Pandora's Box?? Edit

Does having only half of the bloc really construe this as a Bloc war? Lightning jim (talk • contribs) 07:33, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

The name will be changed when there is a clear consensus on the OWF for the official name. Bobogoobo | Talk | Nation  12:47, Tuesday, 18 January 2011 (ET)
Umbrella and GOONS are obviously waiting to counter. It is clear that PB intends this war to be a demonstration of their bloc's military power. However, I must point out that putting the Super Friends on VE's side is misleading, as SF is not fighting together on one side. --Taishaku (talk • contribs) 05:35, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
Not only that, but the attackers cited the Animal House Accords in their declarations of war. --Haflinger (talk • contribs) 12:30, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Synergy Header Edit

Should the Synergy header be removed as both current Synergy alliances are also in the Sirius?--LittleRena (talk • contribs) 06:39, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

No, Synergy would take precedence as it's an MDoAP bloc. What you do in the case of multiple bloc ties is...well, look at any past war article for the syntax, but you use ref notes to mention "while listed under bloc y, x is also part of bloc z."  ~   Locke    talk    contribs    nation   04:29, Thursday, 20 January 2011 (ET)
Well I had already put the ref notes in, just wanted to know to make it look a little neater but if it's the case to have MDoAP blocs take precedent, then okay.--LittleRena (talk • contribs) 13:09, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Random Insanity Alliance Edit

Okay...I'm confused about how to add them since they declared on both SLCB and IAA? Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightning jim (talk • contribs)

Oh well that's interesting. My personal recommendation would be to add them to both sides of the table, and add a footnote explaining why they appear on both sides, per the precedent in the Second Unjust War article. That said, I'll leave it to the actual editors to work out; I'm sticking to doing the stat charts. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 2:29, Duodi, 2 Pluviôse CCXIX

Listing NpO as an Independent? Edit

It is true that the NpO is independent in that it has no bloc to be aligned within during this war, but as a principal combatant, should not the NpO be displayed prominently at the top of the column? -Taishaku (talk • contribs) 05:31, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

No, they should be first in the independents but that's it, look at the TPF War, you can see that TPF aren't at the top, there are others where the defender isn't in a bloc and blocs have taken precident over them in the listing.--LittleRena (talk • contribs) 06:01, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
This, however, is not a consistent rule. Farkistan is listed at the top of their side in Great War II, despite being an independent, and, in fact, I think that such should be the preferable manner in which to go about this. Polaris is the principle reason for why this war is occurring in the first place, not Synergy, or IAA. It would different if Polaris was in a bloc, but, as it is...
I am hereby proposing that, in these cases, from now on, the principle initial independent combatants take precedence even over blocs in the coalition listings, to indicate to the casual reader the importance thereof, and that other articles be amended as such based on this issue (i.e., WotC should display Hyperion above all others (and, frankly, it should also be two separate wars, considering that the GGA-Hyperion and Coalition-BLEU fronts were entirely distinct and should never have been presented as a single war anyway), BiPolar War should place \m/ above their side, etc.). 05:27, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Global War Edit

I would like to know at what point we should consider calling this a global war. I think the 100 million or the 150 million NS mark is a good precedent to establish, what do the rest of you think?

-- Dynasty   Talk • Grand Besaid   01:25, Saturday, 22 January 2011 (EST)

I personally think it should possibly be related to the amount of alliances that enter rather than the NS.--LittleRena (talk • contribs) 18:27, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
We just should stick to the defintion Types of alliance wars uses. Xoin (talk • contribs) 18:37, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Missing DoWs Edit

I believe this page is missing the GOD DoW on GATO through this link:

NuclearTrogo (talk • contribs) 14:57, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it was. It is fixed now. Thank you!
-- Dynasty   Talk • Grand Besaid   12:10, Saturday, 22 January 2011 (EST)

Image for hooligans Edit

Hi, I am a member of the alliance hooligans and I have just received word from its leader that we are in the war, I have added the alliance at the appropriate place but I cant find the image, can someone put it on thankyou Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Benson (talk • contribs)

Doom House-Pacifican Front Edit

I would dispute the appropriateness of including the conflict between Doom House and Pacifica within this war since the CB for such has no legally direct relation to that of this one. Pacifica was attacked more or less to prevent them from becoming too powerful and building their sphere of influence enough to become dangerous again. They had not entered this war on the side of Polaris in relation to the espionage accusations, nor to uphold any treaties, and the same can be said of Doom House's move. I recommend that they be considered two separate wars, because they are. There is no sense in considering this front a part of this war simply because they happen to be occurring at the same time. 05:12, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there does not seem to be any particular link between this conflict and the NpO one besides perhaps an ancillary intention to keep Legion and TPF from reinforcing NpO's front, but that's as indirect as it gets. It seems like the most logical move would be to treat this as two concurrent, separate conflicts. That said, the precedent set by this wiki--- by Bipolar, just a year ago no less, in a situation almost identical to this--- is to treat this as one conflict, with regularly maintained pages for each front. The PB-NpO front, and the Doomhouse-NPO front will be the NpO-\m/ front and TOP-CnG fronts of this war.

JT Jag (talk • contribs) 09:21, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

However, in the Bipolar war, there were a large number of alliances that fought in both parts of the war, and the TOP-IRON attack was planned in conjunction with the NpO. So far there are not any alliances fighting in both sides of this war. Apart from the fact that both wars were launched including Pandora's Box members against the Orders around the same time, they really don't have anything in common. The attackers on NpO cited Pandora's Box in their DoWs as well, while the attackers on NPO (except FAN of course) cited Doomhouse only. --Haflinger (talk • contribs) 13:05, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
Sub-conflict added to help clear it, can be found here Doomhouse-NPO War with thanks to Michael von Preußen for making it look neater! --LittleRena (talk • contribs) 10:59, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. While I agree with all the points made above, I think listing it as a sub-conflict, much like the TOP-C&G War is listed as a sub-conflict of the Second Unjust War, is indeed the way to go. While there are no treaty links between the wars, the Doomhouse declaration of war on NPO made it clear that they were attacking in part due to the perception that NPO's allies were conspiring to keep them out of this war. That's enough, in my opinion, to link the conflicts, as LittleRena has done. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 4:78, Sextidi, 6 Pluviôse CCXIX

NOIR and Superfriends StatusEdit

They're on both sides of the web. Surely the purpose of having the bloc information is to say that the bloc entered as a unit. To have bloc partners on both sides means the bloc is no longer a 'bloc' of nations for the duration of the conflict and the participants are instead independents.

Agreed. It would really help reduce the clutter too. - Taishaku (talk • contribs) 21:27, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Stat BoxesEdit

Are the stat boxes overlapping into the Force 1 column for anyone else? Does anyone have a problem if they're moved below the DoW's and Withdrawl links? Rogal DornTalkqwerty nation February 6, 2011 (ET)

They're fine for me, you must have a pretty small screen. It would be better if the humongous padding between the day and the graph could be reduced, but I'm not sure how to do that. Bobogoobo | Talk | Nation 15:53, Sunday, 6 February 2011 (ET)
It would appear to be impossible <_< Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 8:76, Octidi, 18 Pluviôse CCXIX
Ya Bobo i have a 15inch laptop. >.< MvP do you mind if they're moved below the DoW's and Withdrawl links? Rogal DornTalkqwerty nation February 6, 2011 (ET)
I won't support or oppose it. I will say, however, that if everything on the wiki was redesigned to fit ultrasmall screens, it would be a lot of work and pose significant problems, both for the wiki layout in general and for people using more standard-sized monitors. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 1:41, Nonidi, 19 Pluviôse CCXIX

Surrenders vs. White PeaceEdit

Apparently, there is some disagreement among people as to what is considered white peace and what is considered surrendering. To be honest, I could care less where we draw the line; however, we need to draw one. According to our own wiki, “White Peace refers to when alliances declare peace in a conflict without being subject to any formal terms or conditions. This means that no one side surrenders to the other, no reparations are paid or improvement/wonder restrictions are enforced for example." According to that definition, many of the peace declarations would be considered surrenders since there were formal conditions (that alliances cannot re-enter). Thus, either we need to change the wiki definition of White Peace or we need to change many of the current declarations of peace to declarations of surrender. I am fine with whatever we do, but we need to make it consistent.

-- Dynasty   Talk • Grand Besaid   16:36, Wednesday, 9 February 2011 (EST)

It's politically motivated. People who surrender call it white peace, people who don't call it surrender, or they'll call it white peace if they feel like being nice to the surrendering party. Individual alliances can classify it however they like on their own pages, but the war page should follow the objective definition.  ~   Locke    talk    contribs    nation   20:44, Wednesday, 9 February 2011 (ET)
A surrender imo should be when one of the terms is "x admits defeat to y" otherwise it's just conditional peace but not white peace, if you don't admit defeat, how can it be a surrender?--LittleRena (talk • contribs) 20:16, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
So do you guys want to have three categories of peace (white peace, conditional peace, and surrender), change the definition of white peace, or change the peace declarations to surrenders? We have to do one of the three (or something), since we have inconsistency without it. As for the definition of surrender, according to, it can mean, "to give up, abandon, or relinquish". I can see the peace declarations meaning that one side "gave up fighting" or "abandoned fighting" so it could technically fit if we want to go that route. Honestly, I do not care what route we take, but we need to be consistent.
-- Dynasty   Talk • Grand Besaid   15:39, Monday, 14 February 2011 (EST)

okay, the thing is a few alliances declared white peace and it still says surrender, which is really stupid, wish it wasn't locked Underlordgc (talk • contribs) 02:38, March 14, 2011 (UTC)underlordgc

Except for when an alliance gets a white peace with a condition(or conditions) they're still capitulating to another alliance's demands, ergo they're surrendering. there were few strait up "White Peace" where both alliances make agree to stop with no conditions imparted on each other and they go back to their pre-war status. Rogal DornTalkqwerty nation March 14, 2011 (ET)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.