Cyber Nations Wiki talk:Village Pump

Welcome to the Cyber Nations Wiki village pump. This is the place to talk to other editors, where you can get out information to others. To start a new discussion, click here.

Namespaces
From now on, we should start using namespaces, as they do on Wikipedia. (That link will bring you to Wikipedia's help page on it.) We will use CN as our namespace for pages that are not articles, equivalent to Wikipedia's "Wikipedia:" namespace. To see what I mean, look at the name of this Wikipedia page:. So, this will be the first page to use the CN namespace. I will go start moving other pages that have to be moved to their correct namespace. Aido2002 22:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Priority
Our priority after main page is community portal i've started working on it but since yestrday evening my internet provider has some kind of problem so my internet connection is very unstable. Hopefully they'll sove this problem soon if anyone like's to edit it and do it more wikilike then feel free. Whisperer 15:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Standards
We need standards to decide what articles should be Featured Articles (History of Cyber Nations is defiantly not), who should be an admin, etc. That is an important thing. Suggestions? Aido2002 04:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * History of the CN has been choosen because of its specific and important content and will stay as featured article, if anyone more would oppose to this then we will remove it. About the standard it is relative thing because of importance of the articles then its content formulation and many other things. The best thing is to vote about them. For any further info please see CyberNations:Great Texts

Protection
We need to decide what pages should be protected and semiprotected. Given our current membership situation, I think it is safe to semiprotect the Main Page. I'm going to do that now, but feel free to unprotect it, and discuss if you disagree. Aido2002 20:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by Freedom4all
I blocked this user, (his IP adress actually), for vandalism. He has responded by attacking my nation. I ask the general populace to make sure that if we give him a permananet ban, or a longer ban than the current week, it will be justified. J Andres 20:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Give him two weeks worning time then if he continues we will ba him for good. Whisperer 22:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * He had multis, I had him deleted. Aido2002 05:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not do that that is not wikia policy. Whisperer 14:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't have him deleted becuas of his cvandalism, but because he had multis. (I looked in logs of forums, and found out he had several nations logging in from 1 IP.) Aido2002 20:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I knew his nation didn't exist. I figured he deleted it so he wouldn't have to pay me any reps.J Andres 20:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh. Well, no he was found to have multis. Aido2002 20:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Main Page
Well you all may see new main page I been working on it for several days it needs a bit more shaping but it is ready now on. What do you think? Whisperer 14:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the concept, but: (1) you misuse the "template" concept, and (2) its not displaying correctly. I'll try to create some templates from what you did and we can work from there. Alphacow 16:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I would like to know what you consider as misuse of the template concept as it is perfectly legal to use templates in this way and it is reasonable. And what is not displaying correctly. Everything works fine isn't it please point out. Sorry for altitude, long work:) Whisperer 21:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it is your screen size or what, but the right side of the main page appears messed up J Andres 22:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, i do not see that but if you say so then please repair it. I've checked and several my computers and its all the same. I admit that is problem. Which browser do you use? If you use IE then it is because it uses some nonstandard functionc. But generally it should be OK. Ah, yes i use Firefox. OK I've checked it the problem does not occur because of the width of the screen as the boxes are generated according to it. It is rather your browser'sWhisperer 22:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't take offense... I like this better than what was there. This is just a work in progress. The "misuse of template" line doesn't mean that you're usig them illegally, its that you're transcluding templates instead of redesigning them. By placing the existing template in a box that you made you havent really fixed the template, you just put the old one in a pretty box. Regarding the display problems, I'm using Safari, and its not displaying right. I can post a screenshot if you really want to see. -- Alphacow 16:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC).
 * OK, after reviewing the code in the Main Page template, it seems that you really need to clean up your code. You have many unpaired &lt;div&gt; tags. You repeat the same style definition numerous times instead of just cascading it through with a &lt;div&gt; tag You seem to place empty hard returns without worrying about the resultant &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; tag. The majority of the templates have uninformative names (i.e., Section1, Section2, etc.). Aside from all that, that is one huge template... why didn't you just make a bunch of smaller ones and include them all on the front page individually? It would make it so much easier to manage. I understand that you spent time on this, but there's still work to be done on your design. -- Alphacow 16:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've whipped up a much cleaner (unfinished) version of Whisperer's main page here. It's based on this template, which is a fairly simple, clean template based on what you did. Its basically exactly what Whisperer made, just cleaner and easier to manage. The only thing which I didn't create myself is the nav section, and that is simply because I didn't have time to do it. Let me know what you folks think. -- Alphacow 22:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I don't like the way it looks one of my point was also the right side as I expected that you will make it work also on the Internet Explorer. And not just clean the part which doesn't work. I would prefer to see that right side is back and I liked more my own concept well if anyone has something to say then please do? Whisperer 22:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the new format, the only thing that still needs to be done, is fix the word wrapping around the pictures J Andres 23:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Whisperer... what do you mean "one of my point was also the right side"? I loaded your the page in numerous browsers, and I did not see any content in the right side, save for the "links" section, which I didn't include since its redundant with the Nav and Quick Links sections. BTW, feel free to add whatever you want... I tried to make the infobox easy to use and well-documented. Regarding the image wrapping problem, I admit that I haven't checked this version on win IE, so I'll do that and try to fix it. -- Alphacow 01:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at it in IE and its fine. J Andres 03:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I just fixed it a minute ago. You just caught it at the right time. I'm glad it works. -- Alphacow 03:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well what don't you see on the main page I made check this print screen from my firefox. What's the problem. Check it. Whisperer 18:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I see what you're talking about now. None of the right column showed up in my browser. I stand by my earlier statement that your code is very poorly written; I still don't know where the code is for the entire right column. You seem to have hidden it somewhere within the Main Page/Introduction section. I'll try to add those sections today. -- Alphacow 16:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Help
I need some help with the Templurian-UnitedNations War page.


 * What kind of help do you need and please sign yourselve next time. Whisperer 19:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I need some help with the page, it's not quite professional looking. Chaosman 25 November 2006

Cyber Nations vs. CyberNations
So everyone kows, according to the site, the name is spelled Cyber Nations, not CyberNations. Two words, not one. Aido2002 20:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Featured Articles, Admins, and Bureaucrats
I have several things to discuss, here they are:

Featured Articles
We need a criteria for featured articles. Not only are the ones we have now NOT, by and means, good enough for such a status, but we need to vote on which ones can be featured articles. Featured articles should:
 * Be coherent and clearly worded, free of more than one or two grammar mistakes.
 * Be clearly and properly formatted using all applicable Media Wiki software features, such as: [ [Image:example.png|caption|thumb|#px] ]
 * Be reasonably accurate

Admins
From now on, to become an admin, you must have been a member for at least one week. On the CyberNations:Requests for Adminship page, post, in a new section, your user name, and why you want to be an admin. Then, others should vote below your request, and if you get a majority vote, you will be made an admin.

Bureaucrats
To become a Bureaucrat, post your use name, and why you want to be one on the Talk:CyberNations:Requests for Bureaucratship(I guess thats what it is) page. If you get a majority vote, you will be made one. Aido2002 02:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

front page additions
I would post this on the front page itself, but I don't think anyone reads the talk there, and you are the only person really working on the page now. I think it's important to try to keep the number of items on the front page to as few as necessary. I personally think that the "create new page" thing and the "create a new account" thing are unnecessary; the first since we have (had) a link to welcome newbies inthe Important Info box, and the second since it's already located on the page. I removed the search box from the main page code for exactly that reason also; there is enough stuff there as is, and the search is prominently displayed on the side of every single page. No need to replicate what's already there.

Additionally, the "CN is: online" thing is, IMHO, also unnecessary, since you really can only get to this page from the CN webpage (I don't think anyone's going to bookmark this site), and if it's down, people will be in the forums, not here.

Just some ideas... if you want to move this somewhere else to have the discussion, feel free to just copy and paste it... just let me know. -- Alphacow 04:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason I added the box to add a page is that we want to make it as easy as possible to add a page, we want as many page as possible. And the CN:Online thing is there so we can look more like we are working alongside with CN, makes us look better. We are aiming to be the place that people go to when the game is down.Aido2002 05:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, that's all well and good, but we don't want to compromise the look of the place in doing so. Without those parts mentioned above we have an aesthetically very nice layout scheme to the place - I think that having those parts as they are now just kind of sticks out. I'll work on trying to integrate them into the existing scheme a bit more when I get a chance, and we can see how that turns out. Let me know if you specifically DON'T want to do that. -- Alphacow 18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * They should be integrated, to make the main page look nice, but they need to stick out, somewhat. This is because we want to call as much attention as possible to creating an account, to attract more users. The same goes for the create an article box, we want to have people create as many articles as possible. Aido2002 20:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've made some changes. Specifically, I've integrated them all into the welcome box, and added a "online" tag to the welcome template which can either be "true" or "false". The online code would be: and the offline would be: You can play with it in the sandbox. Let me know what you think. -- Alphacow 22:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

My comments on the above
I agree that the Cyber Nations staus thing is pointless. Cybernations is almost always up and when it isn't, it could be mentioned in the "In the News." On the other hand, I like the spot to create a page. It makes it easier than searching for the page you want, and then clicking create this page. I think that addition should stay. I also think that the "Log In, New User?" box is useless as it can be accessed by the Wiki controls just above it. J Andres 00:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The status must stay, it makes the wiki look more integrated with CN, we want to look good so we can build up. I like the new version, but now it provides a new reason to keep the status box: symmetry. :) Aido2002 03:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I agree with J Andres about the login box. I would say that we should put it to an official vote, but we really don't have the traffic for something like that here. I can make it look good without the symmetry, Aido... we'll watch what people post here, and if the general consensus looks like it's not useful, we'll remove it. -- Alphacow 03:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're missing the big picture. We need to look integrated with CN to be taken seriously--the first of the changes done to move towards this goal is the logo--and giving the status of the site shows we are a part of CN. Aido2002 03:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Integration with CN does give us more validity I guess J Andres 11:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the fact this site is "official" the cybernation wiki - as listed on the CN site - give us "validity"? I'm really not sure what you're driving at. What do you want to be "validated" for? As for myself, I never thought to view a wiki as a hangout - a wiki is a place you look for information. -- Alphacow 13:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't a hangout, but it also isn't run by the Admin of the game anymore either. We need to make this place look like CN, feel like CN, be CN. J Andres 19:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Who said it was a hangout? (If it was me and I forgot already, than ignore the whole "hangout" idea) J Andres, I'm not sure if you are speaking for or against the idea in your last post, but I somewhat agree with you. I think we should look simmilar to CN, but not exactly like it. Color scheme, logo, a few other things is close enough. Aido2002 21:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My only comment on the new skin is that it changes the captions for images to blue as well. This look strange. Is it possible to leave the caption box as white and just change everything else to blue? J Andres 00:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is possible, but I changed the color by mistake, and it is not very easy to find that part of the style sheet script. (MediaWiki:Monobook.css) To do so, you will need to look up the colors you want in an HTML color chart (just google it). But to use white, just insert #fff in place of the color code. Aido2002 05:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Add me as one who thinks this new scheme needs a bit more testing before its ready for deployment. I suggest we go back to the old one. -- Alphacow 18:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no way to test a theme, it is not possible with the MediaWiki software. Just help develop it as we use it. Aido2002 20:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Logo
I'm going to be playing around with the logo image, to see if a prototype new logo gives the wiki the look I am aiming for. If so, I'll make it the logo, you can comment on it here if you wish. Aido2002 20:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Update: I'm going to keep the test logo up for a while to give everyone a chance to see and comment on it. It is a more simplistic version, we say "Cyber Nations Wiki" on the main page, so don't worry about people not knowing the name of the wiki.

Template:Nation infobox
I was wondering if anyone would like to give any input on the infobox I made to simplify the process for new nations. I think it would be nice to have a simple standard across all the nation pages so if there are additions (working on a flag field) I can add them in. Mason11987 06:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Less Anonymous IPs
In order to encourage people to make accounts, and not hide behind their IP, I propose we make it so you must be a member to create an article, as they do on Wikipedia. Aido2002 20:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Besides the fact that it'll look like we have more active people, what benefit is there to forcing this? Wikipedia does it for vandalism, is there that much random IP vandalism by article creation here? Mason11987 23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Having actual members helps create a community. Plus, think about it, how does it really make sense to let just anyone create an article, possibly non blockable? (If they have a rolling IP, such as AOL gives you) Aido2002 04:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point, we should probably throw a register link on the create a page article too then. Mason11987 05:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't solve problems that don't exist. There is no vandalism worth mentioning.  The typical n00b, here, isn't going to take the time to sign up just to throw up a quick-n-dirty entry.  We are lucky that most are (now) using the "how to add your nation here" instructions (which is voluntary by the way).  If you make it harder for that 14 yr old to add an entry, then he will just decide it is too much trouble and not add one.  No matter how you try you will not get this Wiki to create a "community".  In CN the "community" aspect is satisfied on the alliance forums.  This is for reference and for "bragging" only.  To think that you are going to create a "community" on this Wiki is just fantasy. Key Stroke 18:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good points, it's probably not worth putting something like this into place unless there is a serious problem. As of now most anons are great and often even make their pages look decent.  -- Mason11987 (T - C - E) 20:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions
Hey guys, I just found this feature that wikia offers and thought it would be useful for a project I'm going to start working on. Turns out it's even better then expected. It'll look a lot nicer once a few things are updated which require sysop powers (that I do not have). These changes are described in these links if an admin could be so kind: MediaWiki talk:Sidebar MediaWiki talk:Monobook.js MediaWiki talk:Common.css.

Now, are there any suggestions for the forum? Specifically the most useful suggestion (and the easiest to implement actually) are additional forums. I'm going to be adding one for talking about alliance related articles because that's the reason I looked into this in the first place, but what else would be useful? I see this being a great place for a community to grow easily enough and it'll help out the wiki in general if discussion is a little more organized.

So lets hear your ideas below and you can just use this page like a talk page (using a : to indent your comments). Mason11987 03:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Cybernations:Protection
I wrote down what I think is a good set of protection guidelines, partially based off of wikipedia (1 and 2) and brought to light over the /b/ article. What does everyone think? Mason11987 18:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Cybernations "namespace"
CyberNations is not a namespace, I'm not sure why all these pages exist there, but they shouldn't. So I'm going to be moving them to the correct namespace, "Cyber Nations Wiki", and the talk pages to their correct page "Cyber Nations Wiki talk" as soon as I stop getting an internal error every time I try.... Mason11987 00:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Turns out Aido was moving these articles to there current locations, any reason why you would do that? It seems like you thought that was a namespace, but simply putting ":" after something doesn't create a namespace, "Cyber Nations Wiki" is projectspace as can be seen on any of these pages (note the "project page" tab. Mason11987 01:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Chickenzilla

Category hierarchy
So I was thinking about a good category hierarchy that could cover everything that has to do with Cyber Nations. This will allow us to easily place new articles exactly where they need to be. This is going to be my first draft for this and I'm going to try to do as few changes as possible (in terms of moving around full categories). Feel free to modify anything on here so we can work this out. I'll wait to do this for a few days so we can get some comments, if none are left then I'll just go through with what seems like the best option. Mason11987 03:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The plan

 * Cyber Nations Wiki administration - For absolutely everything that is referencing the wiki itself.
 * Templates
 * Images
 * "notice" categories for articles belonging in other top-level cats, such as NPOV, protected, delete, ect.
 * all policies and processes needed to keep the wiki running smoothly
 * Nations - For all nations, left as is, perhaps adding subcategories by whatever classification we feel like. Uses Template:Nation infobox for categorization.
 * Nations by continent - then subcats of "Nations in _______"
 * Nations by alliance - then subcats of "_______ member"
 * Nations by language - then subcats of "_______-speaking nations"
 * Nations by team - then subcats of "______ team"
 * Nation groups - for groups of nations that aren't calling themselves an "alliance" per-se.
 * category:Factbooks - category for nation specific categories
 * Alliances - For all alliances, left as is, perhaps adding subcategories by whatever classification we feel like.
 * Alliance Factbooks - category for alliance specific categories
 * International Treaties - Threads related to treaties between alliances
 * Sanctioned Alliances - the few sanctioned alliances
 * Alliances by team - then subcats of "_____ team alliances"
 * Rouge alliances
 * Neutral alliances
 * Militaristic (or a better word) alliances
 * categories for alliance groups "_____ member"
 * Cities - For all cities, left as is, perhaps adding subcategories by whatever classification we feel like
 * Capitals - Obvious
 * Military - Military forces of the world
 * Military by alliance
 * ''Miltary of _____"
 * Wars - For all wars, large and small, left as is, perhaps adding subcategories by whatever classification we feel like.
 * Battles - For all battles
 * Battles by war - With subcats "''_____ battles"
 * Other categories for types of battles
 * Nationalities - Almost empty, but I see the potential for a lot of RP with a top-level category like this. Left as is for now.
 * Treaties - Moved from category:treaty. All treaties of the cyberverse.  Small for now but it can easily grow very large so subcats seem necessary.
 * Mutual defense pacts
 * Other types of treaties
 * Geography - For geographical location articles, rivers, mountains, other such things that are a part of the rp.
 * Rivers
 * Entertainment - Sports and other such things from rp
 * Sports
 * Current events - Current events in the cyberverse
 * Cyber Nations guide - All pages describing how Cyber Nations works, like categories on resources, team colors, ect.

Discussion
So what do you think? Mason11987 03:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good Idea = A lot of work :( J Andres 04:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't take that long, I'm sure I could take care of most of it one night of boredom soon :). Mason11987 04:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you mean these should be namespaces? If so, I think it over complicates it. "CyberNations:" refers to pages on policy, wiki info, etc., while none refers to an article, and the others, such as "Talk:" and "User", you know. Aido2002


 * No no, I called the discussion title "Category" hierarchy, I'm setting up a structure for categories so that they could reasonably be browsable if someone would want, and so we can make articles easy to find eachother. Mason11987 08:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see what you mean. In that case, great idea! Aido2002 23:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection request
I would like to request semiprotected template for my nation (Waiman) I have the article made but i would like it protected to prevent sock puppets from editing it.

Category:Entries by Conrad Kruschev
I don't see the point of this category, and I think it would be best if it were removed, since it is obviously something someone has worked on, I brought it here. I also left this note on Conrad's talk page. Mason11987 04:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the point to having a category of all of the articles orginally started by you.  When you save an edit you agree that your "contributions to Cyber Nations Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors" so there isn't really an "ownership" of an article.  That being said I don't find the usefulness of Category:Entries by Conrad Kruschev, it doesn't help out any wiki editors besides yourself and editors referencing themselves on article pages is generally frowned upon in wikis unless it is in an rp sense, such as stating (within the article) that a treaty was written by you, but the category system doesn't exist for the reasons you're using them for.  I think it would be in the best interest of the wiki if that category was removed and the links to it were removed so that the articles don't appear to be owned by anyone. Mason11987 04:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I deleted it, it qualified for speedy deletion, it was not helpful for the community in our "mission" to complile CN info. Aido2002 07:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Then I will remove references to it. Mason11987 08:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it'd be useful if you looked at category:Articles for deletion and the related category too. Mason11987 08:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Re-deleted it, it still qualified. Aido2002 23:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Two Ideas
I have a few ideas:

Administrative Committee
This idea will help clear up issues, simmilar to Wikipedia's arbitration committee. The committee will consist of three bureaucrats, one SysOp, and one regular member.

They rule with a majority vote, but the three bureaucrats can overrule a decision with a unanimous vote among the three of them.

Comments on the Administrative Committee
May I say too much bureaucracy? The Arbitration committe came into existance out of necessity, there is no such necessity now. Plus basing decisions off of voting while often coming up with a good solution doesn't have to. On top of that, there is no need for a unanimous bureaucrat decision to overrule a vote, if they wanted it that way, they would have voted that way in the first place, hence no reason to overrule ;). I still think it's not necessary and will create more "process" to figure out who gets these spots and when they are chosen, it's silly.  Just give the people who seem responsible power to keep the wiki clean, and then just worry about that.  If problems come up, bring them up here and we'll talk about them. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E) 01:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's the thing. When we write policies, we don't want to say "and then it must be approved by Aido2002", that wouldn't be right. We need to designate a group of people who do these things. We can learn from Wikipedia, and take preventative measures. Aido2002 01:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, wikipedia didn't take preventative measures many times. Wikipedia has hundreds of sysops and in most cases  they don't use their position to decide anything, they simply interpret community opinion, when there is none, then the sysops can act off their own ideas.  It's a very smooth system and doesn't place any necessary steps (really) on a group of people who simply cannot be as useful as the general members.  If this exists as a "final" step in situations, then fine, but I'd rather it not replace discussion, that would be certainly not learning from wikipedia.  -- Mason11987 (T - C - E) 02:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not saying replace discussion, I'm saying his would be the final step to handle things. Aido2002 17:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as every situation doesn't turn into a vote then that seems perfectly reasonable. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E) 00:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Great Article Criteria
As I have said in the past, most of our articles that we are calling great articles are not good enough to receive such status. So, I propose the following guidelines:
 * Must conform to the style guidelines
 * Must be at least three (reasonably sized) paragraphs long

If an article meets tis criteria, a vote will be held, in which all registered users may vote, where a two-thirds vote passes. If it does not win, but at least five users disagree with this verdict, it will be brought to the Administrative Committee, if they rule that it should be a great article, it is made one. Aido2002 20:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments on the Great Article Criteria
Better criteria is a plus, but let the community decide what is a great article, if noone is voting then decide yourself until you get other comments. No reason to create a committee that will vote on something as community focused as a great article. If there will be this committee it should exist later, and should deal with problem members or disagreements between sysops, or other such things. Don't mean to be so opposing, just one of the things I've seen a lot with developing communities (specifically new forums, but this is a good parallel) is over bureaucracy, lets not worry about it until there is a reason to, as of now I don't think there is. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E) 01:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is that the community does vote, but there is that emergency "back door" to getting one decided as a good article if it is controversial, and does not pass the vote, but is good enough to be one. (cough cough*Sexlanta*cough cough) Aido2002
 * you mean you want a way to override a majority vote because you know better than the majority (*cough*totalitarianism*cough *cough*)  Key Stroke 18:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it gives more experienced users a way to override bad decisions, they have to all agree to do so. If one person could override, than that would be totalitarianism. Aido2002 00:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hurrah for Oligarchy! haha. But seriously, a committee maybe of five people (3 sysops/bureaucrats + 2 members) J Andres 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is why wikipedia isn't a democracy. Voting in these situations just doesn't work. The community shouldn't "vote" something in, there should be consensus, consensus for criteria and then it'll be easy to show if something meets criteria through discussion. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E) 02:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The J Andres Solution
We place the articles up for vote once again. If there are no strong arguments against them they shall be remain as featured articles, otherwise the status is removed. J Andres 21:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I have the a strong argument--most are bad articles. We need a real method for future articles. Aido2002 21:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm only saying that we re-vote on the articles that are already in. I agree with you. Only three at the most are actually worthy of the status. J Andres 03:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, how about we just make a list of all the articles, and then we can all express our thoughts about them, those that are controversial are removed, those that have support, stay. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E) 05:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed.J Andres 11:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, but we do need to establish a policy on how new ones are added. Aido2002 17:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Most certainly. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E) 20:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the recommendation committee idea. Here is my formal write up:
 * The Great Article Committee is a committee of five members that holds control over the selection, and maintence of articles deemed to be "Great Texts." The committee will consist of three administrators (sysop or buerocrat) and two contributors (at time of selection). The committee will be voted on by the general public, once every three months beginning on January 1st, 2007. The members of the Great Article Committee are responsible for finding articles that are up to the great article standards. They may find an article themselves, or may be directed to an article by its author. The Great Article Committee will decide and have the final say on which articles have the status of "Great Article." To approve an article or to remove an article requires a majority vote of the committee. The Committee will also be tasked with the maintainence of the Featured Article box on the main page. J Andres 21:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This seems to suggest that the comittee will have to vote on every decision, thereby making all other users not a part of this at all. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 21:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My original version had the general public voting on the committee, but I actually figured you wouldn't like that. So I have edited the above to what I originally thought of J Andres 21:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This just lets people vote on who will vote for them, I think it should come down to community debate. Aido2002 22:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As do I, votes are the enemy, and should be avoided under almost all circumstances, you'll find consensus emerges on most subjects. And for most articles, if there isn't a consensus, they it shouldn't go through. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 01:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (Damn that's alot of colons) Okay, do it your way. I really think that the committee should be in charge of scouting out new articles to be chosen though. I really think that some group (and I would rather not be a part of it) should be in charge of finding articles to nominate. Not everyone even knows that there are Featured Articles or that they could make one. Having some group (elected or not) will help this greatly. I felt like I just rambled on without saying anything. Do you guys get what I mean? J Andres 01:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, anyone can nominate articles, but if people want to take up the specific task, more power to the project. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 09:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * exactly J Andres 11:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Housekeeping Privelages
From now on, in order to keep the wiki running smoothly, bureaucrats may delete pages, and delete pages without pre-approval, however, they must say they did so here on the Village Pump, and provide a link to their contribs. If a user disagrees with any actions, the actions are undone, and then they must pass though the normal process. Aido2002 20:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * buearacrats exist in order to decide who can be a sysop, you might as well allow that to sysops as well since they have the delete power, they should be responsible enough to use it after all. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E) 01:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the idea is that when we create a bureaucrat, we are keeping in mind they will have this power. I don't think we should give SysOps this, there will be too many of them, changes will be made all over. There will only be a few bureaucrats, so there will not be too much of this going on. Aido2002 01:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable, but must all pages go through "process" and what process should there be, is the listing of them on category:articles for deletion enough? Or category:candidates for speedy deletion?  Plenty of those I would have deleted on sight and never given them another thought simply because they aren't helping the wiki at all and they aren't useful at all.  Instead of blanketly limiting a group of people from using a power they have, why not tell them in what situations process is needed, and which it is not. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E) 01:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the process, as it is now, requires it to be marked for deletion first. This will allow people o just delete, and if they delete a page that is wanted, a few people just have to say so. This is why the Administrative Committee will help, they could make the final decision should it become hard to decide what is a legitimate article and what isn't. Aido2002 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Heads Up...
Just to let everyone know, I'm going to decorate the logo for the upcoming holiday season (making sure to acknowledge all faiths, don't worry).Aido2002 02:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I Like the snowstorm look.J Andres 02:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox
A link to the sandbox should be present on the main page and also added to Template:Welcome. Mahershallalchashbaz 07:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done and done. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E) 07:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Deck the Halls... or the Layout At Least
Another heads up: on Christmas Day/Eve, I will edit the scheme for the holiday. If you celebrate a holiday you want honored, let me know. Aido2002 22:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Nationstates Wiki
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

Just found this. Thought we should all probably have a look to see what they do and try to mimic some of it here. It is a very similar game. J Andres 03:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Quote "NSwiki is not a roleplay site. Historical accounts of roleplay activity belong here. Active roleplaying should be done on the forums."


 * heh... -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 09:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * They stole my logo idea... I made a really nice globe-themes logo, which I wanted to premiere on Jan 2, after the holiday themed ones, and with the new year. I'm still going to go along with it, but don't accuse me of copying them. Aido2002 23:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Truthfully, I'm not that impressed with it. I posted it figuring we could pick up some tips, but they are just a little more organized. J Andres 03:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Tournament Edition
With the release of Tornament Edition later today, is there anything different we should do with their nations? New CAtegory? Since new nations will form every three months should the period that they played be included as well? Or do we figure no one will come in from TE? I will make a wiki article for mine. J Andres 14:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't like TE too much, but sort them into

(I used the nowiki tags so it does not sort the Pump into the cat). How about a "pseudo-namespace" for them, "TE:"? This way, if you give your CN nation the same name as your TE nation, you can make separate articles for each. Aido2002 18:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you didn't know, aido, you can display a cat as a link by putting a ":" after the brackets, such as Category:Cyber Nations Tournament Edition which would be Category:Cyber Nations Tournament Edition.  I think perhaps Category:Tournament Edition Nations would be a good counterpart to the current Category:Nations that we have now.  I'll throw in a new tag in the how to add your nation that'll auto-sort it into whatever category we choose.  I think if they nation is the same, doing disambiguation parentheses would be good, like United States of Wii and United States of Wii (Tournament Edition). -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 18:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)