FANDOM


Archive of old discussionEdit

I archived the old discussions at Talk:The Unjust War/Archive 1. Please continue any ongoing discussions here. - CirrusOfMalla 16:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Name of the WarEdit

We know that Great War Four and Initiative Civil War are also popular. Please don't change the name of the article. The decision (reached on the archived discussion page) is to wait a month or so to see if one name emerges as dominant, and change the article then if necessary. If you think one name has emerged as dominant, don't change the title of the article, but bring it up here so we can talk about it. - CirrusOfMalla 16:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Its a major War involving most of the top powers of cybernations... This is the 4th time a war of this magnitude has erupted. Hence the 4th Great War. Sadly however noobs who dont like to count past 3 want to call it the unjust war.
I cant speak for all the alliances but from what ive seen the majority of

GOONS GPA NTO are calling this the 4th Great War on their fourms.

Also if you look at the poll taken a while back about what the war should be called you can see that 9/10 of them look like they were written by /b/tards... The Epic War, The War of lulz jesus christ Democracy fails...
The arguments have been made, and no one appreciates being insulted. At this point there's nothing new to say. We're just waiting until it becomes clear that one name or the other has become dominant during in-character use. Actually, we've never had a strict UJ War versus GW4 poll. Maybe one ought to be created... -CirrusOfMalla 02:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Poll! Vote now!
450 votes in and it's over 75% in favor of Unjust War.
I noticed a few suggestions to call it "Great War IV: The Unjust War". Thus, in an attempt to make both sides happy and end this debate, I changed it along with the other Great Wars for consistency. Imperial Gashira 04:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of not being a dick I'll roll with the compromise solution, however I changed the title from Great War IV: The Unjust War to Unjust War / Great War IV to solve the following problems:
1) No one actually calls it "GW4:TUJW", rather, people say one or the other and assume everyone knows what they mean. The slash option indicates that rather than one long name, there are two competing short ones.
2) The subtitle method implies secondary status to "The Unjust War", which is reinforced since nobody calls the first three wars by their subtitled name. Such implication is inappropriate given the different nature of "Unjust War" compared with, for example, "The War For Justice", which no one actually uses.
3) The subtitle method leaves us with the problem of how to name links to this war on other pages and in category infoboxes. We ought to follow the majority, which would mean listing the first three as "Great War X" and the most recent as "Unjust War", but we also ought to be consistent, which would mean naming them eithe the supertitle or the subtitle in all cases. The slash method doesn't have that problem. It allows the most popular name to be used in all four (and future) cases, while also illustrating secondary names.
4) There is no real life precedent for a subtitled name, but there are many RL precedents for multiple names for one conflict.
... I'll also say that unlike this war, none of the first three have two names that are both widely recognized and unbiased. A sizable majority of involved CN players calls the recent war "The Unjust War", but virtually nobody calls GW3 "The War For Justice". I don't think a subtitled name should exist unless the subtitle is also widely used, so I don't think the first three wars need subtitled names.
... Unless we want to actively push renaming the first three GWs in the public idiom, in which case OK, but what names do we use? -CirrusOfMalla 06:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

1)I didn't change this with the intent that peeps actually call it that from now on. They can still call it whatever they want. Like, some people like me still call the Green Civil War the "GTFO War".
2) I put GWIV in the front because the term in general has been in use longer than "The Unjust War", and thus likely assumes superiority. I guess we could name it "The Unjust War: Great War IV", in a similar fashion to "Dirge of Cerberus: Final Fantasy VII" if that seems a better idea. But the slash thing doesn't...look appealing.
3) Concerning infoboxes, all it takes is someone who has time on their hands to edit them. If we don't have that, then redirects FTW. Though slashes are more widely used, colons aren't bad either, at least in this case, since, regardless of character, both names appear in the title.
4) As I said, I put subtitles in those names for consistency. For the first two wars, I used what I'd most-widely seen used secondary from the Alternative Names. Some peeps call GWI and II "The Great Patriotic War" and "The Farklands War" respectively. I would've used "The Holy War of Farkistan" for II, but it was taken. If we're willing to go for what I'm just gonna call the FF method like I suggested above, we could call II "The Holy War of Farkistan: Great War II", which I think would suit it since GWII really is sort of a sub-conflict to the FARK War. Or, we could just merge the two altogether, along with the GOONland Resistence Movement into UJW. As for GWIII, I call it that because I noticed that Initiative names and Aegis names included "War of Justice" and "The War for Justice" respectively. Both are very similar names, which implies that both sides would agree that the war was, indeed, for justice. I simply chose the latter because it had "The" in it and flowed better.
At the risk of pissing a few people off, we could make a poll on it... :P Imperial Gashira 07:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
In fact, if we're willing to go that far, we could do the same to the Left/Right Wars. Like so:

The October Massacre: First War of the Political Spectrum
Maroon War I: Second War of the Political Spectrum
Maroon War II: Third War of the Political Spectrum
The ICP Reformation War: Fourth War of the Political Spectrum
Fall Schtiel: Fifth War of the Political Spectrum

(Note: "Maroon War II" and "Fall Schtiel", in those namings, sound better to me than "The St. Patrick's Day War" and "The NoV-LSF War" respectively, thus my naming of those) Imperial Gashira 07:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

'Kay, I did the FF method to all the Great Wars. It mostly says testing because I'm trying to see if that looks better and agrees with the general populace. My best hopes that this is agreeable. :) Imperial Gashira 01:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't like it as much, but it's fairly semantic and I'm tired of arguing about it. -CirrusOfMalla 13:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ive lost faith in Democracy when 3/4 want to call this war the Unjust War for whatever reason. It dosent matter if the 4th great war sounds awful, its the freaking name of the war it dosent have to sound like flowers its a freaking name.

Okay, what's up with The Unjust War: Great War IV? No one calls it that, no one! It's either "Great War IV", "The Unjust War", or "Great War IV: The Unjust War". Since no one can decide on either "Great War IV" or "The Unjust War", I say we rename it "Great War IV: The Unjust War". That puts both names in there, and also puts it in the proper order. Any objections? I'm going to change it unless anyone objects. -BamaBuc 23:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried that. See the above objections from Cirrus. 67.41.216.6 06:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The war that is about to happen in one day will be Great War IV because this wasn't an even war. - Ryan Greenberg

~ needs a real nameEdit

The Coalition?

No. Lame or not, ~ is the name everyone called that side of the war. The wiki documents history, we don't make things up. If you didn't like ~, the time to do something about it was during the war. It's too late now. -CirrusOfMalla 02:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been thinking, how should you pronounce that anyway? OrangeP47 16:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The character is technically called a "tilde", but most people seem to be calling it "squiggle". -CirrusOfMalla 02:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


  • cough* Justice League *cough*
They don't like that name, and after all it is their coalition. They want to be called ~, therefore they are ~, regardless of how stupid a name it is. -68.220.213.71 02:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

More Alternative Names Edit

Considering among the alternative names listed, maybe two of them are used by anyone, why list a whole bunch of titles that nobody calls this war ever? The point of an alternative names section to begin with is so that when someone refers to the Great Patriotic War or the War of Retribution, which people still do, they can look it up and see which conflict they are referring to. Many of these names are not used by anyone. Battle of the BLEU Bandwagons? Who says that?

As near as I can tell, most of the names on there came from anything anyone suggested in the first few pages of a "name this war" thread rather than any name actually in common usage. Either the list is far too short or far too long, the former if we are just going by anything anyone has called it, the latter if we are going by things actually being used. Z'ha'dum 04:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that there are two sections in the article detailing alternate names. One near the top which only states the names people use, and another near the bottom with anything else anybody has added. This should be clear, since the former section notes that the latter exists, and since the latter is titled "More Alternate Names" -CirrusOfMalla 06:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Both of the first paragraphs were mine so the second did not need to be indented. In any case, that quibble about the name of this discussion section aside, the more alternative names section at present is pretty useless. It either needs to be removed entirely or severely pruned and merged with the first section to reflect only those names actually in use. The first section can be rewritten to exclude reference to the deleted material. Z'ha'dum 06:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem w/ removing it entirely. Just didn't want to step on toes without talking about it first. - CirrusOfMalla 06:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)