1998 OGFIFA World Cup

Although the OGFIFA has been left alone for awhile, the 1998 Men's edition has yet a host. I want to see if the people here will support a plan that IN THE NEAR FUTURE we start to build more soccer arenas to be able to be a host in 1998.--Rhiney boi (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2019 (CEST)

I think it’s a good idea worth considering, but just keep in mind that (1) we have two active national conversations going right now (motorways and phone numbering), and (2) FSA sports in general are a proverbial third rail for us to discuss. While the other two issues are working their way through, I’d suggest using this time to flesh out your proposal and vision a little more clearly so we can avoid some of the other issues we’ve had discussing FSA sporting events. -TheMayor (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2019 (CEST)

Alrighty then.

Rhiney boi (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2019 (CEST)

Ice Hockey

Is it okay if I start and create a league for Hockey? I will call it the AHF(Archantan Hockey Federation). I am passionate on the topic. One other thing. There is only 7 hockey teams but about 20 gridiron teams. Should we send a mail saying to add more hockey teams? Thanks. -Oof boi (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2019(CST)

Wait till you notice how many soccer teams we have. -TheMayor (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2019 (CEST)

Should I start a league then? -Oof boi (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2019(CST)

We could easily fix that by having 2 leagues; I'd volunteer to be a lower league member

Rhiney boi (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2019 (CEST)

Sports leagues have been something of a divisive topic on the wiki. You’re welcome to create a league page with basic information and links to the various venues, but if you want to start diving into league records or simulating seasons you’d be better off doing those on Google Docs. -TheMayor (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2019 (CEST)

Okay. I think I could start a page with just basic info on the league and portals to the teams. I will probably create a history page also and do the docs document for winners of the cup. -Oof boi (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2019(CST)

I am not against starting this article, but I say it must be a stub, with not a time limit to finish. Inviting state owners to create ice hockey teams is not a good idea because what most of them will do? Only to create a name, to mention two or three colours, and in the best scenario, to map a qaudratic or oval building in the map. If we look in the other sports leagues (footbal and soccer), there are A LOT of teams with nothing mapped yet. There is a football team in Cosperica, a state where there are not "urban stuff" yet! So, creating team names only to fill gaps in regional divisions is not a thing we should encourage. Of course, some of them will "really map" the sport stuff, but...

There is another important problem. In all sports leagues from all collaborative territories, we will always got the same problem. An user, after creating a nice team, and a time mapping a territory, leaves the territory, opening a gap in the league and its history. Or also, after the league is full, another user starts mapping in the collaborative and ask for a space in the league, but the league is full...

Well, these are my opinions about not to create a so detailed sports league article in collaborative territories. -- BMSOUZA (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2019 (CEST)

Sport in Huntington

How should we decide the names of the teams based out of the capital district? I am putting Legislators in my articles until there is a vote or decision just so it isnt blank... —Zytik (talk) 05:03, 27 December 2018 (CET)

I agree with your points --Rhiney boi (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2019 (CEST)

On the requirement that teams be mapped to be considered allowable

I think this requirement is based on defective reasoning (I will say this with full awareness that in my years as a member of the admin team, I supported, encouraged and propagated such requirements - but now that I'm not admin, I can be more direct about my own evolving opinion). This requirement means that mappers who prefer a more systematic, historical approach (where stadiums will be mapped quite late in the process, since they are often one of the "newest" part of a given map) are essentially denied representation. I understand the goal: it is to prevent "paper empires," overwikification, and insincere submissions. The last thing we need is "spam" sports teams filling up the charts. But I think there should be an assumption of good faith - clearly I am in this for the long haul, and other "historical sequence" mappers are, too. Why can't I include teams that aren't yet mapped? This is partly a rhetorical question - I personally have my own wiki, where I can freely list Makaskan Teams without any concern for rules. But not all mappers here have that freedom.--Luciano (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2019 (CEST)

My old friend Luciano! Of course, as I know you and a lot of users from a long time ago in OGF, I have no direct objections to sports teams specificaly in Makaska, Cosperica and Huntington, because I know these are "more serious" projects. I know I was radical mentioning the cosperican team, I did it exactly because the new users excited to include teams without mapping. The problem is exactly when other users, "creating paper empires", as you said, will ask to include their teams in a lot of sport leagues and few days later start to create alibis, "I am very busy these weeks", etc. The admins will need a specific (authoritary, others will say) rule to decide who can and who can not create these teams... And so, is not hard to imagine, the "denied" users will start attacks "Admin123 hates me!", etc etc etc. Hahaha. Ironic but not so far from reality. Anyway, you know I am always open to your opinions. -- BMSOUZA (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2019 (CEST)

Maybe there's some sort of way to make it where it's essentially still the mapping requirement, but with a list of specific cases where you could apply for an exemption, such as in the cases of collaborative territories with clear plans (such as Huntington) that will have delayed development or states like Makaska (& Newlynn, I think?) being mapped historically but with a clear plan of what is to come? --Ernestpcosby (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2019 (CEST)