I may have given this page a bad name, lol, didn't realise it adds to it. The name TOP-NpO War redirects to the BiPolar war, someone please do something to make this page seem better.--LittleRena (talk • contribs) 05:05, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the best way to do it is, I think usually a backslash is used plus the Title template, so I did that. And I did the customary semi-protect :P.
(In good faith): I question Foshjedi2004's renaming of this article. I have skimmed through the naming thread and there is little to no naming of a "Ninth Great War". Names such as "Bye Polar" and "The Blackest Friday" are more likely contenders. Is there any legitimate reasoning behind this naming? This article must reflect the community's view of the war, not someone's own view. The "TOP-Iron/NpO War" serves as a placeholder and should remain so until a large majority of alliances agree to use a term(s) for this war. I understand how this war has risen to a worldwide scale but take a look at the PB-NpO War. The wars are both similarly large yet the one I present is not given a "great" term. I will allow the name to stay so the others may voice their own opinion. JustinVuong | Talk | Nation 14:45, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
- I also disagree with renaming this article right now, if anything there will likely be a thread on the OWF for an "official" name and then it will most likely be renamed to that. but i agree with JustinVuong here. Rogal Dorn | Talk | NationDecember 11,2011 (ET)
- Yeah, no idea what that guy was thinking. Wars haven't even been named by Great War names in a long time. There should be at least a discussion here before any renaming takes place. Please note that any further name changes without consensus will result in blocks as per CN:VANDAL.
I might have jumped the gun on this, so if this turns out to be the actions of 2 rogue elements within the alliance, feel free to remove my addition of this event from the war article. I do believe, however that it is worth watching how this plays out as the Avalanche (2nd) government have not made any statement towards IRON officials why these two nations have attacked but considering that the nations in question have declared their reasons as "As per instructions of my boss" and "Hello - aiding NpO", it is fair to presume that the alliance will be getting involved at update per the MDoAP signed with the New Polar Order. --8-Bit Franz (talk • contribs) 00:18, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
FEAR DoW UPNEdit
This was not actually correct as the aggressive actions were started by UPN high gov. The topic in question was FEAR reconsigning it as an DoW from UPN, not FEAR DoWing UPN themselves. --ShouAS (talk • contribs) 20:43, December 6, 2011 (UTC)
Sides messed up Edit
Someone removed the alliances on the Fark-NPO war front, which is fine but now someone has added the new declarations from Sparta and Guru Order (as well as FAN and Fark) so now it's innacturate as NPO, TPF and co with their DoWs are missing.
Consistency is lacking.
- There seems to be a debate as to whether the Fark-NPO war is part of this one. I'd think that it is since part of Fark's DoW mentioned the DoS in which NPO was involved, but we'll have to decide that issue before fixing this page in either direction. And if it is included here, I don't see much point in having a separate page for it.
- In that case the DH-NPO War shouldn't have been a separate war since DH et all pre-empted NPO during the PB-NpO War. imo, same situation as that. just a side conflict and it's current arrangement is fine. just put NPO and all on TOP/IRON's side and FARK/FAN on NpO's side on the TOP\IRON-NpO War page and everything is fine Rogal Dorn | Talk | NationDecember 7,2011 (ET)
- I have put all of the alliances back on the combatants side I believe and added the PF bloc.
DH-Chestnut War Edit
I dont feel this war should be listed as a linked/sub conflict. There was nothing in the DoW saying anything about the TOP\IRON-NpO War. 7 of 8 participants weren't even in the TOP\IRON-NpO War either. how does everyone else feel? Rogal Dorn | Talk | NationDecember 8,2011 (ET)
- In my opinion it is linked, it's mentioned in the thread that it's a pre-empt (not directly in the OP of the DOW) and some of the Chestnut alliances where likly to enter anyway and it is linked via the NPL connection to the war as well IMO. --LittleRena (talk • contribs) 18:52, December 8, 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that it is linked, same as the last time DH pre-empted it was treated as a link conflict. --ShouAS (talk • contribs) 19:34, December 8, 2011 (UTC)
- Oh the irony of getting called stupid by some random guy in goons. Reminds me of yall crying when i kill/killed goons in EVE... Warhammer online and in Rift. Rogal Dorn | Talk | NationDecember 9,2011 (ET)
TOP vs Aloha Edit
As far as I can tell, the TOP attack on Aloha has nothing to do with this larger conflict. It shouldn't be included, imo. - AlohaAlliance
Mjolnir - SF Front Edit
Eh I have a question would it be possible to split the MJ-SF part of this war into a new front combining Sandlot-CSN war because it'd make the fronts a lot simpler I guess because the MJ-SF theatre of war was definitely different to that of the TOP/IRON-NpO front. Sir Keshav IV (talk • contribs) 00:25, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
- I think that's a good idea Keshav, the MJ-SF conflict is definitely a better subconflict name and it widens the scope of the Sandlot-CSN War to the actual "Front" imo. When you're doing it, just rename the Sandlot-CSN war to "Mjölnir-SF War"so all the pages that are currently linked to the Sandlot-CSN War will automatically redirecto to the MJ-SF War. Also be sure to add all the necessary links (DoWs, surrenders etc) and Alliances to the page please Keshy, thanks 19:40, Sunday, 15 January 2012 (EST)
I've done the page. Willing to check if it's alright? Mjölnir_-_Superfriends_Front