Talk:War in Heaven

Rename template
I've put a rename template on this page suggesting that it be renamed War in Heaven. My reasons why: If we were to rename the page in this way – and I definitely think we should – Category:The War and all its subcategories would also need to be renamed. I'm hoping that one of our delightful bot-friendly mods will be able to help us out with that. But yeah. Just throwing this out here on the talk page, in the hopes that an admin will see it and agree. – N8 ☎ 21:27, April 8, 2018 (UTC)
 * "The War" is kind of a terrible name. Yes, characters in the Faction Paradox series call it "the War" all the time, but that's just because the series is set during the conflict: people alive during WWI called it "the War" as well. It's bland, and it's non-specific. Even back in 2007, when this wiki was young as a baby, everyone agreed "The War" couldn't stay.
 * Back then, the community decided to rename the page Second War in Heaven. But as I've spelled out in The War, "Second War in Heaven" actually isn't a title that's ever been applied to this conflict.
 * In contrast, the title "War in Heaven" dates back to the conflict's introduction in Alien Bodies, and it's been used a plethora of times in the Faction Paradox series since then: the first audio; both comics; all the MNP books save one, plus mentions in the little "The Story So Far" sections; the only Random Static novel; the most recent FP release; and even one Iris Wildthyme short story. It's entirely possible that I'm even missing some.
 * As a matter of fact, whenever an uninvolved party refers to the conflict, "War in Heaven" is consistently the name they use. The current intro does a great job explaining why most people call it "the War" as well as why the page should really be named "War in Heaven".

Yeah, I'm supportive of renaming it to "War in Heaven". It's a common name for it in the series and its way easier to find when people navigate the wiki. Besides with all this "First War in Heaven" stuff, we have Eternal War as an in-universe name for the Vampire Wars, so we're not confusing anybody by using the War's title as given in the actual series that depicts it. --Revan\Talk 07:01, July 18, 2018 (UTC)

Leaders/Forces
So this is an infobox change, and an edit to something that was put here by CoT, who knows FP far better than I, and a modification to something that's been here for ~4 years. But I really didn't get the idea that it's proper to split the various accounts of The Enemy in The Book of the Enemy into leaders or non-leaders. And even if we did do that, I'm not convinced that these are how we should divvy up these categories. Obviously other people can comment - maybe I'm completely off base. But this seems like a misreading of the book to me. Najawin ☎  00:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In general I agree. Tardis:Infoboxes says, "If a thing is controversial, you generally shouldn't put it in the infobox. The article should be used to explain things that are too nuanced for a simple declaration in an infobox." I don't know if the Enemy's identity is controversial, per se, but it's certainly nuanced, and it can be better discussed in-text on this page and The Enemy.


 * However, just removing the information would leave the infobox looking awfully unbalanced. For this reason I'd like to request some time so that rather than removing the information outright, we can scrounge up a list of things to replace it with from less controversial sources, such as The Book of the War. The Book Club of the War will be wrapping up in a few weeks, so hopefully I'll have some suggestions by then. – n8 (☎) 14:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Perfectly reasonable. Najawin ☎  17:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you still want to wait Nate, that's fine, but I'm not seeing broad consensus on the issue, and having finished the book, I don't think you're going to get broad consensus, contra a certain, well, imaginative user. I think you're going to get people agreeing that certain facts (or even "certain vibes") are important to understanding The Enemy, but not come to a clear consensus on what these facts actually entail. (I'm also not sure it's correct to put Lolita on the side of the Great Houses in this conflict, but that's a very subtle point.) Najawin ☎  01:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * if anything you could argue that Lolita is a leader of both sides? Depending on your POV However her link to the Enemy is still vague and contradictory in places.Anastasia Cousins ☎  15:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * She strikes me as her own side, playing other parties for her own end. (She may temporarily end up in charge of the Houses, but her actual agenda certainly isn't compatible with their own.) Unfortunately, the conflict templates are not built to accommodate more than two sides… Four onwards would be impractical, but I sometimes wonder if we couldn't create some kind of "Others" field. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 15:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand and agree to some level but was think along the lines of (and I apologise for referencing Star Wars Here) a kind of Palpitne situation in that she is technically in charge of both side but playing. Them off each other form her own ends (this however is only a possibility) and and would like to say the trying to define the Enemy as anything is impossible, if anything from my perspective they seem to be the Palladin Hoards from the Doctor Who pitch document, but all that does is give us a name and not a valid one at that. Not to mention that this is contradicted, so even if the Book Club of the War discovered the identity of the Enemy would that be valid? It would have to be in the behind the scenes section and not on the main page. Anything to do with the Enemy will alway be hard unless Lawrence Miles himself publishes a book which explicitly tells us the identity of the Enemy.Anastasia Cousins ☎  20:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Bumping. If you don't have any objections Nate, I'm going to replace the "leaders" and "forces" section on The Enemy's side with "See: The Enemy for more detail". Najawin ☎  22:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)