RE: Banner[edit source]
I have moved your banner within the infobox. The Manual of Style specifies that putting banners on pages is not allowed.
good alliance pages[edit source]
Hey Randalla, I was hoping to get your input/participation on identifying some Good alliance pages (the alliance version of Good Nation Pages). I put some initial nominations on the category talk page and if you want to vote/comment on those and/or add more nominations that would be much appreciated! :) 05:32,9/11/2012 (UTC)
The Apparatus edit[edit source]
I don't see any reason not to include historical information. Every other alliance page includes historical information such as past bloc membership (if they don't, it should be added). You don't have any right to demand what content pages should have, either. The wiki is a historical record as well as a center for current information, so it's good to include that kind of thing. It's clearly labeled "Former" and is out of the way near the bottom of the page, so I don't know what the issue is.
- I don't even know how to use these talk pages, but I find it irritating that I don't have a say in what goes on my alliance's own main page, when I intend for the main page to hold current, important information only as to not clutter it up with non-current, not pertinent information. The KDF bloc page can be edited to whoever's heart's content for historical purposes, but I don't see a reason why it has to beat me in the face every time I go to edit my alliance's main page. Not ALL of our former treaties are listed on the main page, what's the deal with this stupid strip I'm getting shoved down my throat?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Randalla (talk • contribs)
- Randalla, you don't own the Apparatus wiki page even though you're the Apparatus alliance leader. It's there to provide information about your alliance, both past and present. If there were issues between you and KDF and you see it as a mistake and you dont like them that's infringing upon the neutrality of the article. Articles supposed to be informative, neutral and non-biased. 18:37,12/11/2012 (UTC)
- There's no issue between myself and anyone or any entity, it's just not important, current information. There's no section that includes every defunct treaty we've ever had, every past charter we've ever amended, and every tech raid we've ever had to fend off. The "former bloc" strip is just there like a sore thumb cluttering the page for no reason. The main page should include important, useful, current information. If we have to list every time we pick our noses on our main wiki page, it's going to be a crap page full of non-pertinent clutter. If I, as a founder and leader of a current, functioning alliance have no say in my own alliance's information page, I will simply not waste my own time trying to help keep it up to date and current, myself. --Randalla (talk • contribs) 01:50, December 12, 2012 (UTC)
- There are several fallacies here. One, as I said, it's out of the way at the very bottom of the page. I also just made it so that it is collapsed by default, which should be entirely acceptable as a compromise at the very least. Two, do not undo edits during an ongoing discussion. That's counter-productive because it shows you have no faith in the community processes of a wiki and are not willing to work with the others in the discussion. Third, a bloc is a much more major event than a rogue attack or, as you went so far as to say, picking your nose is. You could include past charters if you so desire; some other alliances have done so. The difference is that the bloc information is readily available and easily implemented. Again, it's a notable event and is useful to keep as historical information.