FANDOM


Replacement filing cabinet This is an archive of past discussions made on January 29, 2007‎‎‎. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Cybernations:Protection Edit

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" Edit

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 Edit

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 Edit

Moved to Cyber Nations Wiki:Categories

Discussion Edit

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 Edit

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. Preceding unsigned comment added by Waimanu (talk • contribs)

Category:Entries by Conrad Kruschev Edit

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 Edit

I have a few ideas:

Administrative Committee Edit

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 CommitteeEdit

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 Edit

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 CriteriaEdit

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 SolutionEdit

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)
Okay, so we are going to have a committee, to review them, but anyone can nominate them? Sounds good to me. Aido2002 (Signature problems, I left this around 5:56(?) UTC (10:56 EST) 12/9/2006)

Housekeeping Privelages Edit

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... Edit

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 Edit

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 Edit

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 Edit

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)
Neither am I. While they have been here longer (the Wiki) we seem to have things better organized and easier to locate, not to mention ours looks nicer, and more original (they just copied off of WP, the book background, the colors, etc.) Aido2002 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Tournament Edition Edit

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 [[Category:Cyber Nations Tournament Edition]]
(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)
Well, this way we can put them all into one category, then create subcats (If you can, I honestly have never tried to). We are the CN Wiki, not the CN TE Wiki, so we must keep them clearly aweay from the other articles. However, I no longer like the "pseudo-namespace" idea, it is easier to link to a category, I'm not even sure we can link to the other. Aido2002 23:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
You can link to the other, and I understand what you mean now, how bout... Category:Cyber Nations Tournament Edition having all articles about TE (that are different then regular CN) including the sub-cat category:Tournament Edition nations. I believe you were implying that, so I set it up, and will set up the infobox ASAP. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 03:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I already set up the subcat Category:Cyber Nations Tournament Edition/Nations. Also, Category:Cyber Nations Tournament Edition/Alliances is waiting to be used. Aido2002((talk)) 20:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Alliances are only just starting to form, It will take time, if ever that they come to the WIki. J Andres 20:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the category namespace doesn't support subpages, so there isn't really a point to using them. Instead of putting all the categorys as "subpages" of one category, why not give them actual names and put them as subcats. I suggest Category:Tournament Edition nations as a subcat of category:Cyber Nations Tournament Edition and category:Tournament Edition alliances as another subcat. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 21:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, it does support subpages, I still think it would work better to not have to put Cyber Nations Tournament Edition for all pages related to that, why not just categorize them within that category, instead of doing that and making it a subpage. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 21:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It is better organized with subcats. Aido2002((talk)) 20:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
subcats, not subpages, right? -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 14:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I meant subcats, yes, but I mistakenly created a subpage instead. Aido2002((talk)) 19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.