Hi @Iftekharahmed96,

How am I not "objective" when it comes to changing piped links? While I can get behind Musashi and Bravely, reverting completely is an exaggeration. The name of the series is Ogre Battle, not Ogre and it's The Death Trap, not Death Trap. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 22:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC) soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 22:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

There's two games in the Ogre franchises under the name Tactics Ogre (proving that you did not read the article carefully enough to consider this edit), The Death Trap on the other hand does seem to have the word "The" in both of the titles so the correction is justified there. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Watch your tone, @Iftekharahmed96 and don't make assumptions. Saying that it somehow proves I didn't read the article is downright rude. I did read it and the article is called Ogre Battle and not Ogre. It says that there's main series and a subseries, as in spin-off from the main series. Those are not my words. That you have a different reading than I do does not mean I didn't read it. And again, saying that my original edit goes against "objectivity" when it concerns changing piped links is also a clear case of not assuming good faith on your part. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

You made a mistake and I'm correcting you, continuing this conversation any further doesn't solve anything because the navigation box has been recently modified to be accurate. If you want to be helpful, act collaborative as oppose to taking reverted edits as personal attacks. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Iftekharahmed96 I am saying that your tone is inappropriate and I haven't brought up personal attacks. Now you're telling me to "act collaborative". Not particularly friendly. And do I have to point out that I agreed with restoring two of the four entries? I'm not concerned about the revert, it's about your edit summary and your accusatory tone in this discussion. Do you honestly think that "you made a mistake and I corrected you" is at all assuming good faith? If you can't find the time to write a decent, civil reply then don't bother. I've said my piece and I'm fine with the current status of the template. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

When why continue this conversation? a consensus has already been reached. At this point, this is a personal conversation that goes beyond correcting the template. And to clarify, I stated that you didn't read "carefully enough", not that you didn't the article at all. There's a difference in meaning with the former and the latter. I am a very genuine and understanding person who's open arms for collaboration, however, this hostile approach that you're taking with trying to "resolve" this situation has only built a rift in our acquaintanceship. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Typically when we use a video game franchise in a navbox, we tend to use the "base" name for the series; ex. Chrono Trigger has a sequel named Chrono Cross, so the name "Chrono" is used. Another example is RayForce, which had sequels named "RayCrisis" and "RayStorm", so the name "Ray" is used. Namcokid47 (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Why continue this conversation? Because I feel mistreated. I've mentioned several times in what way I find your tone unkind ("goes against objectivity" "you made a mistake", "act collaborative", suggesting I consider a revert a personal attack). Now you're even saying that I've got a hostile approach. Maybe this is a normal way of communicating for you, online or on Wikipedia. To me, it's not. Maybe I wasn't clear, but that's the point I'm trying to make. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you got personally attacked from a statement (which clearly was not meant to be a personal attack but you interpreted it like so). If you honestly feel offended by my responses to edits then I feel that you need to be less emotionally invested in edits and more logically invested in edits. I've been in your position of being "offended" plenty times before and these sort of conversations amount to nothing because you're going to end up having another person who "offends" you for entirely different reasons anyway. You need to think beyond personal feelings if you want to edit in Wikipedia because your feelings can never be your defence for an edit. There's far more direct and harsh editors on this site than me, but I don't try and act as though they're personally attacking me because I know they're thinking for the better of Wikipedia. Judging from this conversation, you're just using this incident as a means to unleash your emotions. Honestly, you should have talked on my page as opposed to talking here. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

There's no coming through to you. Best of luck. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

There you go again, making an objective discussion subjective. What you just said right there can be regarded as a personal attack because "There's no coming through to you" can be implied as "you can never understand". What does coming through to me have to do with the edit that you made on this navigational box? or do you just want the last word to feel validated? We've got one of two options right now, we can either close this discussion and work together, or you can continue on like this and I can prove as to why I did not "personally attack you" with the revert. Your choice. I suggest you pick the former option. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to your messages. Happy editing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Sooner or later, you'll bump into me again by coincidence. Regardless, happy editing. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)