Listing possible alternative namesEdit

Just listing these until the inevitable "name that war" thread comes out... feel free to add on to the bottom of the list. —  RogalDorn   17:29, November 3, 2013 (UTC)


  • Red Halloween
  • Orgy of Orders
  • Orders on Orders
  • War of the Orders
  • Following Orders or Just Following Orders

CB for warEdit

Can we stop saying the reason for this war was all about NSO? Polar's CB was equally about NPO and NG, they just didn't hit them because they are better-connected. Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 20:15, November 5, 2013‎

I kinda covered that in the 2nd or third paragraph of the narrative:
Critics of the CB noted that the logs were six months old, and "roll Polar" had ceased to be a topic of coversation weeks before. It was also noted that the logs implicated Non Grata in the plot as well, but the attacks by TOP, NpO and Fark conspicuously avoided NG as a target.
But maybe "alleged" would be a nice add to the infobox. Walsh the Beloved (talk • contribs) 02:06, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
@Walsh: Eh, they didn't allegedly try to build a coalition they did try to build a coalition and theres proof of that. If there wasn't proof of them building a coalition then it would be "allegedly tried to build..." :p —  RogalDorn   04:54, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
@ IP editor: I think the whole.... Dilber being brains behind it is why it's especially damning towards NSO in particular as far as the CB goes. —  RogalDorn   04:54, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
I still think that NpO, TOP and FARK avoiding NG in the opening salvo when they were clearly part of the coalition plans is a legit criticism of the CB that provides a more balanced article. Preceding unsigned comment added by Walsh the Beloved (talk • contribs) 16:53, November 6, 2013‎
We don't criticize based on our opinions, we're just supposed to put down whats going on with references. If there's a lot of chatter then just add a reference (CN:CITE). Otherwise without it it just looks like people are adding their opinions which is not what the cn:wiki is supposed to be when it comes to historical events which leads to undue weight being given to one side over the other etc. —  RogalDorn   03:36, November 7, 2013 (UTC)
It's not a criticism, nor is it my opinion. It just is. The logs provided as proof in the CB by Polar clearly implicate NG in the plot, and are clearly from weeks ago. THOSE two facts are used to criticize the CB -- whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant. They are as true as the logs themselves, and it is a valid question. The reader can answer the question for himself, but I think it is one-sided to cite the logs as fingering NSO, when they clearly fingered others that NpO did NOT attack.Walsh the Beloved (talk • contribs) 01:26, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

Blocs on two sides questionEdit

If a bloc is fighting on 2 opposite sides of the war (eg. IRON and Argent of Duckroll and Ai of the same bloc) would they have their banners displayed separately on the 2 sides of the war?--Rayan Thomas (talk • contribs) 05:06, November 19, 2013 (UTC)

Yep, then the bloc would appear on both sides. This has been done before. For instance, in early 2011 during the PB-NpO War the SuperFriends bloc was on both sides of the conflict. RIA was on both sides of the conflict as well so they appeared on both sides. —  RogalDorn   05:32, November 19, 2013 (UTC)
Awesome, so would that mean that Duckroll would be split in this war?--Rayan Thomas (talk • contribs) 10:35, November 19, 2013 (UTC)
If Molon Labe entered on Ai's side then yeah, the duckroll banner would be on both sides. —  RogalDorn   18:44, November 20, 2013 (UTC)