Talk:Grasslands Gambit

From CivWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Adding Combatant Nations

Would it make sense to add more nations to the combatant list, Lambeau and Asgard specifically? Maybe they didn't declare war in an official capacity, though neither did Butternut and they're on the list. Right now there are people like Chosen and Hass who are probably more affiliated with those countries than Gang Shi and BN. TheDaavis (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Page name change

Proposing a name change to War of the Dawn Guard for the following reasons:

  1. a name including Dawn Guard has finally been generally adopted as the name of the war, see: https://www.reddit.com/r/CivMC/comments/18fys4i/what_should_the_war_be_called/kcx5u1n/, https://www.reddit.com/r/CivMC/comments/18gx0w7/slideshow_of_the_evolution_of_secdgp_and_allies/
  2. avoids the "Coalition" vs. "Pact" argument that some people have been proposing, as "Dawn Guard" has been pretty well established as the allies of the conflict
  3. still kind of keeps the form of the "Icenian Coalition" on the page to a more accurate term
  4. honestly there is no way I would ever accept "post nut clarity war" as a legitimate option due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Offensive_material

Please advise, thanks! - Specificlanguage (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

should this not be War of the Dawn Guard Pact instead? The alliance is Dawn Guard Pact, not Dawn Guard, and the named "DGP war" (per jmqn) includes "Pact". I would be in favor of War of the Dawn Guard Pact.
GJum's comment about the influence of the wiki has slightly changed my mind about naming going forward. CivWiki should probably be allowed to take more liberties in choosing "good sounding" names, while still not completely disregarding WP:COMMONNAME. I might write a proposal for that at some point. Tybug (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Support: Probably support War of the Dawn Guard Pact anyway -- it probably would be best to keep it this way since it's most commonly used. Specificlanguage (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Support: As upset as I am about my suggestion of War of the Dawn being disregarded, War of the Dawn Guard is the next best option Presidentofyes12 (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Disagree: While I do agree the name must be changed, the name War of the Dawn Guard is misleading, since while Gang Shi did definitely provide a casual belli, it did not initiate the war or launch the first attack. It can also make the war seem 'Black and White', which I personally dislike. Walpole (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't really see how these points disprove the name, to be fair. Dawn Guard is one of the most used terminology nowadays to refer to the Icenia/Yoahtl alliance during the war; it's been pretty good at marking whether this war is the current one or a previous Icenia/Yoahtl-affair like the Butternut-SEC War. There's already pretty well-known several instances of wars in real-life having pretty biased names towards one side (e.g. French and Indian). If you've got an alternative name that could be agreeable, I'd be happy to hear it though. Specificlanguage (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Support: War of the Dawn Guard seems like the best of all worlds to me. It's concise, it's widely used, and it accurately describes the conflict. If not War of the Dawn Guard, then I'd support War of the Dawn Guard Pact, although I have to admit that it's a little wordier and I personally don't like it as much. Either way, the current name should go. Lokilog (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


Support: War of the Dawn Guard is clear and concise, and I don't believe that anybody would be misled with the exclusion of the word 'Pact'. It's a solidly descriptive and attractive name, and it doesn't fall into the trappings of being overly literal/bland or overly jokey. User:SonicFrost (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)