Talk:UN Timeline

From NSwiki, the NationStates encyclopedia.
Revision as of 23:37, 21 July 2007 by Jey (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
No need to keep a record of edits, the wiki does so automatically for all to see. Click the History tab for examples. Frisbeeteria Θtalk 02:15, 19 Oct 2004 (GMT)


Is there any reason why this article shouldn't be moved to UN Timeline? --Goobergunch|? 22:41, 19 Dec 2004 (GMT)

None whatsoever. Moved. → Fris Θtalk 00:11, 20 Dec 2004 (GMT)

Chemical Weaponry Ban

(Sorry to bosh down the FAC vote, but I wanted this 'un to be seen.) Should we include Sheknu's Chemical Weaponry Ban? We've included those which reached quorum but were deleted: this seems little different. If so, should we put it before Repeal "Right to Divorce"? It reached quorum later, but was withdrawn sooner. Gruen2alk 23:40, 26 December 2005 (GMT)

In this case, I'd just add the withdrawn proposal to the discussion of the original resolution and repeal discussions in a new section about replacements. When the next replacement roles around ... if I should say, then Sheknu's proposal should be included there. However, it is rare that a proposal is pulled out of the queue by author request, so it still should be Wikified one way or another. Mikitivity 05:29, 4 February 2006 (GMT)

UN Timeline FAC Vote (14/8/6)

Please remember to sign your votes with 4 tildes ( ~~~~) and update the vote tally when you vote.


  1. Hersfold 23:33, 15 May 2005 (GMT)
  2. Mikitivity 31 July 2005 23:07 (GMT)
  3. New Commustan 16 August 2005 17:44 (GMT)
  4. Jey 3 January 2006 17:30 (GMT)
  5. Valori Monday, 13 February 2006 15:13 (GMT)
  6. Nice Cool People 19:18, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. 09:09, 11 March 2006 (GMT) Meame
  8. Kedalfax 00:03, 2 April 2006 (GMT)
  9. Dankism 17:48, 20 April 2006 (GMT) A great source of information; fast and well maintained
  10. Spaam 07:25, 13 October 2006 (GMT)
  11. It may just be a list, but that's all it needs to be. Anarchy Balsac 12:06, 22 December 2006 (GMT)
  12. Ian John Locke II 19:21, 19 February 2007 (GMT)
  13. Moorington 04:02, April 6 2007 (GMT) The best article on NSwiki, one of our crown jewels does deserve some spotlight.
  14. User: Kanami --Kanami 03:24, 29 April 2007 (GMT)


  1. --Tetris L-Shaped Block 00:15, 10 August 2005 (GMT)
  2. --|Knoot|KNOOtalk 09:25, 17 August 2005 (GMT)
  3. It's just a list, so, like Fris said, it's not suited for the main page. Good idea, though. --Pacitalkia 20:51, 12 November 2005 (GMT)
  4. It deserves to be linked in a prominent place or something -- but not as a featured article. How would it fit on the main page? → Ceo\squawk 01:15, December 1, 2005 (GMT)
  5. --forgottenlord 18:56, 26 January 2006 (GMT)
  6. Good article, but it's just a list. Lightman 18:17, 5 September 2006 (GMT)
  7. Now it is a list, it is no longer an article. And it does not look like it should be featured. Unsigned comment by User: Swilatia
  8. This is an interesting reference article, but it doesn't have much appeal to a casual reader. Making it a Featured Article seems to me much like awarding the Booker Prize to a dictionary. Yes, it is a scholarly achievement and yes, it is useful, but it isnt very interesting. Praetonia 18:36, 17 February 2007 (GMT)


  1. → Fris Θtalk 23:49, 6 Jul 2005 (GMT)
  2. IdioC- エドtalk 16:54, 25 September 2005 (GMT)
  3. Gruenberg2 23:58, 27 September 2005
  4. HotRodia 10:22, 2 October 2005 (GMT)
  5. Well, it's a good article, but it's just a list. Shouldn't be Featured Article at all. Smertios 17:26, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Quite informative, but basically just a table. United Island Empires 18:51, 12 June 2006 (GMT)


  • While the people who are agaist say "this is just a list", i disagree with them, as this is a well written article Swilatia 12:46, 24 January 2006 (GMT)
  • With the upgrades that Mik has made in the past 4 months, I feel it now has the quality for an Featured Article. Add on its relative importance - arguably the most important document of NS history - I'll support it for featured article. --Forgottenlord 19:00, 26 January 2006 (GMT) | In light of the split, my position is reversed. Is it an important document, yes. Is it worthy of Featured Article? No. Forgottenlord 16:00, 14 May 2006 (GMT)
  • This isn't simply a list - it is a compilation of the history of all (or nearly all) UN proposals to reach quorum. The UN Timeline then goes further then just stating the text on a given proposal's page - it provides relevant background information that can be useful to everyone including TG Campaign details, Overviews, Gameplay Impacts, and what the consensus of the Forum regulars were. Jey supports this nomination. Jey 17:34, 3 January 2006 (GMT)
  • This is a great asset to UN functions, especially since NS isn't exactly known for it's speed. If you don't know what page a particular resolution is on, it could very well take you up to half an hour to find the darn thing. I vote FOR feature article. Hersfold 23:33, 15 May 2005 (GMT)
  • Kinda funny, me ambivalent about an article that I'm the principal author of. As much as I like this article, and as much as I agree with Hersfold about its usefulness; it's not suited to the format of the Featured Article space on the front page. If it could be given the accolades and then moved to the Featured list without ever having made the front page, I'd be happy. Given that isn't really an option, I'm ... ambivalent. → Fris Θtalk 23:49, 6 Jul 2005 (GMT)
  • I'm hoping to go back and convert the UNA notes into NSWiki, and see this article as being very useful for new and old UN members. As the NSUN has become more "legal", it really is important to have a timeline and promote it. Mikitivity 31 July 2005 23:07 (GMT)
  • It's a great article, but it just dosen't make sense to be a featured article in my opinion. Its more of a reference --Tetris L-Shaped Block 00:15, 10 August 2005 (GMT)
  • This is a highly useful article. I agree with Hersfold and Mikitivity. It appears to meet all qualifications for a featured article. --New Commustan 16 August 2005 17:44 (GMT)
  • One of the things I was thinking about was a minor face-lift for this article. Right now it is very useful for active UN players and is quoted regularly by UN forum members for newbie use. However, there are at times key decisions that aren't included *directly* in what is more of a UN Resolution Timeline. If somebody with Wiki-formatting experience could demo a table, I was thinking the time line could include a table of resolutions, but each quarter could be prefaced with a single paragraph highlighting just the gameplay impacts of the UN. Mikitivity 18:23, 16 August 2005 (GMT)
  • I must agree with Fris, it's not suited to the format of the Featured Article space on the front page. This issue should really be adressed. The fact that some UN people like the article is irrelevant to this. It is just... not pretty on the main page, and it is also more of a reference document. I do not see why reference documents are particularly interesting to be the first thing people see of NSwiki. --|Knoot|KNOOtalk 09:25, 17 August 2005 (GMT)
  • The fact that MANY active UN players point UN newbies here is relevant, as the UN Timeline is probably one of the more useful pages on NSWiki. Reference document or not, one of the first things people see when just coming to NSWiki should be articles that will intrique them and have them looking into additional articles. I honestly have not heard any argument that this document doesn't do just that. As for looking "pretty" or sexy or whatever, I am not surprised that my earlier REQUEST for somebody with Wiki-formatting experience help me with a demo table was ignored ... but I actually think that somebody who can code a bit could help me turn this page into something more useful. I think that if we have short paragraphs summarizing gameplay changes by quarter, followed by tables similar to what some players do with their political party elections with links to: resolution text, main UN forum debate, NSWiki detailed history of the resolution, and then a column for res. number, date of end of vote, votes for / against and percentage, that we have something that could be useful and interesting to look at. I remember when I was first starting Wiki, that it was somebody here who had suggested that interesting articles link to other articles. The point is to capture vistors' attention, and direct them from the entry page to something possibly only remotely related. Mikitivity 17:35, 17 August 2005 (GMT)
  • Yes, probably. But right now it is just a bunch of links, and therefore not really worthy of being a feature article. If it is improved the way you say, it would be a whole lot closer to becoming one. I'll change my vote when this article actually meets FAC standards, not before. Feel free to add some improvements yourself. I am not really a UN historian, despite having active in/about/outside it for quite a while. --|Knoot|KNOOtalk 10:41, 18 August 2005 (GMT)
  • My own opinion is that it is already there. But this is besides the point ... I can fill in the history and will be happy to do so ... but I've now asked TWICE for help in how to construct a Wiki table (similar to how players set up their political tables). Is there a place that talks about formatting code??? Mikitivity 15:54, 18 August 2005 (GMT)
  • I really like the new bar graphs (the horizontal ones) on UNCoESB - FL, don't know time, 11, September 2005
  • NEUTRAL - It's a valid reference document but I thought featured articles were for details... it's a catalogue that should probably have a link on the front page somewhere, I'm not sure if the "Featured" branding is relevent here. However, it don't see fit to block it from becoming a FA if opinion dictates. IdioC- エドtalk 16:54, 25 September 2005 (GMT)
    • Now the tables have all been sorted out and the colour code clarified and detailed, I'm half inclined to support it being featured, although my vote remains neutral for now. Also, Hotrodia, remember to update the tally :P IdioC- エドtalk 00:27, 16 November 2005 (GMT)
  • It's a great page - hugely useful, and I know there's been a lot of work put into the format - but it's not really suitable for FA status at the moment, I feel. Gruenberg2 23:58, 27 September 2005
  • I love the Timeline, and would like to see it be a Featured Article. I just don't know how it's going to fit into the featured article box on the main page. If we could solve that issue I would fully support Featuring the Timeline. HotRodia 10:22, 2 October 2005 (GMT)
  • Are people suggesting featuring the paragraphs in between the lists? I understand the reasoning behind that, but the paragraphs aren't what makes the article great: the list is. Perhaps it could be permanently linked to from the main page along with other reference documents?

Moved from Oppose (Unregistered users cannot vote):

  1. I see no real point to make this a feature. It really is just a oversized list. -- 01:41, 19 July 2007 (GMT)

Consensus issue

It's easy to see from the vote tally at least that this page is in deadlock and has no consensus (12 voters, evenly split). Any objections to removing the FAC status, or should we leave it up for a while longer? (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 19:20, 19 January 2006 (GMT)

Personally, I'd favour leaving it up a little while longer. This page is routinely linked to on the UN forum, and new people discover it all the time. Whilst I don't personally favour its being featured, I think more people may yet contribute to the debate. Gruen2alk 19:42, 19 January 2006 (GMT)
Even if they contributed, would it necessarily be to whether or not this is FAC, or just generally adding as UN members their ideas? (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 00:23, 20 January 2006 (GMT)
I'm still hoping it will be featured, because there is a ton of UN history that still needs to be archived (I've been working on this for an hour and a half solid today), and I'm hoping eventually a few more people will take an interest should this article be featured. Furthermore, some of the objects were based on older drafts that didn't feature the same summary stats and color coded tables we've been using since late summer '05. If those people were to reaffirm that they aren't planning on changing their votes, then deadlocked and removed for a while is fine -- but I hope that won't be the case. Mikitivity 05:25, 4 February 2006 (GMT)
Well, the votes are no longer tied. --Swilatia (Not Swilly!!) 20:04, 22 February 2006 (GMT)

Possible Split

As this page is above the limit for article size, and there seems to be a lot of good article text in between the list sections, what would people think of splitting off the article text to a new page, like History of UN Resolutions. That way, the other page could be featured as its main purpose (an article) and the UN Timeline would remain uncluttered as just a list. –|–– Ceo \ rant 01:55, 23 February 2006 (GMT)

I'd support that. Gruen2alk 14:23, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
Support --Swilatia (Not Swilly!!) 13:06, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
Support --Forgottenlord 22:45, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
Since it seems we have solid consensus, I need to ask another question: how do we move the talk page? It is unclear whether the FAC pertains to the article or the list, and I'm not certain what to do with the rest of the talk page. Any suggestions? –|–– Ceo \ rant 04:12, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
On a page like this, I don't think four people is enough yet, really. As a suggestion, could you make a draft of the new page at Split, by copy-and-pasting, rather than cut-and-pasting? Gruen2alk 09:27, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
Done. –|–– Ceo \ rant 13:52, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
Support. Would this page then be one long table, or would it still be divided into quarterly sections? (I'd prefer one long table - the division into quarters would seem rather arbitrary once the history has been moved to a separate article.) --Safalra 10:56, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
Ceo: looks good. I definitely support a split, then, and you can probably go ahead do it.
Safalra: yes, merging it into one table would also make editing easier. Gruen2alk 14:33, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
Opposed to merging it into one table. Yes it is fairly arbitrary, but navigation is much easier when you don't have to scroll all the way to say 2005 Third Quarter. --Forgottenlord 15:02, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
There are ways of making it into one table without using section breaks. I'll make a draft. Gruen2alk 15:06, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
Is that by using # signs to place anchors and then doing a manual table of contents? –|–– Ceo \ rant 13:57, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

Well, if we split this, we will be able to add in more info about the history of the proposals without worrying about the article size. swilatia 15:35, 2 March 2006

Since this has been up for a while with no objections, I will now proceed to execute the change, provided the max_questions bugs don't slow it down too much. Ceo \ rant \ rave 18:41, 20 April 2006 (GMT)


There is no need to put this cgi bin stuff in the links anymore, I do not know why people are still doing it --Swilatia (Not Swilly!!) 16:08, 23 February 2006 (GMT)

Author Field?

I think it would be a good idea to add a column that shows the resolution's author to the timeline. What about you? --swilatia 17:14, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

I like the idea. It would take some time to implement (retroactively going through every resolution to get the author) but if someone wants to do it, I say go ahead! –|–– Ceo \ rant 17:34, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
I was thinking of suggesting the same myself, but I thought that would sound rather egotistical, given I've written two resolutions. --Safalra 17:41, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
I'm started doing it. Already have done 2003 Q2, 2006 Q1, and 2005 Q3. --swilatia 20:51, 26 February 2006 (GMT)
Support. Although don't blame me when someone proposes merging this with Powerhungry Chipmunks ;). Gruen2alk 22:42, 26 February 2006 (GMT)

FAC: Consensus reached?

The vote for this article is currently 11-4-5, clearly a majority; this coupled with that fact that Neo-Carthage has been the featured article for over a month now, I think that this article should get featured status. Dankism 17:34, 12 May 2006 (GMT)

I agree. I think the FAC has been up for a sufficient amount of time, and consensus has relatively been reached. Jey° 16:49, 12 May 2006 (GMT)
In light of the split, I think the FAC was actually applying to what is now History of the United Nations. This is now just a list, without the content that people wanted to feature. Ceo \ rant \ rave 00:40, 13 May 2006 (GMT)
Ceo's right on the ball there. Plus our policy is to feature articles for two months, not one. May 25th is the earliest date for a switch, folks. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 04:32, 13 May 2006 (GMT)
Since there have been no FOR votes since the split happened, I would suggest closing the FAC and leaving a message on all voters' talk pages asking them if they'd like to renom. Ceo \ rant \ rave 16:05, 14 May 2006 (GMT)
I think that is a good idea. --swilatia 22:14, 12 June 2006 (GMT)

What's the status on this? It's been 9 months.... --Forgottenlord 18:29, 29 March 2007 (GMT)