Talk:Bardonia

Subject of the article
Due to an ongoing edit dispute in which the user EmperorCheese12 made major adjustments to the article without prior discussion with the article's other editors. Subsequently, the user Fynd1, JurassicParkRex and Mozazio have reverted the edit in questions. The parties involved have since reverted each other's edits for the duration of two weeks. The user EmperorCheese12 continued to reinstate their edit even after being contacted on the matter by the user Mozazio.

At the core of the conflict appears to be a disagreement on whether the article concerns the "Soldiers' Republic of Bardonia", as was previously ruled by the wiki team, or a different entity. Since the wiki rules clearly state that "cases [to resolve user disagreements] will only be considered if all good faith attempts at communication between the disputing parties have failed." Thereby, the wiki moderation will only concern itself with the matter at hand once the parties involved, particularly the editors mentioned above, have attempted to engage in good faith discussion and were unable or unwilling to reach consensus on the matter.

Now, all parties involved in the conflict, particularly the users mentioned above, are welcome to use this talk page to discuss the subject of this article and how that subject should be presented. When doing so, you are requested to sign your edits by putting four tildes ~ at the end of your edit and indenting your contribution using : at the start of the post. For an example, refer to my answer to this below.

Should the editors fail to engage in good faith discussion on the matter until April 29, 2024, 00:00 GMT, the wiki moderation will open a joint ticket on the matter on the official Stoneworks Discord to resolve the user conflict through an authoritative ruling. Until the edit conflict has been resolved by the parties involved or through a ruling by the wiki moderation, the article will remain protected. Metagall (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please note any new tickets regarding this content dispute will be closed. On-wiki discussion is not an optional part of dispute resolution. Nutmeg &#x2766; 22:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Changes
Bardonia is now in Abex identifying under the formal and informal name of Bardonia. This has been signed on multiple political documents as well as our national announcement. Being the current leader of Bardonia, as well as the oldest and most informed Bardonian of our lore and history, I would like to update the page with the following:

I would like to move all in-depth histories of the past governments to their individual pages and instead of listing the history in text on Bardonia's page, list links to the individual pages so the full history can be read through each page, decluttering the wiki page.

Each government will be acknowledged and listed based on government death. In a prior wiki ticket it was agreed via wiki staff all previous governments would be split into their individual pages and the current active government would inhabit the Bardonia page. In a prior wiki ticket it was agreed via wiki staff the "Bardonia" pagename is to be used for the entity that is most relevant for user searches of the term "Bardonia". At the moment I would present that the currently most relevant Bardonia would be the current and geopolitically active Bardonia.

Since the current Bardonia identifies itself and has only ever identified itself as Bardonia (a successor to the latest 7th empire) I will use the Bardonia Hub page to update current Bardonian information (listing the historic governments directly under the nation's origins)

I will update the flag, the map claims, the government, and add the current lore of Bardonia onto the page, leaving the in-depth information to each government to be carried by their own page.

If current Bardonia disbands or changes governments I will take all the updated information and document it into an individual page for itself and listing it in the chronological history order.

Removing all previous government information and individualizing it in singular archive pages will also make any future disputes easier to discuss since all government history would be separated.

I believe that this method of updating the page is the most efficient and the path of least resistance, so we may unlock the page itself and everyone can list their respective government information in the individual pages which would assist in zoning in on the disputed information since right now it's disputed in mass (mostly regarding Government History).

Thank You,

Unic0rntheb0i (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Unic0rnb0i
 * Thank you kindly for the detailed contribution and starting a discussion on this matter. The claim that "in a prior wiki ticket it was agreed via wiki staff all previous governments would be split into their individual pages and the current active government would inhabit the Bardonia page" is not accurate. Instead, the wiki team ruled that the "Bardonia" pagename is to be used for the entity that is most relevant for user searches of the term "Bardonia".


 * Furthermore, all users making edits to this page are highly recommended to sign said edits using ~ to make it easier to follow the contributions. Metagall (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * To save anyone else the trouble of scrolling down to see who wrote this, the following was written by Mozazio. I apologize for the wall of text, I simply felt it was best to be as clear as possible.


 * Firstly I will address the issue I originally opened my ticket about, specifically in regards to edits back and forth with user EmperorCheese12; although everyone here has heard it by now, I still think I should put it on the record. To summarize, the issue came when user Emperorcheese12 did massive edits to the wiki, including changing the "current government" section to that of the 7th Empire rather than the Bardonian Soldiers' Republic, and changing the history section to exclude all information from late 2022 on. Although previous wiki rulings had stated that the Bardonian Soldiers' Republic had sole pride of place on the wiki as it was the most relevant search, I determined to edit the wiki to display both final Bardonian governments equally, and also made additions to the history section to cover Bardonia's history until the end of the server. Despite this, user EmperorCheese12 continuously made attempts to change the wiki to focus primarily on the 7th Empire and delete much of the history section, and also insert factional insults into the description of the BSR, while ignoring my attempts to reach out about the issue. I believe that in its current state, the Bardonia wiki displays an unbiased and accurate depiction of Bardonia at the end of Rathnir, and am opposed to attempts to delete years worth of history or to put the 7th Empire, a rebellion, as the "main" Bardonia while only displaying the Bardonian Soldiers' Republic, Bardonia's longest continuous government, as a side government written about in a biased and negative manner.


 * With that out of the way, I would like to address Mr. Unic0rntheb0i's concerns. I would first off like to apologize that the back-and-forth between EmperorCheese12 and I led to you being unable to add your own edits to the wiki due to it being locked, and look forward to discussing possible changes to the wiki with you here.


 * Before I begin responding to your points, I would like to caution against the notion of any one person definitively assuming the role of "the most informed" person when it comes to lore or history. While it is true that Unic0rntheb0i is the oldest Bardonian (being the only one of the 8 founders who still consistently plays), that does not mean there are not significant gaps in his knowledge on both history and lore. On the subject of history, much of Bardonia's political history took place during time periods in which Unic0rntheb0i was permabanned, which restricted his access to information about anything political in nature. On the subject of lore, I can say from experience that Uni has, over the past year, engaged very little with lore originating from the Bardonian Soldier's Republic. Neither of these are meant to be attacks on Unic0rntheb0i's competency or character; I simply bring them up to illustrate that no one person can be seen as a definitive source all on their own. The history of this nation is best preserved through consensus and cooperation by multiple parties, covering for one another when they either misremember or have incomplete knowledge. There are many other figures with highly useful and robust knowledge of Bardonia's lore and history, such as Shanks, EmperorCheese12, Crezyman, Capna, Fynd1, and myself; I believe it is best not to get into the weeds of who has the "best" knowledge or understanding, and instead approach this as a truly collaborative project, wherein we can cover one another's strengths and weaknesses. With that brief tangent out of the way, I will now start addressing your specific proposal.


 * I would like to address the issue of the history section, which is perhaps the greatest thing I disagree with. The Bardonia wiki is undoubtedly one of the best wikis on the server, largely due to its robust history section; few other wiki pages allow for such an in-depth but concise reading of a nation's entire history (to take our neighbor of Escharia for example, where each iteration of the nation has their own wiki page, often making it difficult to understand the chronology of events). While one could argue that it would still be possible to keep this history through the creation of dozens of new historical government wikis, I believe that this would needlessly complicate the viewing process for the average player attempting to research Bardonia, as well as increase the burden of wiki staff trying to moderate these dozens of wikis holding vital information for the understanding of history. There is also the concern that most of these pages would be stubs at best, since currently most individual governments in the history section are covered in a paragraph or less. There is certainly room for expansion of many individual government wikis, such as in the case of the particularly fascinating cases of the 3rd Empire, 4th Empire, and Black Dandelion, but I do not think it wise to make these required readings for those trying to get an overview of Bardonian history in general.


 * This brings me to a point I would like to tie in; the issue of relevancy. Although it is undeniable that the Abexilas iteration of Bardonia is currently the most politically relevant, it is not necessarily the most relevant overall. When people hear about Bardonia from friends or watch Stoney's videos on it, they are likely to want to look into the history of the nation (specifically, the Rathnir nation). The history of Bardonia is inherently relevant to those wanting to learn about the nation, perhaps even moreso than information about whatever government is currently in power.


 * There is also an argument to be made about the relevancy of Abexilas' Bardonia to Rathnir's Bardonia; the Abexilas and Rathnir iterations are vastly different in terms of geography, geopolitics, and in many cases even population; it is doubtful that the exploits of this nation (for instance, any colonial projects in Talasi) would be relevant to someone interested in Rathnir Bardonia, just as it is doubtful how relevant the Second Westmarch War would be to someone who joined Stoneworks after the launch of Abex.


 * This leads finally into what I would propose for this issue. It seems to me that Unic0rntheb0i is seeking a wiki page where the Abexilas iteration of Bardonia has pride of place, without being cluttered by the long and complex history of Rathnir Bardonia. Personally, I am seeking to maintain the coherency of the current Bardonia wiki page, displaying the exploits of the nation on Rathnir, while being undestandable to uninformed viewers doing research. Therefore, I believe that the best solution would be to follow the example set by Yimmu-Audal when it migrated from Jagdas to Rathnir, wherein they created separate wiki pages for the nation on Jadgas and Rathnir (linked here and here); specifically, the current Bardonia page would be renamed to "Bardonia (Rathnir)", and a new page would be created, either called "Bardonia (Abexilas)" or just "Bardonia", depending on the preference of wiki staff. This would give Unic0rntheb0i and his associates a page of their own to build their new history on, free from the cramping of the current wiki, while also keeping the current wiki concise and cohesive, allowing those reading to get a proper perspective on the specific history of Rathnir's Bardonia. The only major problem I could see with this proposal would be if it caused confusion among those searching for one iteration and ending up on the wiki page of the other, but this could be easily solved through a simple phrase at the beginning of each wiki page linking to the other page (e.g. "This article refers to the nation of Bardonia on Rathnir. For the Abexilas nation of the same name, click here .").


 * If there are any questions or objections to this proposal I am happy to talk about it more, but I hope that this compromise can simultaneously fulfill everyone's goals and interests while also maximizing the average viewer experience on the wiki.


 * Sincerely,
 * Mozazio


 * [P.S. Metagall & Nutmeg, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the usage of the four tildes and the colon at the start of posts; I tried to read in the source code how you used it, but I didn't fully understand. Did I format this msg correctly, or would you like me to edit it in some way? Thanks so much.]


 * Mozazio (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly for your contribution to this discussion. I have taken the liberty to add a single colon to the first pargraph of your response. Putting colons at the start of a paragraph indents said paragraphs which improves readability. When responding to a response, an additional tiled while indent the paragraph one additional time. Putting four tildes automatically creates a timestamped signature which is likewise very benefitial for folowing the discussion. Metagall (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)