Cyber Nations Wiki talk:Village Pump

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6  |

Welcome to the Village Pump. This used by the Cyber Nations Wiki community mainly to discuss topics regarding technical issues, policies, and operations of the CN Wiki. If you add a topic and want to notify other users-feel free to use Template:Pumpnotice as a means to inform them via their user talk page. For a list of relatively active users see CN:USERS.

Added tidbit to CN:STYLE

I added the CN:LEAD section to the CN:STYLE policy. I pretty much just copied Wikipedia and their WP:LEAD but it makes sense and is easy enough to follow. Any thoughts, comments, concerns, complaints? —  RogalDorn   03:12, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

This makes sense and looks good to me. It is a good idea to incorporate this section. No complaints from me! J Andres (talk • contribs) 04:00, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

I to am fine with this. -- Imperial Empire (talk • contribs) 06:21, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

I'd have no gripes which this at all. As you are one of the most enthusiastic wiki editors here, I will trust your judgment and will offer my support for your idea. Franz Ferdinand, Conquerer of Micros (talk • contribs) 07:42, June 7, 2014‎

Thanks, looks like I have a few things to update.--ScourgeNPO (talk • contribs) 20:01, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me.  Bobogoobo | Talk | Nation 21:52, Saturday, 7 June 2014 (ET)

Just adding to the chorus here, but good to have. I'll look into changing some of my intros when I have the time CloudSpirit (talk • contribs) 09:39, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   16:09, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

Be interesting to see if the Leads for all the alliance articles can be used for recruitment and other things. Be interesting to see where this leads. --Zeta Defender (talk • contribs) 08:56, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

Well, that all depends on how it's written I suppose, keeping in mind articles aren't supposed to be biased or have nonfactual statements and other things which are covered under Other miscellaneous guidelines of CN:STYLE. For instance, many members of DBDC hold in-game records/awards so it's acceptable to state that they have many members who have in-game records/awards, because it's true. What the other misc guidelines is meant to curtail is obvious bias and nonfactual statements and such, like saying "GPA is the premier alliance in Cyber Nations" there's no backing there, nothing to support that. However, saying "GPA is the second highest alliance by nation strength" is acceptable, because you look at the Alliances page and GPA is right there at #2. Then there's other "non-controversial" type statements, like on the Sengoku page in the lead we have "Members of Sengoku consider themselves to be in large part a successor to the defunct Ordinary Men Fighting Giants and Basketball Ninjas alliance." Hope this helps Zeta. —  RogalDorn   11:21, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

Alliances with multiple incarnations and the default alliance name

So, Gopherbashi initially brought up a good issue regarding Viridian Entente and Viridian Entente (2nd) on their respective talk pages; "Perhaps it's time that this article was just named "Viridian Entente", with a note at the top referring people to "Viridian Entente (1st)" if that's what they're looking for." I certainly agree with him that alliance names and acronyms should link to the most recent incarnation of the alliance since 99% of the time that's what people are looking for anyway.Especially since VE has been around in it's second incarnation since 2007... This begs the question of "Well, what are we going to do for a disambiguation page (sometimes just called a "dab" page) then? Well, glad you asked. Viridian Entente (disambiguation) isn't taken. And on the top of each alliance incarnation page we can have a little note (sometimes called a "hatnote") that says "For other incarnations of <alliance name>, see alliance (disambiguation)". It's relatively easy to see what needs to get done by sifting through Category:Alliances with multiple incarnations. Anyone have any better suggestions, ideas, questions, comments, complaints? —  RogalDorn   20:38, June 25, 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. AWB could probably be used to move everything in Category:Alliances with multiple incarnations to a (disambiguation) page. Then, assuming you can make a custom list of pages to go through (it's been forever since I've used it), feed the most recent incarnation into it and have it both move it and insert a hatnote linking to the (1st) article. If there are alliances with more than two incarnations, at that point, it's probably worth the hatnote just linking to the (disambiguation) page. ~ vonPreuſ3en

One question, actually: what about multiple-incarnation alliances where every incarnation is defunct? It might be better to just leave those as-is. ~ vonPreuſ3en

I'd agree with that; probably easiest just to leave it unless someone wants to waste a whole bunch of free time or it becomes a problem. (Also, support since I suggested it in the first place). Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   00:44, June 26, 2014 (UTC)

This is what is already being done over at wikipedia at any rate. Makes sense to implement it. As far as the issue of defunct multiple-incarnation alliances, I think its OK to leave that but if someone wants to volunteer their own time to do it, why not? CloudSpirit (talk • contribs) 00:51, June 26, 2014 (UTC)

This is a good idea. I support it. -- Baltus ^(Talk) 01:08, June 26, 2014 (UTC)

This is a good idea and I fully support it. This should be the standard procedure going forward, and alliances that are active should be updated to reflect this. Defunct alliances with no current incarnation can be changed based on the availability of editing resources. J Andres (talk • contribs) 01:26, June 26, 2014 (UTC)

I support this idea wholeheartedly. Franz Ferdinand, Conquerer of Micros (talk • contribs)

Sounds good.  Bobogoobo | Talk | Nation 21:38, Thursday, 24 July 2014 (ET)

Alliances fitting the "only do current" criteria

• Viridian Entente (2nd) - Done
• Valhalla (2nd)
• Socialist Workers Front (3rd)
• State of Unified Nations (2nd)
• The Imperial Order (2nd)
• National Alliance of Arctic Countries (2nd)
• United Republic of Nations (2nd)
• Goon Order of Oppression, Negligence, and Sadism
• Knights of the Round Table (2nd)
• Nordreich (2nd)
• Federation of Buccaneers (2nd)

If anyone can think of any other alliances please list them. —  RogalDorn   01:30, June 26, 2014 (UTC)

I should clarify: the reason I commented about defunct alliances was less to do with editing resources, and more to do with the fact that if an alliance is defunct, I'd posit there can be less of a presumption that users will necessarily be looking for the most recent incarnation. I'm not really concerned either way, but it's just a thought for discussion. ~ vonPreuſ3en

True, but if they've been gone since that long ago, people are less likely even to know that there were previous incarnations.  Bobogoobo | Talk | Nation 21:38, Thursday, 24 July 2014 (ET)

Post Preservation

If you're reading this then you are one of the few people who carry out any updates and edits here. I'll get to the point - one day the CN forum is going to be dead but I believe that this wikia will be around for a long time to come as it's part of something bigger and has more money behind it.

We're already seeing it now, for example all the links on the Great War III page to the old Invision forum no longer work as the entire Invision product line was terminated. As far as I can tell there is no archival history of that forum anywhere, so years of CN history has been permanently lost.

There is one solution though, we screen shot important/relevant posts (such as DoWs, etc) and use the rather underutilized-gallery feature to attach them to their associated pages, or set up sub pages if the gallery gets massive. I've done a little test on the Hazardous Materials War page. Even if/when CN dies forever and the forum is lost, at least people can see some of what was said. -- Imperial Empire (talk • contribs) 01:37, August 5, 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Admin missed the boat on getting a copy of the forum. Unless he got one and it's stored somewhere else. Anyway, your idea definitely sounds good as a way to make sure important information continues to be visible in the future. We could also use collapsible elements for large galleries so you don't have to go to a different page.  Bobogoobo | Talk | Nation 23:36, Sunday, 4 August 2019 (ET)

I somehow doubt Admin got a copy of the forum so I think it's now lost to the sands of time. It would have been handy if he did, but taking screen shots is likely our best way forward. I like the idea about making them collapsible, that will save space. -- Imperial Empire (talk • contribs) 04:40, August 5, 2019 (UTC)

It's also worth exploring the extent to which the contents of the old Invision forum have been saved via the Wayback Machine, and other internet archive services. I have to imagine some of the old forum has been swept up in the Wayback Machine—there are 6,751 individual pages saved under the main branch "http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/"—even if individual alliance forums might be truly be lost forever. --FuturePerfected (talk • contribs) 03:57, August 28, 2019 (UTC)

I had a brief look at the Wayback Machine but there's only 30 entries on there and from what I can tell most of those are the logo image. I'm not sure what other internet archive sites there might be that could have captured it but I think that the chances of retrieving anything usable from them unfortunately might be slim to none. -- Imperial Empire (talk • contribs) 02:56, August 29, 2019 (UTC)

Do you know if there have been any attempts at doing an Oral History of CN, with various folks from 2006 and 2007? It might also be worth approaching the oldest alliances still around—I'm thinking NPO, NpO, IRON, etc.—and seeing if there are screenshots of the most important missing declarations floating around on the oldest parts of their forums.