Talk: Dave War

TIO, LoSS, DT, Hooligans exit[]

After the surrender of NEAT, PPO, GPF and MHA, they should be out of the conflict. I'd edit it myself if I could, but I can't. Thanks in advance, and sorry if this is the wrong place. --The Archduke

All 4 of those alliances are crossed out already.— Rogal Dorn

RogalDorn -- I think he means the winners are no longer in the war on any front and should be crossed out.

Yes, sorry, I should have been clearer. The Archduke (talk • contribs) 10:36, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

Umbrella-Fark subconflict[]

Should we make the Umbrella-Fark front a sub-front of this conflict in light of Fark's recent announcement? --Aya Reiko (talk • contribs) 04:15, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

I did an informal census of a ton of Active CN'ers on IRC and the general consensus was that there are wayyyy too many subconflict pages that are starting up. Unless it takes an entirely different route than the MK-CSN war I think we should keep it like this for now.— Rogal Dorn

The FARK-Umbrella conflict is part of the same plan of action as the MK-CSN war. There's no doubt about this. Any suggestion to the contrary constitutes nothing but nitpicking. --Crymson

I think it is a separate conflict until proven otherwise. "Common Knowledge" is what it is, but current facts are facts: FARK-Umbrella has no other participants, and looks like it might not. That to me says sub-conflict. I DO however lean toward changing the title of this to the DH/C&G-SF War if it starts to collect more of the participants from those alliances. -- WtB

War name[]

I renamed the war page from "MK-CSN War" to "Dave War". This is not permanent/final but just reflects the majority votes in the poll thus far by the cn community. If the majority changes by a good margin then it will be renamed (and all former links will redirect so no links will be dead) However if the majority doesnt change then it will just be "Dave War" heh.

p.s. I didn't vote for "Dave War" just fyi, I voted for "OverZealous War".

for the votes/community consensus see the "Name that war" thread— Rogal Dorn

24 June 2012 - BM Declares War on NG[]

While it currently is noted as a DoW it really is a Recognition of Hostilities, it even states so in the title and nowhere in the thread is stated that it is a DoW.

--Xoin [Talk] [Contribs] | 17:05, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

Stats[]

Can someone make the stats collapasble? They are taking up a lot of room right now.

--LittleRena (talk • contribs) 18:06, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

It looks like

importScriptPage('ShowHide/code.js', 'dev');

needs to be added to MediaWiki:Common.js -- RandomTime 22:35, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

Commanders[]

No other major war has a list of Commanders. Why does this one? -- Baltus ^(Talk) 22:32, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

Everyone that I talked to liked it this is the first time im hearing of someone disliking the addition. Here are other examples of a list of commanders in wars.

None of those are RP wars either. If you want it taken out getting a community consensus would do it.— Rogal Dorn

Commanders aren't really anything more than a list of the rulers of the fighting alliances, which is stupid, seeing as the list of alliances is already given. Ghux (talk • contribs) 14:53, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

not entirely true, its more the coalition leaders, or it's supposed to be. it's not supposed to be just the leaders of the alliances. case in point crymson from TOP, hes not TOPs leader but hes in the coalition leadership. the more this war flushes out the more it will be clear as i will periodically keep in touch with both sides regarding it. i wont be bothering them every day by any means but a month+ into the war it will be more clear whos doing more than x. like i had people tell me that tulak horde isnt doing anything with coalition leadership so he should be removed. same thing when sir william told me that sardonic isnt really the goons representative more of a figurehead while sirwilliam does the coalition legwork.

hopefully this clarifies it a bit as to what it should be.— Rogal Dorn

I just edited the commanders after coming up with a general consensus via polling many of the alliance leaders in the conflict. And I removed the following people because while they may be alliance leaders and leading their alliance, they aren't coalition leaders. For side 1 they are...

SirWilliam
Infinite Citadel
Timlee
craig
prather

the consensus from side 2 is as follows.
remove

tulak hord
delta
impero
sir humphrey

add

georgethegreat

— Rogal Dorn

Damn you Rogal, we talked about Infinite Citadel. He's running everything MK related currently in and outside of the alliance. --Alyster2 (talk • contribs) 13:17, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

War Over?[]

The main conflict of this war is over now isn't it? Only continued fighting on the Fark front and with micro alliances.

Should the status therefor be changed to "Overall Victory for DH/C&G & Allies - Continued fighting on Fark-Umb front/Micro alliance involvement"

Or something like that :p

--LittleRena (talk • contribs) 12:23, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Well, it might be worth keeping a track of which alliances are still at war, no matter how small they are. The war is over for the vast majority, but there are still a few left which haven't peaced out.

--8-Bit Franz (talk • contribs) 22:44, August 7, 2012 (UTC)