Cyber Nations Wiki talk:Village Pump

Archives:
 * Archives, Page One
 * Archives, Page Two

Discouraging editing
From J Andres's post on Vain's talk page
 * Please don't make edits to articles that are tagged as "Frequently the target of bias" without discussing it on the talk page first.

I have to completely disagree with this statement. We have recently been arguing that every page is opened to be edited, now we are saying that articles that are biased shouldn't be edited without "asking" first? Quite unwiki-like. I understand the concern. But I personally believe (and have witnessed on countless occasions) that the best outcome of an article comes from people being bold, and making a change that they think would benefit the article. Of course, in order for this to actually work, we all have to assume good faith in the edits of others. If you have a question about someones edit, feel free to revert it, or change it. The nice thing to do would be to explain your revert on the talk page, and when that happens, the greatest possible outcome occurs. Of course, the edit summary should point to the talk page. That way discussion can decide if that works or not. Of course, if this action isn't taken, the original poster, also acting in good faith, can revert the revert and then he can explain his actions on the talk page. Requiring discussion before edits is exactly what we were suggesting shouldn't happen in the Random Insanity Alliance thing. But this is even worse. Earlier we were saying that everyone should be able to fix an article if it has nonsense in it, and now you are suggesting that potentially (and most likely) useful edits must be discussed first?

The edits you left, J Andres, on Vain's talk page are a great way of working this out. But I don't believe the rollback tool should be used for anything other then clear vandalism. Your revert of his edit should have provided explanation for the revert in the edit summary, and if necessary, point to the talk page where you elaborate. I'd like everyone to look at the next section too, and I hope to keep the discussions separate. This discussion is dealing with the issue that people should never be told they are required to ask first before editing an unlocked article, the next is about blocking. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 07:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is pretty much the problem we had with former user Key Stroke's ideas, we all agreed that this was against the "golden wiki rule" as I love to call it. Aido2002((talk)) 20:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Although articles tagged with this way say the same thing on the real wikipedia. J Andres 03:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you mean this, or this, which doesn't request that before changes. This does, but I sincerly doubt we have anything worthy of the name "highly controversial".  Even then, it says "Please" before the request to talk about it first.  Your reactions didn't seem that way.  I'm just trying to make sure that if we are going to be pushing the wiki-nature, we have to make sure that going against it by discussing as the first action isn't a rule, but is just often useful. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 05:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * When I originally made the biased template I followed the controversial wiki template because I did it for the October Massacre, which at the time, was extremely controversial. I get what you are saying now though. J Andres 11:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Cyber Nations Wiki:Vandalism
See Cyber Nations Wiki talk:Vandalism for discussion on the vandalism policy. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 07:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Nordreich
Check out the Nordreich talk page. The IP address user (Likely Vain) won't budge on the link to the video being displayed. J Andres 23:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Resource images to upload
Feel free to upload any of these that don't already exist, and tag them with. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 18:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-Bonus Resources

Bonus Resources


 * I uploaded some more, we now have all the non-bonus resources. Aido2002((talk)) 22:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I think I finished it up. MTTezla 02:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... some of my images are kind of weird... I'm not sure why that is, but it's not really noticable, I don't think. Oh well. (The images in question are fast food, beer, fine jewelry, and affluent population.) MTTezla 02:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, MTTezla. Well, if you can get better versions please upload those, but these will work for now. Aido2002((talk)) 07:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll see what I can do with them. Stupid Paint. MTTezla 20:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thumbnail Image Background
I fixed the problem we were having (Yes, the one I caused...) with the colors of he thumbnail image backgrounds. I pasted the text of the Monobook.css file into MS word and used the search and replace to replace it with the color white. Aido2002((talk)) 00:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * About time, well done :). -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 21:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Very happy that this is finally done. J Andres 13:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know why it occurred to me just now to use a search and replace, but better late than never, I suppose. Aido2002((talk)) 19:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

News Headlines and Did You Know
We need to establish some committee, or at least a set of guidelines, to determine what will be out on the News css and the Did you Know css. People are just putting unhelpful crap there, we should put helpful, informative tidbits there.

Here is my proposal for how the Did You Know css should be decided:

1) We make a page, where people post their suggestions.

2) We vote, and decide to put it up or not. Simple as that.

However, the News css, given the fact that it has to be updated as news happens, needs to give out some authority:

1) (As much as I hate to say it, I can't think of a better way than this--) Admins and bearucrats have to decide what should be out up. It is up to them.

I know I will be criticized on that second idea, but I don;t know how it can be done better. We need to update that as news happens, and keep in mind I have asked Angela to install that news namespace (she told me a bug or something of the sort is preventing it from being made) and once that is up, it will be much easier, we can just pick from the newest articles.

--Aido2002((talk)) 06:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the fact is, our only active "proposal" system (great texts) which is open to discussion from anyone has been only us three, so lets leave news as the same, and see what happens. People propose news stories and if other support, it goes up. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 08:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But we can't wait to vote on news. News happens wen it happens, and thats when we have to post it here. Thats why I think we should just pick a few, trustworthy people to post news. Aido2002((talk)) 10:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think allowing open posting would be best, as a few people can't know about all news. We can have open posting of news, and then remove things that aren't "news worthy" by our discretion, this is just front page right? -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 20:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, first of all, happy new year, everyone. I think the problem here is mostly the Did you Know css, we have tried just letting anyone post that, and we are getting crap there. So, I looked at how Wikipedia does it and found that they allow for posting of suggestions, and then pick from those. That's how I think we should do it, we will get much better facts this way. Aido2002((talk)) 09:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds good actually, I like it. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 20:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Talk page is ready for suggestions: Template talk:Did you know  Aido2002((talk)) 01:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

On a similar note, why has the news infobox been removed from the wiki main page? - Alphacow 20:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts
I know this would lead to a lot of switching, so let me just out this idea out there. I have been thinking about it for a while, and just want to say it:

I think we need a better name. "Cyber Nations Wiki" just isn't as good... We need something one-worded, like, and this is just an example, Cybnawiki. Yes, its stupid, but It's just an example to show what I mean. If anyone else agrees with me, we could have a naming contest.

Once again, I'm just putting the idea out there. Aido2002((talk)) 02:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, the name is long, but it's clear, and obvious. There is one Cyber Nations Wiki, and it is this, as the name states.  What spurred this on?  A desire to get a logo with the whole name? (lol) -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 04:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * IF a better name is found (Star Wars Wiki = Wookieepedia) than I might support this, but right now I like the name. J Andres 11:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I said, the idea just came to me, and I just wanted to put it out there. I'll see if I can come up with a good name, but I agree, the current one is good for now. Aido2002((talk))

streamlined adding of new nations
I created a page (using the "preload" parameter of the inputbox) which should make it much easier to create new nation pages. See it here. Let me know what you think. - Alphacow 22:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome, I love it. I had thought about that earlier but forgot.  Well done. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 00:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! Now people will be able to make god looking articles easily! Thanks! Aido2002((talk)) 20:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And good looking ones too :-P. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 20:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad you folks like it. It actually took a while to make. If you're interested in wikicode, try simply using "preload=nation infobox". You'll see that it won't work. Look at the source of "nation infobox code" to see how I did it. - Alphacow 20:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually did something very similar at SporeWiki.com in the creature database so I understand, are you sure a preload not be more complicated then this? Because this works. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 20:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh... well, that doesn't work on this wiki. If you try to do what you did, instead of having the simple transclusion, it first renders the template and THEN sticks the result in the edit box. What I was ending up with was all the ugly HTML &lt;table>, &lt;tr>, &lt;td>, and everything else in the edit box. Try what you did there here... maybe you'll figure out something I missed. (It is possible, though, that we're just using a different version of wiki than sporewiki.) - Alphacow 20:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is most likely the case, and the input box here is different. Just thought I'd bring it up in case it would be easier.  -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 20:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the Nordreich Video
This is MAJOR news. I feel this deserves its own article and we should work on researching the topic in depth for it. J Andres 03:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems fair, it's a touchy subject, so sources will need to be cited of course. Just put it in category:Nordreich.  It must stay NPOV of course. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 18:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyber Nations Early History and History of Cyber Nations
These two articles need to be merged into History of Cyber Nations. I'll be working on it soon, but I want to hear what people think about the two articles and there ideas. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 03:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

GATO-INC War
Not being there at the time I can't provide NPOV information, but I can spot when POV information exists, and I believe this article needs to be cleaned up of all of that. Again, I'm looking for ideas and suggestions. All of the "I" and "we" should be removed, and we shouldn't quote a pro GATO member without quoting a pro INC one. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 04:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Palachinov

 * ''Moved from Talk:Main Page

New user edited multiple nations and nation information without consent. Most was nonsense.
 * As stated on your talk page, people need not ask consent to edit an article that isn't locked. Although it's common courtesy not to just make up rp for another nation.  That being said, the only article that he did that on, was the Politics of Templuria page, which you took care of.  All other edits were grammar, spelling, or other similar additions that are encouraged on any article.  Only one of his edits was nonsense, unless there was something that I missed (if so, just provide a link).
 * Also, that being said. I don't approve of your "revenge" edits to his article.  He obviously doesn't know exactly how things work here, and damaging his article for fun or in revenge is a bad thing to allow to go on here.  So I'd hope that the next time something like this happens (if it does) you just undo their edit and explain it on their talk page, more nicely. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 00:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that.

Template:News css
What are we doing with this, it's in the sidebar but not on the main page, Plans Aido? -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 00:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It's important, but not important enough for the Main Page. However, if we develop news articles *cough cough* news namespace *cough cough*, then I think we should replace the page he sidebar links to with a homepage for news, giving the most recent articles. That's why I wanted a news namespace. Aido2002((talk)) 00:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Figured that was the point, thanks. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 00:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

News Namespace
As I just found out, the "News:" and "News talk:" namespaces are now up and running! I already moved News:A Report on Treason, let's look for others that should be news articles and move them to the namespace. Aido2002((talk)) 00:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick links/Nav section
I think that we should add a section with quick links to frequently accessed topics to the main page. Being that we are an encyclopedia, we should have the most-likely-to-be-accessed topics quick at hand. I threw something together here to show what I think could be useful information. Basically, I want the casual user who will come here to find out how to increase happiness or what the algorithm for strength is to have a very easy time finding answers. Let me know what you think. (Note: I will be leaving to go out of townlater today... if you guys discuss and decide this is a good idea, someone stick it on the front page... dont' wait for me to do it.) - Alphacow 15:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)