FANDOM


Please do not change the generic war name unless there is a wide consensus to do so from people on both sides of the war. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 2:45, Duodi, 2 Pluviôse CCXVIII

Perhaps a preventive move-protect would be prudent? It's going to happen, one way or another. If a widely accepted name comes forth, it can be brought up here.  Locke   Talk • Alestor    16:52, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
Sounds acceptable to me. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 7:65, Duodi, 2 Pluviôse CCXVIII
As long as its not called Great War VII(if it escalates), I'm okay with whatever name it is called. Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Greenberg (talk • contribs)

Will we be accepting the FOK declaration as a true one even though it was made via Wiki and not CN forums? --Brenann (talk • contribs) 19:20, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

If it's in-game, it's a war, regardless of how or if a declaration is made. FOK is in a state of war with the NpO, and they have chosen to declare as such, though through a somewhat unconventional medium.  Locke   Talk • Alestor    19:56, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
@ Brenann. atm, it's impossible to make a declaration on the CN forums when it's down, so declaring via Wiki, is the next best thing - whatever works really. :) Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl I (talk • contribs)
While declaring via the CN Wiki comes awfully close to using the Wiki as a forum - something generally frowned upon - if wars are declared in-game then it must be considered official. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 9:33, Quintidi, 5 Pluviôse CCXVIII

\m/ Commanders Edit

Can someone please make a decision on who's the commander of \m/ for the article? I've seen that swapped way too many times, we need to pick one set and stick with it.  Locke   Talk • Alestor    01:18, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

Either all three alliance leaders or Xander. I personally think Xander is the correct option, but I'm not going to argue against the triumvirs instead. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 0:92, Sextidi, 6 Pluviôse CCXVIII
Should the participation in this war grow (the possibility is largely heightened with the inclusion of FOK), I can see the Commanders section becoming awfully cluttered should the Triumvirs remain.
--Gopherbashi (talk • contribs) 05:00, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

So, any one who declares on one side or another can become a commander? Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.177.138 (talk • contribs)

Each alliance can have up to one designated military leader. However, not all alliance need one. For example, the TPF War has the CC with only 3 commanders: the leader of the alliance attacked, the leader of coalition, and the name of a rogue from IRON. Not every alliance needs a commander.  Locke   Talk • Alestor    17:35, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

Given the rapid expansion of this war and the number of disparate alliances involved, I'm removing both commander lists for the time being. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 3:82, Nonidi, 9 Pluviôse CCXVIII

NpO and Co Commanders Edit

Should we really include Rebel Virginia? It seams his alliance isn't important enough to include him as a commander, and he will likely be removed within the day reagardless. --Supercoolyellow (talk • contribs) 19:12, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 8:02, Sextidi, 6 Pluviôse CCXVIII
Provided that there aren't a large number of them, prominent rogues tend to get listed. It's fine for now.  Locke   Talk • Alestor    19:17, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
He still gets the alliance listing, there's no point to listing the commander of a two-man AA. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 8:04, Sextidi, 6 Pluviôse CCXVIII

Update Edit

Can we PLEASE get a stats update before this evening? Preceding unsigned comment added by JT Jag (talk • contribs)

Can you PLEASE sign your talk page posts? Also, if you want, run one yourself. Otherwise, someone'll get to it when they get to it. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 8:21, Sextidi, 6 Pluviôse CCXVIII
I would run a stats update (I actually did at one point yesterday, but didn't get around to tallying Polaris' numbers at the time and it was deleted). And I'd be more than willing to figure out things if I knew how to properly format the update and tally things up without having to manually do it alliance to alliance. I'm sorta new at this. JT Jag (talk • contribs) 20:17, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that's about the only way to do it, unfortunately. That's why stats never get done once a lot of alliances enter the war. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 8:48, Sextidi, 6 Pluviôse CCXVIII
Someone needs to whip together a program (a Firefox app, maybe?) that would allow you to search for multiple alliances and automatically add together their total NS, nukes, nations, improvements ect. Probably wouldn't be too complicated, but it's far beyond my abilities. JT Jag (talk • contribs) 20:30, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you don't mind stats that are a little early, UE keeps a list of all that stuff that can be viewed any time. He tends to run a few hours before update. It's what I used for pre-war stats. The addition still has to be done, but at the size of the war it's not so bad yet, and the stats will always be there so you can do it any time, not just at update.  Locke   Talk • Alestor    20:33, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
Here are the numbers as of 2:40 server time. I can't make head or tails of how to add them. NpO side 622 nations, 18,407,769
Nation strength, and 5,651 nukes. \m/ side : 609 nations, 21629532 Nation strength, and 6509 nukes.--Supercoolyellow (talk • contribs) 20:42, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll get these in! Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 8:72, Sextidi, 6 Pluviôse CCXVIII
I've been posting warstats every night in the Sanction Race thread. They're taken from the All Alliances Display, so they're not real-time, but they're no more than 12 hours out of date so it captures everything from the previous Update. If you want, I should be able to rig it up so it collects NS and nuke stats as well.
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   03:03, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
I rebuilt my stats program so that it now displays nation count, NS, and nuke count, to be used for the wiki stats. I normally post updates 3-4 hours before update, and I'll just c/p them in here at the same time. I'll leave out tonight's because we already had some after the last round of DoWs (not counting Umbrella, who went in after the update).
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   05:20, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

New method of entering stats Edit

New method of entering stats:

{{subst:stats
|tfu= 
|date= 
|note= 
|alliances= 
|nations= 
|ns= 
|nukes= 
}}

Here's how to use it:

{{subst:stats
|tfu= Time from update (eg: +3.0h).  Omit if done *at* update.
|date= Date (eg: Jan 25)
|note= Note (eg: 5 hours after NpO DoW). Omit for none.
|alliances= Alliance list or change (eg: NpO, NSO, FAIL) (eg: +NSO). Omit for none.
|nations= Nations (number only)
|ns= NS (Number only)
|nukes= Nukes (Number only)
}}

Example of usage:

{{subst:stats
|tfu= +2h
|date= Jan 25
|note= 3h after NSO DoW
|alliances= +NSO
|nations= 1,000
|ns= 10,000,000
|nukes= 1,000
}}

Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 8:88, Sextidi, 6 Pluviôse CCXVIII

Note that you do not need to use <center> or <hr> tags, these are in the template. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 8:92, Sextidi, 6 Pluviôse CCXVIII
Errors fount and corrected. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 3:01, Septidi, 7 Pluviôse CCXVIII

Flag Ordering Edit

This is ridiculous. We should have NpO and \m/ at the top of the belligerent lists. They were the original combatants anyway. -Lordliam Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.22.16.53 (talk • contribs)

Tradition is bloc first, then individual combatants. Neither of those alliances are in blocs (Polar is in Blunity, but I'm fairly certain that's econ only, and certainly there has been no attempt to paint it as a Blunity action).  Locke   Talk • Alestor    16:47, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
No, Polar and \m/ should be first. They started this war and should be at the top. Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Greenberg (talk • contribs)
Look at any war with bloc participation. That's how it works.
It always goes blocs, then independants.  Locke   Talk • Alestor    21:50, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

I smell a complete overhaul coming soon. Come on, put a "original combatants" box at the top with all the other alliances at the bottom. -Lordliam Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.113.212 (talk • contribs)

Convention will not be broken unless there's a good reason. Look at the abovementioned articles. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 3:01, Octidi, 8 Pluviôse CCXVIII

R&R Involvement Edit

In their DoW R&R stated they were coming in under the LEO treaty, not SF, since FOK! is also in the war shouldn't both be listed under that? --Vladisvok Destino (talk • contribs) 18:34, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right. I'll take care of that now. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 7:77, Septidi, 7 Pluviôse CCXVIII
We might want to switch it back to Superfriends now that Fark and (apparently) CSN are in. JT Jag (talk • contribs) 05:49, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
This can be done once things calm down a bit. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 2:61, Octidi, 8 Pluviôse CCXVIII

War Name Edit

In the recent poll, it is clear that the name chosen is the Second Unjust War. Should we move the name? --Ryan Greenberg (talk • contribs) 03:38, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

While it probably will end up that way, I say we wait. The poll is still open, and with thousands of people playing, 20 or so could come along and vote for one of the runners up and change the result. The poll's also only been open for less than a day, I say we at least wait for a few days before changing. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 1:54, Octidi, 8 Pluviôse CCXVIII
It's not even close to being done. I even specifically said in the OP that there'd be at least one more round. Wait on it.  Locke   Talk • Alestor    03:50, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

The War of the Busted Forums, perhaps?  :P
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   05:20, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Dang it Gopher I already voted for the other name you suggest the \m/oralist war, and now you go off and support a new name? For shame :P--Supercoolyellow (talk • contribs) 06:06, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

XTLS Edit

I saw a quick DoW pass on the warscreen tonight, but I believe they're a one-man alliance.
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   06:16, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, alright, then. I'll add them back in without a link and a generic flag. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 2:62, Octidi, 8 Pluviôse CCXVIII

War Classification Edit

At what point would this war be considered Global? Angry Nun of NSO 20:28, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

We'll wait and see how big it gets. I don't ant to rush into a global classification only for it to end like the TPF War did. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 8:55, Octidi, 8 Pluviôse CCXVIII
Once the big blocs, like C&G, SF, or Cit, fully activate, and we get a nice long list on both sides, we should be set to call this global.  Locke   Talk • Alestor    20:36, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
The other option is to wait until your poll is done and we have a definitive new name. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 0:64, Nonidi, 9 Pluviôse CCXVIII

I think we can go Global on this now, with TOP in and SF all in. Safe to say its global.  Brennan   Talk • Brennan    04:49, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

NpO + \m/ at the top? Edit

I'd like to suggest that the primary instigators of the war be placed at the top of the stats list, even if they aren't in a bloc. This has generally been the case in past wars with say NPO and OV being at the top in Karma, or GOONS and NpO at the top of the UJW page. It seems strange to me that all the primary players that started this war are halfway down the list. Lord Brendan (talk • contribs) 21:50, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, both NPO and OV were in blocs in the Karma War, and as they were the first alliances to declare war, their blocs were the first to be listed. Blocs are always listed before individual alliances. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 9:12, Nonidi, 9 Pluviôse CCXVIII
Well, were Frostbite still active or \m/ more connected, this would have happened. Usually wars are begun with someone in a bloc, it just so happens this time it didn't.  Locke   Talk • Alestor    21:58, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, how is the order of the nations determined? Is it by when they entered, their score, nation strength, etc? Jerichoholic of Ragnarok (talk • contribs) 13:02, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
Alliance flags are positioned by when they entered, with blocs first by when the first involved member alliance entered relative to the other blocs. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 8:23, Primidi, 11 Pluviôse CCXVIII
Check Great War II. Fark is the top of that war and only had a treaty with LUE, but wasn't in the League. --Ryan Greenberg (talk • contribs) 22:34, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
There were no blocs in that war. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 9:41, Tridi, 13 Pluviôse CCXVIII
Nevermind, I'm an idiot. Regardless, that page is the exception, not the norm, and will most likely get corrected sometime soon. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 9:43, Tridi, 13 Pluviôse CCXVIII

Withdrawals and Surrenders Edit

First, "Withdrawals" needs to be fixed.
Second, the one nation from ((O)) only received a forum ban; his nation is still around and therefore can partake in in-game actions, such as declarations of war, attacks, and surrenders if he so chooses. To say that he has withdrawn from the war would be a misnomer, as only his access to the forums has been restricted.
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   00:09, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

I searched in-game for alliance affiliation ((O)), and found no result, otherwise I'd not have listed it there. Would you mind linking me to his nation if you've found it? Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 0:08, Décadi, 10 Pluviôse CCXVIII
Yeah, it took me a little while to find it too. ((O)) is apparently a shortform for his alliance's real name, Sön. ("Short form" being somewhat misleading). It's mentioned in the second line of his DoW. Declaration of War In-game Stats
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   00:23, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll fix this up. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 0:18, Décadi, 10 Pluviôse CCXVIII

NOIR Edit

Was there an official declaration bringing NOIR in the war? NOIR is an economic bloc, the only military agreement in the bloc is that nations cannot attack other NOIR nations, but NOIR does not really go to war as a bloc; in fact there is a possibility of having NOIR nations on both sides of this conflict. I haven't changed it, because I don't want to overstep my bounds, but I felt I should mention it. Sigurd Odinnson (talk • contribs) 05:40, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

NOIR has an ODP clause. Krunk 06:18, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Someone on the OWF said they wanted NOIR in, so I added it. And though it was not activated as such, NOIR does feature an ODP clause, as Krunk has mentioned.  Locke   Talk • Alestor    12:57, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Two theater war Edit

This war should be broken in to two theaters (like RL Pacific/European in WW2) since the initial \m/ Polaris conflict has ended and the CnG conflict has just begun that is apart of this war over all. 71.233.43.183

No, it's still consistent enough to keep it together. So far. Mind, I'm horrible on the FA scene, so I'm not going to be updating this article. *summons Lol pie and Gopherbashi*. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 2:65, Décadi, 10 Pluviôse CCXVIII
I would say that this war is two wars, seeing as the CB for the TOP/IRON vs CnG war is mostly separate, as stated in their DoW (http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79441). As the war goes on, I would suggest creating two separate topics as the sides unfold. SirDelirium (talk • contribs) 07:34, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps these could be considered sub conflicts of a what we could call the January World War or a more appropriate name? --71.233.43.183 07:49, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this. Call the whole thing "The Winter War", and split it into the NpO/\m/ front and the CnG/Paradoxia front. JT Jag (talk • contribs) 08:12, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
CnG war should be seperate IMHO, as CnG was not involved in the NpO-\m/ WarDdog241 (talk • contribs) 08:14, January 29, 2010 (UTC)ddog
NSO is trying to get white peace in their conflict with FOK et al, and if they do than the NpO-\m/ war is entirely unrelated to the Paradoxia-CnG war and we can wrap this particular page up JT Jag (talk • contribs) 08:27, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I think we need to create a separate page for the TOP-C&G War, as NpO, FOK, and \m/ have made peace and this war looks to be extensive in and of itself. The casus belli would be the NpO-\m/ War. Taishaku
I think a new page should be created before we remove any more from this article. That doesn't appear to be happening. WCR (talk • contribs)

i think it should be kept within the same war as there is a decent chance that some of the alliances on polar's side in this were former CC members who might continue the fight under the banner of TOP.

I'd disagree. The two wars have different motives, different commanders, different CBs and different targets. This one is against \m/, the other should be the one against CnG. If having some alliances in common would mean it's the same war, then we might as well fuse half of CN history into a one huge war with longer breaks than usual. Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.23.163.75 (talk • contribs)
This war was the direct cause of TOP's war, but TOP declared because they want blood from C&G. There are two entirely different sets of fighters on each side, and the CB's are different. It's enough that I'd say they should be different articles.  Locke   Talk • Alestor    13:01, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
By the same logic, the War of the Coalition is two separate wars, as the large coalition who declared war on the New Polar Order then claimed to be uninvolved in the "NoCB" conflict. Since there is some connection between the fronts, I think we should follow past precedent here and consider them both the same war. Theamazingdeist (talk • contribs) 18:48, January 29, 2010 (UTC) Sakura (talk • contribs) 13:59, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't around at the time and I believe you were, so you'd know this better than I: did the WotC involve mass-pull outs from original "NoCB" War? With the way it is now, all the original combatants are trying to get peace, leaving the new declaring alliances to their own war.  Locke   Talk • Alestor    14:04, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
Not really. TOP and IRON declared on CnG because they fully expected to be on opposite sides in the Polar-\m/ conflict, and didn't want to give CnG first crack in what they saw as an inevitable showdown. Nevertheless, since there's a high likelihood of alliances being on both "sides" if this remains as one conflict, and because this has morphed into a different conflict entirely, with different motives, commanders, etc., this really should be treated as two different wars - even if one is linked to (and a direct cause of) the other.
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   19:27, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
I'd see these two conflicts as being definitely connected into one larger, global conflict. The idea of having them as separate theaters seems like a nice way to put it, but it would be ridiculous to show them as completely separate wars, especially when TOP entered the war saying it was entering into "this conflict" and referring to it as "this particular theater" in "this larger war" http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79441. Theamazingdeist (talk • contribs) 18:48, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

If we create sub-conflict pages, we should at the very least keep all the main information on this article, and only put relevant information on the others. Whether or not the CBs are different, all the wars started because of the treaty ties which drew everyone to fighting on either NpO or \m/'s side. It is one war (for example, World War II) even if it had separate conflicts within it (the European and Pacific theatres). Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 8:35, Décadi, 10 Pluviôse CCXVIII

Perhaps then we should have the articles structured such that there is one Major war page and one for each of the two theaters. Currently we have the NpO v \m/ theater being the parent article of the TOP/Iron v CnG theater. Instead have a "January War" or some other agreed upon title with info on both wars and make that article the parent of both theaters.SirDelirium (talk • contribs) 18:07, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

CB change Edit

I tweaked the CB in the NpO-\m/ war to Alleged violation of community and charter standards on tech raiding to reflect upon the content of Grub's DoW. - kulomascovia Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulomascovia (talk • contribs)

Grub later stated that that was not the sole reason: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s=&showtopic=78932&view=findpost&p=2121452 Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 8:76, Décadi, 10 Pluviôse CCXVIII

BTA on both sides? Edit

I notice that both sides have BTA under them. Kingcjc 21:48, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

The name of the war Edit

Should we REALLY call this the Second Unjust War? I mean, it doesn't even come close to being relevant enough to deserve that name, especially considering the way it turned out. JT Jag (talk • contribs) 05:23, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but it seems Bob has spoken. --Avatar Talk 05:27, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not fussed on the war name, but that's what got chosen in the poll, and although a second round of it has been opened, NpO-\m/ War just became way too irrelevant to keep. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 2:29, Primidi, 11 Pluviôse CCXVIII
I can't help but think that if a new poll was opened the Second Unjust War would NOT come out on top. Anyway, the way this TOP/CnG conflict is shaking out it looks more like an extension of the Karma war than anything else. JT Jag (talk • contribs) 06:05, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
Well, the new discussion will have a poll attached soon enough, as I'm sure Locke can confirm, so we'll see. If it changes later, we can change it here, so long as the name chosen is neutral. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 2:55, Primidi, 11 Pluviôse CCXVIII
Well, in and of itself, the name fits for the conflict. The way I see it, the C&G-TOP war was basically "hell, everyone's warring, we can get away with a DoW on some people we don't like." The DoW said as much. It has no real relation with the current conflict other than timing. Something happened that made TOP willing to risk an aggressive declaration. But still, I think the only war pairing carring over from NpO's war is NSO/Fark, and quite frankly that's because Ivan won't be satisfied without having a full war. So, basically, if you see them as two conflicts, each with their own names, the name Second Unjust War works here. If you group them together, I'd also say it's not quite appropriate. That said, people are split on 1/2 wars, but hopefully they'll come to a concensus soon. And yes, there will be another poll up soon. I am hoping people can make up their minds on 1/2 wars so they know what the name applies to.  Locke   Talk • Alestor    06:17, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
Just a clarification: timing and what not aside, this article is about the "supra-war" which encompasses two separate wars: the NpO-\m/ War (which has no article) and the TOP-C&G War. If you're poll is for only the first part of the war, you should specify, but I think keeping its result for the supra-war and keeping simple names (like the current ones) for the sub-wars. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 2:69, Primidi, 11 Pluviôse CCXVIII

I'm personally a fan of Ivan's christening of this as the "Cluster%#$@", but that's why we have polls.
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   19:22, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Calling this the "Second Unjust War" makes absolutely zero sense. It is not related to the Unjust War in cause, combatants, commanders, nor anything else. It really should be changed.Jonathan Brookbank (talk • contribs) 23:30, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

In cause, both this war and the Unjust War have something to do with tech raiding. In terms of combatants, they both involved (at some point) \m/ vs. Polar (there are a number of other similarities among combatants, such as where FOK fought). And for commanders, there are probably some veterans involved in that war involved with this one (i.e. Archon). Theamazingdeist (talk • contribs) 02:25, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
The Unjust Path were neither the first, last, nor only group to Tech raid, nor was that particular war the only one ever fought over Tech raiding in general. Using Tech raiding to link the two is an incredibly weak argument. Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.156.178 (talk • contribs)
Archon is literally the only commander from the original UjW involved in this war, and he was only on one side of it. None of the commanders from ~ are around or actively involved in coordination or leading this war, and other than Archon, I'm not aware of any others from the former UjP side. Calling this UjW 2 is completely illogical. Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan Brookbank (talk • contribs)
Worse, the two surviving alliances which were members of the Unjust Path are currently on opposite sides of the war. Calling this war the "Second Unjust War" is about as logical as calling this war the "Third Polar War" because the NpO is in it, and some people who used to be in NAAC are involved too. While an argument can easily be made for what it SHOULD be called, it's pretty clear what it SHOULDN'T be called. It should absolutely be changed, and soon. Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.156.178 (talk • contribs)
Sign your posts or don't expect anyone to listen to you. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 0:58, Tridi, 3 Ventôse CCXVIII
A lot of people are disagreeing with this title though, it probably should be called the "January War" since that has universal appeal right now. The poll used to name this is still going on in another topic two so there is no final verdict either. --71.233.43.183 05:56, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
I've seen "Winter War", but this is the first mention I've ever seen of "January War". Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 2:51, Duodi, 12 Pluviôse CCXVIII
"Winter War" might be better then as its still is neutral, less controversial and appears to also be a common name for this war already in use. --71.233.43.183 06:13, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Who's on what side? Edit

There have been tons of DoWs recently. Many players find it very confusing, to know who's on who's side, who are their allies, their enemies. I think that it should be udpated here, I would myself..but I don't know who's on which side, with all of those DoWs.--Avatar Talk 05:29, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

For the most part, Dynasty1 and Lol pie have kept it as up-to-date as possible, and this article includes both first- and second- phase declarations and alliance lists. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 2:31, Primidi, 11 Pluviôse CCXVIII

Nation Stats Screenshots Edit

At least for the TPF War, screenshots were posted of the major alliances' stats screens before entering the war. Has anybody been doing that for this war? Jerichoholic of Ragnarok 00:40, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Most of the ones from the NpO-\m/ phase of the conflict are posted as links, not images. Go to the page and search for "Screenshot" to find them. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 0:30, Duodi, 12 Pluviôse CCXVIII
I was actually looking for something more along the lines of this, rather than screenshots showing war declarations. Jerichoholic of Ragnarok 01:32, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, my bad. If anyone's been making them, they've not ended up here. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 0:65, Duodi, 12 Pluviôse CCXVIII
They were somewhat more relevant when the forums were offline, as in-game was the best we had. "Proof of involvement" is usually provided by a link to the OWF announcement.
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   03:55, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness of the ArticleEdit

Not that this is a bad article or anything, but I cannot help but notice that the actual article portion of it is much shorter than that of past global wars. While it is still useful and gets the general idea across, I feel like it is an entry composed more of links than an actual, detailed, chronological account of the events. I would recommend that it be extended, and, if necessary, rearranged and/or rewritten by someone who has been closely following the events of the war to fit this format, with the links serving as source citations (á la, the article on the Third Great War).

If this is too much trouble, though, then don't worry about it. Gatherum (talk • contribs) 16:49, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I know I'm going to be expanding upon the TOP-C&G part when I can get more information on it. If you have more information yourself (ie, are active on the forums), any help would be appreciated :) Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 9:15, Tridi, 13 Pluviôse CCXVIII
I can do the next best thing, that being, making us an article based on the information in all of these links, and then making said links references and citation notes. Afterward, maybe we could make a timeline of events or something. It will take a long while, but I'll see what I can do, if that's okay with you. Gatherum (talk • contribs) 22:40, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
Sure. I don't think redoing the introduction paragraph is necessary, but certainly, it'd be useful :) Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 9:46, Tridi, 13 Pluviôse CCXVIII
Okay then. I will do so whenever I feel like it. And that'll happen when I am bored. Which happens a lot, don't worry. :P Gatherum (talk • contribs) 05:41, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

This article is a hot mess Edit

Hey brahs, article needs to be organized into sections other than "external links".

Also, if we're treating them as two wars, treat them as two wars and cut them; if we're not treating them as two wars, then don't, and remove the distinctions. But pick one.--Schattenmann (talk • contribs) 16:34, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

One article would be best, as this is one (extended) conflict. If there are subarticles for the various phases or fronts in the war, that's fine, but it should be lumped together at its highest point as a single war.
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   17:53, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
If someone (looking at you, Gopherbashi, since this was your idea) wants to merge it all back into this main article, feel free to do so, just make sure everything's accounted for and links to the other article, which would become a redirect, are also removed. The talk page of the other article would have to be merged into to this one, too. Really, I'd do it at this point, but given my great apathy towards world events, I'm pretty sure I'd entirely screw something up. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 7:72, Septidi, 17 Pluviôse CCXVIII
I've gone ahead and broken the thing down into subsections without altering any content. It's so purdy. --Schattenmann (talk • contribs) 06:35, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Polar on two sides Edit

NpO Declaration on TOP
I don't believe we've ever run into this before, but I believe the appropriate thing to do now would be to place Polaris as a combatant on both sides?
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   06:37, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Yup. May want to footnote a small explanation, too. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 2:79, Octidi, 18 Pluviôse CCXVIII
In Great War: Tournament Edition, there were three sides. We could do that. --Ryan Greenberg (talk • contribs) 07:05, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
We could, yes. Really, for one alliance I think it seems excessive. But if more alliances declare on both sides, that'd make sense, for sure. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 2:97, Octidi, 18 Pluviôse CCXVIII

If Polar was placed on both sides, would you have to place VE, Kronos, etc on both sides as well? Soviet Canuckistan (talk • contribs)

Not if they were on different sides in the two phases of the war (unless we merge it all back into one). If they were on different sides in one or both side, which I don't believe is the case, that'd be enough to go for a third side. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 3:23, Octidi, 18 Pluviôse CCXVIII
Good point there....but, even if Polar are on both sides, they declared in support of both sides, where in theory Kronos, Ve etc.. didn't, so i would suggest just leaving them on one side for now and add polar to both. Kingcjc 09:25, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't say a third side as that suggests coordination with a common goal and I really don't see that being the case but closing off the two sides' list and below them listing those on both sides would probably be the easiest method of noting who is fighting both sides. --Hyperbad (talk • contribs) 09:42, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

I think we should have polar on one side in the NpO - \M/ war and on the other side in the TOP-C&G War. The reason NpO declared on GOD was because GOD and NSO couldnt reach a peace agreement. GOD and NSO were fighting because of the NpO - \M/ war, hence polar declaring on GOD should be a part of the NpO - \M/ war. Thesame goes for any subsequent declarations on NpO when the reason of the war is to help out GOD (and its allies). In the TOP-C&G War it is obvious that NpO is on C&G's side. Leprecon (talk • contribs) 15:50, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

It may actually be better to break this larger war into more sub conflicts, the CnG war Top war, and new "3rd" side vs its enemies. --71.233.43.183 19:37, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
You made no attempt to elaborate on why I am wrong, you just said I am wrong without any explanation. Also, your idea is terrible since there is no third side, there is only NpO. With your logic you could also argue that the VE is on a fourth side, since the VE attacked the third side and the VE isn't on any side in the conflict. Leprecon (talk • contribs) 22:22, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if you took offense, I was not trying to belittle your idea, I meant to put it in general and not as a reply to yours. Anyway the idea you mention sounds better about Polaris being on CnGs side though. --71.233.43.183 22:41, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea put forward by Leprecon actually. Unstriking Polaris from the NpO-\m/ War article and adding a footnote regarding their declaration of war on GOD (that is, declaring in support of NSO who were still technically engaged from the other war), as well as moving NpO to the C&G side and doing the same thing with a footnote (noting that while they were still at war with GOD, they also declared on TOP) could work well for the moment. Of course, should more alliances do the same as Polar than another side could be made for them. -- Imperial Emperor - Talk
Imperial Emperor, took the words right out of my mouth.--Avatar Talk 01:11, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should remove NpO from the TOP-C&G section and place them in a third UJW2 page. (Of course, include who they are fighting too.) Maybe call it "The Polar Wars" or something like that. To keep Polar anywhere on the TOP-C&G page only just snarls things up.--AyaReiko (talk • contribs) 05:47, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Creating more pages snarls things up more. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 2:42, Décadi, 20 Pluviôse CCXVIII
Agreed, more pages wouldn't help. If there are no objections, then I'll adjust the pages in a little bit to show what myself and Leprecon were thinking, if it's not liked then it can simply be reverted back and another option found, however I don't see any harm in making the changes anyway. -- Imperial Emperor - Talk

New Name Edit

People are calling this the BiPolar War since Polar is on both sides. This war doesn't even have anything to do with the Unjust war anyway. --Ryan Greenberg (talk • contribs) 22:58, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

As explained numerous times above, it in many ways mirrors the UJW. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 9:58, Primidi, 21 Pluviôse CCXVIII
Only the first part, really. I'll get the next poll up properly today, I've been lazy about it. <.< But I think that BiPolar does fit the war as a whole better, if not at least the current section of the conflict.  Locke   Talk • Alestor    23:06, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
The other concern I have with that is neutrality and balance, since many more alliances are involved in this war besides Polaris, and this war doesn't even really revolve around them. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 9:64, Primidi, 21 Pluviôse CCXVIII
Locke, do me a favour and add the Cluster@#$% to your poll. It's even being used by people who aren't me or Ivan (see near the bottom).
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   03:29, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying MvP, however if the majority of the Cyberverse decide to call it the BiPolar War or what ever (I'm personally indifferent about it all), then I see no reason why the article can't be called that. The same went for the Coalition of Cowards, it was just simply a term that while not necessarily balanced and neutral or such, ended up entering common usage. -- Imperial Emperor - Talk
The bias inherent in CoC, however, quickly became irrelevant when they all declared war a day later. The lack of balance in something like the Bipolar War, in my opinion, is eclipsed by the fact that while NpO may have started the war, the focus has definitely shifted to the TOP-C&G front, of which NpO is but one member. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 3:68, Duodi, 22 Pluviôse CCXVIII

The Cluster&$#% War is currently leading the poll, albeit with a small plurality. Are we having another poll after this one?
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   17:49, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Timeline Edit

It's tricky to update, so it's best if we don't have a pile of people messing around with it. I only included alliances who were central to this conflict, or are very large in their own right - those who are sanctioned or near-sanctioned. If you think that other alliances (ie. yours) should be added, post your reasoning here; otherwise we'll have 120 people each trying to add their own alliance.
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   18:04, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

You guys might want to move the time line down farther in the article. As of now, if you try to open all of the information in the infobox, the time line will get in the way.
 Dynasty   Talk • Grand Besaid   18:50, February 12, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that too. I've reduced the width on the timeline to correct this problem.
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   19:02, February 12, 2010 (UTC)
It still blocks information in the inforbox when you completely open it. I suggest either formatting it to allow for the infobox to open over it, or to put it down farther.
 Dynasty   Talk • Grand Besaid   19:12, February 12, 2010 (UTC)
It's showing up fine for me - what screen resolution do you have? Also, try clearing your cache - the timeline should be 630 pixels wide at this point.
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   00:13, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
My resolution is 1024x768, and I have cleared the cache.
-- Dynasty   Talk • Grand Besaid   15:01, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
I've scaled it down again, let me know what you see. Out of curiosity, is anyone else having this problem?
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   18:03, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not, but I have a larger monitor. This is generally why I dislike using timelines, they never render the way they should. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 7:55, Sextidi, 26 Pluviôse CCXVIII
I have it as well. Screenshot for reference. I have the same res as Dynasty. My suggestion would be to try making it collapsible, so that it could be hidded when the box is expanded.  Locke   Talk • Alestor    19:33, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
Done. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 8:19, Sextidi, 26 Pluviôse CCXVIII
One way to incorporate the timeline into the page might be to add it to the info box it's self.
-- Dynasty   Talk • Grand Besaid   18:53, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Pacifican "Act of War" Edit

I've talked to Pacifican Government, who have told me that they do not consider themselves to currently be at war. For this reason (among others), I have put their announcement from last night under "Other Related", and have not included them as part of Supergrievances. Should either Polaris or the Sith wish to declare themselves at war with Pacifica due to their actions, then we'd have a different situation entirely
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   22:58, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Their announcement recognized hostilities; as such, I believe they should be included. See Talk:TOP-C&G War. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 9:60, Octidi, 28 Pluviôse CCXVIII

No longer current Edit

Should the 'current event' template be removed by now? Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamlight (talk • contribs)

Nice catch. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 3:25, Tridi, 23 Germinal CCXVIII

BiPolar Edit

Why is it called the Second Unjust War? Nobody calls it that. Most people just call it the BiPolar War. I see no reason why we can't change this. --Ryan Greenberg (talk • contribs) 17:17, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Page Move: Bipolar WarEdit

Funnily enough I just came here to suggest a page move to Bipolar War since that seems to be the more universily adopted name now. The reason it is currently Second Unjust War is because back when it was going on there wasn't really a single name for it and this was thought up before Bipolar War became popular. Anyways if anyone opposes post here and why. If not then I'll probably move it in a couple of days. Lol pie (talk • contribs) 00:09, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Many call this the Short Bus War, not widely enough to warrant a change of the name, but it should be mentioned on the page. I also support the change to Bipolar War as that is the most common name for it. 99.98.81.143 00:37, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

I support this proposal as well, for the reasons mentioned above. "Second Unjust" never really caught on the way Bipolar did.
--Gopherbashi  Sanction Race Updater   00:39, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

I've also never heard of anyone ever use "Second Unjust War," except when people were thinking of a name. Plus, it has absolutely nothing to do with the first Unjust War, so I'm all for "renaming" it to Bipolar War.--Darth Andrew (talk • contribs) 14:35, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Bipolar fits for the first half of the war, but has little to do with the second half. I prefer the name myself, but I'm not sure if it fits for a page about the whole war. Short Bus...I've heard that less often than Second Unjust. :v Granted, Second Unjust really fits more for the first half (both over raids, early players were all in the first war in some fashion, etc.) than the whole war...overall, I don't know of an all-encompassing name for the war, so I guess Bipolar is good enough. :v -  Locke   Talk • Alestor    12:29, Wednesday, 11 August 2010

Page moved to Bipolar War. Fixed the redirects and some of the main references to the name. Lol pie (talk • contribs) 16:38, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

I like both the "Second Unjust War" and the "Bipolar War", so it does not matter to me which one is used. However, I would like to point out that since this is a two theater war, that we should have a page for the NpO-\m/ war, the TOP-CnG war, and the war as a whole. It makes no sense to have the entire war and the NpO-\m/ war to share a single page, while the TOP-CnG theater also gets its own page. Because of that, I'd like to suggest that we call the NpO-\m/ theater the "BiPolar War", and the entire war (both theaters) the Second Unjust War. We should probably also make a note that this war was known as the Second Unjust War before it was renamed to the Bipolar war.

-- Dynasty   Talk • Grand Besaid   11:10, Saturday, 11 September 2010 EST 15:10, September 11, 2010 (UTC)