Talk:Halls of Memory

From NSwiki, the NationStates encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Criteria for Halls of Memory Status

Do we want the Halls of Memory to be for the nations we specifically remember well, or nations that had an extraordinary contribution to the world? Do we also want these to be nations that are still alive (Architeuthis) -although the effect invasions can have on the world has severely diminished, it is unlikely if we will see Architeuthis in the spotlight in the future- or only those that have ceased to exist?

Personally, I'd stay stick with ex-nations. After all, Architeuthis (for instance) was involved in the Bight affair only a few months ago, and I was endorsing Nusseburg as part of a defense operation just the other day. Until the nations actually cease to exist, I'd hold off.
As for notability, I'm undecided at this time. --Goobergunchia 23:19, 6 Oct 2004 (GMT)
Frisbeeteria My thought on creating this was to avoid clogging Category:Nations with a bunch of dead nations that can't be linked. If someone resurrects, they should move back to Nations and put up an Info_box. As to candidates, I'd like to think that anyone could be added. It's never going to be NS-wide no matter how we work consensus. This is just a handy one-page repository/obituary.
"My thought on creating this... linked" -Ah. Seems clever. Canisius 23:25, 6 Oct 2004 (GMT)

Death of NSwiki nations

We're starting to see a lot of dead nations in the wiki that we need to start dealing with. To me it's obvious that we shouldn't be adding small wiki nations (that were created at 5 million and never updated) to the Halls of Memory. They should probably just be listed for deletion and removed. Rechze is currently going through Category:Nations and adding such nations to the deletion queue, and stubbing nations that only have an infobox for content.

More problematic are the two-billion-sized nations that have quietly died since the wiki started. Do we add them to the Halls? I say, "No." I have a dozen puppets that have been in existence for over a year, but none of them have made any sort of impact on the forums, in regional politics, or in much of any other way. If they die, they die. (As puppets of no RP importance, they shouldn't be - and aren't - listed in the wiki anyway.) A nation should have made some impact to the world of NationStates before they get added to the Halls. Simple death is not a sufficient criterion. → Fris Θtalk 14:36, 20 Dec 2004 (GMT)

Suggested additions

  • I'd think Brazillico deserves to be added! He won the world cup twice in a row, disappaeared, came back as a newb, fought his way back into the elite and when he reached the climax of his glory disappeared (during hosting world cup 16). During all the time except of the period where RL got him, he was an excellent RPer. Rejistania
  • Sythia
  • Architeuthis
  • Ackbar
  • Nusseburg/Dosopan (as the founders of the ACC; although they themselves may not be remembered by mainstream NS as much these days, they certainly were a very important force towards the creation of the conditions of today)
  • Thomasia (same reasons as above)
  • How about Berkylvania? Witty, sensitive and intelligent poster in General and (to a lesser extent) the UN. I'm aware that he was well respected and liked by a number of players. Ecopoeia 15:47, 31 Dec 2004 (GMT)
  • How about RedCommunist? He has had a hand in almost everything, and with this latest in The North Pacific he has earned it. He is the oldest socialist/communist player in NationStates, that should stand for something; and to that the first person to leave the ADN/be ejected/betray.
    • I'd agree if RedCommunist wasn't still around. --Goobergunch|? 21:36, 5 Feb 2005 (GMT)
      • Well Nuss should be added and he still plays, just not as public since the fall of the ACC.


  • Why exactly is Bas on there? o.O -- Myrth 20:30, 7 Oct 2004 (GMT)
    • Bas got a bad case of RL. [1]  :( --Goobergunch|? 20:32, 7 Oct 2004 (GMT)
  • But the given link leads to the nation page of a living nation ... is there something I am missing? Furthermore 'Britannia' seems to be alive also: [2] [[User:Cacobellum|Cacobellvm|talk]] 03:42, 21 Nov 2004 (GMT)
    • Must have been resurrected. :D *removes* --Goobergunch|? 17:22, 21 Nov 2004 (GMT)
  • Chimaea lives! Thus, removal? — ℜechze|talk 05:03, 6 Dec 2004 (GMT)
    • Nothing to discuss, in future just take care of it. Removed. → Fris Θtalk 15:41, 6 Dec 2004 (GMT)
  • Nanakaland seems to be back. Remove? --Myrth, I can't be bothered to log in.
    • Standard Operating Posture in such cases is (in my highly-qualified opinion) to swap out the Historic Nations box for a standard nation infobox and remove them from the Halls. Still better is to invite Nanakaland to do it for us. → Fris Θtalk 18:43, 4 Nov 2004 (GMT)
  • The Sean Empire - Gack! I added this, decided that he didn't belong there, removed it, but it's still there! --Athamasha 03:39, 3 Dec 2004 (GMT)
    • Appears to be gone to me. Must have been your computer cache memory. → Fris Θtalk 14:38, 20 Dec 2004 (GMT)

What is NPOV appropriate for ex-Nations?

There have been several discussions about what is appropriate for inclusion on the pages of various Ex-Nations. One such discussion is on Talk:The Global Market, another example would be the story of Marathon. There are legitimate points to be made on all sides, but how much of those old disputes should be made a part of NSwiki?

My take is that these folks aren't around to create their own pages, so we have to do it for them; from notes, arguments, and memories. No one disputes a nation's right or ability to create their own RP history, the disputes arise when we start describing interaction with other nations and players. Since we don't have the former (in most cases), we have to record recollections.
I think the editors of those pages should make an effort to stick to the concept of NPOV, not by suppressing dissenting opinions, but by encouraging them. Editors should try to realistically describe how and why they arrived at their viewpoints, and possibly present versions of opposing viewpoints themselves. Other readers who disagree would then ADD their ideas on the appropriate side, while leaving the other mostly intact. Obvious flaming and spam could be edited, but it's not always obvious which is flaming and which is strong opinion.
These disputes may never have been settled on NationStates, and it's the very nature of the dispute that makes them interesting, in my opinion. Everyone can agree that Francos Spain held the Pacific, but how he held it is a much more compelling story when told by the two different factions ... preferably in a non-flaming manner. My NS history doesn't encompass all that, and I'd like to hear the hows and whys, not just the dry facts. This can never be a simple Encyclopedia - bias will always creep in. In this case, I say, "welcome it". Frisbeeteria Θtalk 00:40, 28 Oct 2004 (GMT)

I agree. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 00:45, 28 Oct 2004 (GMT)

Wikipedia says, "When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. (It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.)" Shouldn't be too difficult. --Goobergunch|? 00:49, 28 Oct 2004 (GMT)

Within this context, the rules that would apply to a 'normal' collaborative entry would apply, that is that an overview of opinions is entirely justified and useful. This makes it a completely normal entry under NSWiki rules, whereas 'live nations' normally do have some sort of status aparte because the owner provides the POV. (Not as official policy, barring the Knootoss vs Syskeyia arbitration, but because players tell about their own nation from a single POV) -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 01:03, 28 Oct 2004 (GMT)