Category talk:History:Blockade histories
Contents
Conventions
I'm collating information from the forums and talk pages in the hope that this page can be a place to discuss the layout, format and content that is common to all ocean (not flag) blockade history pages. The following sections provide a summary of current formatting/layout/content conventions, and link to past discussions on the topic.
Please update this page with any conventions/issues that affect all ocean blockade histories. --Therobotdude 18:11, 26 June 2014 (PDT)
Blockade numbering after merges
By convention (2014-06-27):
- Blockade numbering continues on from the pre-merge articles (e.g. Kirin XV (Viridian) becomes Kirin XVI (Meridian) the next time around.)
Win/loss records
See:
By convention (2014-06-28):
- Win/loss records only take into account the blockades listed on the page. (convention on Cerulean, Emerald, Meridian)
- Some argument for having win/loss records that continue on from pre-merge oceans exists, since this is already the case with island numbering.[1]
- Each time a flag has been renamed it gains a new entry in the win/loss records section under that new name. (convention on Cerulean, Emerald, Meridian).
- This is expected to change soon, following a discussion[2]. The change would see a flag that has been renamed hold only one entry in the table, not several.
- BK flags appear in win/loss records too.
- The last-updated date is changed once the entire table is up-to-date. (i.e. editors should not leave the table in a partial state)
- Flags are sortable by name, blockades won, blockades lost, blockades participated, and percentage of wins via the {{Blockade stats}} (Usage) template.
- Island transfers do not count as blockades for the purposes of the win/loss records. (convention on Cerulean, Emerald, Meridian)
- The activity parameter indicates whether the flag is active or not. There is no single measure stated for activity; one method might involve checking if a flag's fame is above a certain level. Another, that looks at how regularly the flag blockades has been proposed here.
- A third-party tool that can update the win/loss section automatically is available[3].
- There is a related forum thread where some of the above conventions were discussed.
Event blockades
By convention (2014-06-27):
- Event blockades that are automatically configurable by island governors are not listed on the blockade history pages.
Overlinking
By convention (2014-06-27):
- Every time a flag wins a blockade, or is listed in the Win/loss records section, it is linked to. It is not linked to in a "note" if the link is already present beside it.
- Non-flag articles are linked to with the normal frequency (usually first mention only).
Order of blockades on page
By convention (2014-06-27):
- Blockades are listed in chronological order (least recent to most recent).
Citation needed
- Each time a flag has been renamed it gains a new entry in the win/loss records section under that new name. (convention on Cerulean, Emerald, Meridian)
That is not the convention. We've had this conversation[4]. A flag with a new name is still the same flag. --Belthazar451 18:03, 27 June 2014 (PDT)
I'll add a note that it's going to change soon then. To avoid confusion though, this page needs to distinguish between what "is" and what "will be" convention - i.e. what is currently done on the articles, and what people have agreed needs to be done in the future. All of Cerulean/Emerald/Meridian are currently in a state of "new name, new flag", and have been since their creation, so right now it's definitely the convention. That's not to say the convention won't change soon, but neither I nor anyone else have managed to implement anything that sorts out the problem yet :P. It is important to be clear about the way stuff currently happens, because otherwise inconsistencies creep in. For example, I have seen some folks add island transfers to their wincount to boost it, but when I brought the win/loss records up to date it seemed a lot of people hadn't done this. If someone whisked in today and consolidated all the Legacy entries, it would also result in an inconsistent table. The article has to be consistent, and it needs conventions (current & future) to be noted somewhere. --Therobotdude 02:12, 28 June 2014 (PDT)
