Category talk:Historical Events/Archive2

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Handgreen.png Archive Page
This page is an archive page of Category talk:Historical Events. Please do not add comments to it. If you wish to discuss the content here, please do so at Category talk:Historical Events.

Historical Events Discussion

Policy of Protected Pages?

I was wondering, isn't it policy to protect Historical Events from future editing. I ask because it turns out none of them are protected. Seems strange since history is meant to be canonical and after a certain point shouldn't be open to mass user edit, it could lead to complete alteration of events after the fact unless they are all being strictly watched. So I'm wondering if it should be policy to protect all Historical pages. Although some pages are currently being touched up and may have possible rewriting(nothing bad) it may be best for the historical sections to have this done in the future.--Karekmaps?! 19:33, 10 August 2007 (BST)

When the policy about Historical Events passed and it was the time to implement it, I asked the author to clear that issue because it wasn't specifically mentioned on the policy itself. As his answer was negative, we don't protect the pages. You can always try to pass a new policy or a scheduled protection for successful historical events bids if you want, but in any case we'll start to protect them if they get too hot, like any other page on the wiki. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 03:02, 11 August 2007 (BST)
You'll have to let me know how to go about doing that, I don't know much about proposing policies because I don't have to enact them.--Karekmaps?! 10:48, 12 August 2007 (BST)
No problem. Besides the normal way, that would be creating/modificating a policy through A/PD (you can follow the instructions there), you can get things done faster if you place a request for scheduled protections over Historical Events at UDWiki:Administration/Protections#Protections_Scheduling_Queue. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 15:29, 13 August 2007 (BST)
Done on the scheduling queue in a similar manner to the historical groups one there, not sure if it's right though.--Karekmaps?! 10:26, 15 August 2007 (BST)
It'd probly be better to avoid protecting historical events' articles. Take a look at the first siege of Caiger Mall page history for an example. The article continues to be improved even long after the event is over, and some things are added that couldn't have be added at the time, like the note that ransack wasn't available at that time to the zombies. --  T   09:51, 15 August 2007 (BST)
Concur. I've added some edits there just the other day myself.--Jorm 18:33, 23 August 2007 (BST)

Question

Is the "For" and "Against" style I used for The Battle of Santlerville OK? I did it because that way, when looked at on the wathclist / recent changes page, people will know WHICH topic was being voted for or against, not just that a for or against vote was cast for one of the many topics on this page. 13:37, 19 June 2007 (BST)

I have no problem with it. Anything to make it easier to vote, I guess.--ShadowScope 14:10, 19 June 2007 (BST)
I think that there should only be separate heading for each event rather than for each event, and a for and against section for each as well. When you click on the diff comparisons you can't tell which event a person is voting on because the sections are all named "for" or "against" -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 14:16, 19 June 2007 (BST)
Putting a summary of the event name next to the "For" and "Against" (as I did) would also solve that problem. But I suppose just NOT using headers (but maintining seperate for and against lists) would do so as well. Which actually is the format the suggestion pages now use. 14:27, 19 June 2007 (BST)
Yep, your idea is an improvement. But the rest of the page is a problem. It's fine while everyone plays by the rules, but a pain in the arse when you've got to work out who said what, where. There was a similar system with the Malton Mayor elections... and it was a nightmare to check on when complaints where made. Please do something, either system is better than 10 "for" sections on a page -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 14:40, 19 June 2007 (BST)
Mabey someone can go in and do the same for the Clothes sections, it's having the same problem.--karek 17:40, 19 June 2007 (BST)


Question 2

Shouldn't this page be called "Category: Historic Events"?

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/historic Usage Note: Historic and historical have different usages, though their senses overlap. Historic refers to what is important in history: the historic first voyage to the moon. It is also used of what is famous or interesting because of its association with persons or events in history: a historic house. Historical refers to whatever existed in the past, whether regarded as important or not: a minor historical character. Historical also refers to anything concerned with history or the study of the past: a historical novel; historical discoveries. While these distinctions are useful, these words are often used interchangeably, as in historic times or historical times.

.17:03, 20 June 2007 (BST)


High Bar

It's getting silly if even the first two sieges of Caiger can't make it into this category. Getting those 15 votes is a killer. --Toejam 05:51, 10 July 2007 (BST)

True. Those two are obviously historical events though, I mean come on. I'm sure people are just too lazy to vote, or they just didn't even see it at all. Just add them in, you know they have to be in it in order to call it a historic event database...--Big Bur 06:29, 10 July 2007 (BST)
The bar is quite high I imagine because very few get to know or hear about what event is submitted here. I was thinking about submitting the Battle of Santlerville to find that it had already been submitted and the voting, finished. There were over 1000 zombies and survivors involved and many high-profile groups in this two-month long event yet only 10-15 voted? I imagine the rest didn't know (like me). People cannot be expected to come and check here every few days to see what has been submitted nor add the page to their watchlist. Until this is solved, I expect the Historical Events to remain rather empty, with large scale, "historic" events such as the Caiger Mall seiges (and the Battle of Santlerville) to be missing.--Sunil 09:49, 10 July 2007 (BST)
I'm thinking 10-12 needs to be the voting limit, 15 just is too much right now and obviously historical events that were unanimously approved didn't even make it. Seems absurd.--karek 10:20, 10 July 2007 (BST)
In fact I think a lot of the older stuff shouldn't even be up for a vote but simply added. How many people remember how important the fort seiges were back in the beginning of the game? only a very few who were around then are still around now. nowadays they're even less important then a single mall seige, while back then they were the only thing that had real seiges. Who'd still know that? You'd just get a lot of votes of not important enough because they never heard of it.-- Vista  +1  10:52, 10 July 2007 (BST)
I agree, voting on history is a ridiculous concept! Just imagine in the real world if this was the case, I'm sure Iran and Palestine would vote The Holocaust "non-historical" for a potent example, and as a lot of people don't remember/know about it, i'm sure many kids today would vote The Napoleonic Wars "non-historical" too.
The analogy is that groups have vested interests in voting certain ways (and short memories) and the voting demographic on the wiki does not accurately represent the playing population in any way, but much more people rely on it as a source of info than actually contribute. The Battle for Santlerville was a perfect point. Sonny Corleone voted against as it wasn't a battle for the suburb but the mall. As anyone there could tell you, as Santlerville has only 1 PD that was also under attack, if the mall and that fell, the whole suburb would have gone and at the time it was the south west border of the only remaining green group of suburbs (a 3x3 suburb square) against a massive Malton wide red block, so it really was a fight for the suburb.
History should not be a populist concept, so neither should it be open to votes from all and sundry, or open to anybody who wants to put a historical event up. What about a 5 man/woman panel that votes a simple majority on each case, with an election to the "History Board" with a trusted notable unbiased member representing each faction population (2 Zed, 2 Survivor, 1 Griefer) --Ulysses Black 14:27, 10 July 2007 (BST)
COMMENT What I find amusing though is how history like the 1st Seige of Caiger can't get 15 votes, but Rave Clothing gets about 30 over on the clothing suggestions page. I'm sure there's some real world social comment in there. ;) --Ulysses Black 14:32, 10 July 2007 (BST)
Actually Ulysses, the Battle for Santlerville got it's name for the tactics used by the zombie side, specifically the ones where halfway through the siege that was going no where they split off and destroyed everything in the suburb but left the mall complex decidedly untouched, they made it a suburb wide battle. And voting should be done on historical events otherwise things like the Iditarod which don't really even deserve a spot would get kept. Certain things need to be kept, certain things don't, and it should be the communities choice. The issue is certain things were obviously felt that they needed to be kept and have been kept for a long time anyway but were not able to get enough votes to meet the required minimum by a negligible amount(both Caiger sieges for one, and the first battle of blackmore.)--karek 16:13, 10 July 2007 (BST)
But thats the point, if even the games most important historical events miss out even if it's just barely something is wrong. I'd rather have a system that includes something borderline as the Iditarod instead of one that exclude something as big as Caiger. even if it's "just barely" These events should have cleared the bar several times. the fact that they didn't say it all.-- Vista  +1  16:21, 10 July 2007 (BST)
Actually, I get the feeling the only reason this is missing out on votes is that it's relatively new and that the events here are relatively old. Now if people were watching the pages or actually knew much about them mabey. But certain things should automatically get approved, yes, but not most things. Certain things being basically the Two Caiger sieges, the Giddings siege, the Bear Pit, Blackmore 1, and the old Fort Creedy siege(I know there is a really famous one from before barricades but can't remember it.) It would probably be best to wait for a while for the 15 person requirement or just lower it to 10 which makes sense. Just focus on the 2/3rds right now, which certain things can't even meet. I'm sure most people would agree with that, and then when this area is actually used more just increase the minimum again.--karek 16:29, 10 July 2007 (BST)
I agree with Vista here, but Kerk's proposal sounds good and I second it. I'd also propose then that due to older events such as the Fort seiges that were before my time possibly entering historical oblivion otherwise, certain historical events should be auto approved by a committe if they happened before a certain date.--Ulysses Black 17:04, 10 July 2007 (BST)
Karek hit the nail on the head. If I'd have known that the Caiger seiges were up for vote and needed more, I'd have voted - they are definitive events in the Game's history. I wasn't aware that it was taking place - sure, I don't use the wiki a hell of a lot, but I'd definitely have chipped in for that. --David Suzuki 23:51, 10 July 2007 (BST)
If the problem is voting, perhaps the voting should have stayed open longer. I just noticed this page now and would have voted one way or another on all of the events had the voting not been closed. Of course the concept of voting for what is history is ridiculous. Hardly any players remember really old stuff anymore, so isn't it vital we put it in even if the votes aren't enough? --EMAG TRESNI 21:08, 11 July 2007 (BST)
I didnt even know about the page until I saw "the first and second seiges of caiger mall failed to enter" and then I was like "WHAT"!!! This high bar needs to hit the dirt.--Wooty 22:09, 11 July 2007 (BST)
Mabey it's time for some initiative, I don't know if we need a sysop or not to change the rules here, but it looks like the general consensus is the 15 limit needs to go for a bit or voting on the subjects closed should be reopened for a short while and probably Announced on commannounce or whatever it is announcements go through on the wiki portal.--karek 09:15, 12 July 2007 (BST)
Well, actually, you don't need to. For the (wiki) Policy page, they decided to just say that since 2/3s of 15 is 10, you just need 10 Yes Votes to pass a policy, as long as there are only 5 or less No Votes. It is the exact same policy used in Historical Groups, if I remember correctly. I am partly opposed to this rule, I really do think that we need 15 people to actually view the thing, so that we can get a clearer view of the community's beliefs. But, I won't object if people want it to change. And, I think, well, congrats, I'm going to change it. 2/3s of 15 Votes or just 10 Yes Votes, if 15 people do not vote.--ShadowScope 00:40, 14 July 2007 (BST) EDIT: I'm also going to attempt to retroactively declare the 1st and the 2nd Caiger Seiges as Historical, using the rule that 10 people are needed to vote Yes as "implied" in the policy.--ShadowScope 00:41, 14 July 2007 (BST)
Perhaps the red box Community Announcements could be returned to the front page. I know that is what had me voting in Historical Groups/Sysop elections/etc. That way I didn't have to check the voting pages every couple of days.--Antipathy 12:25, 17 July 2007 (BST)


Regarding the Battle of Santlerville vote, I never saw a template on the BoS page stating that it was up for election. (Page history here). Shouldn't that be standard protocol? I'm not for sure what the wiki rules are about this, but wikipedia usually has some sort of notice like this. --Sexy Rexy Grossman 06:28, 14 July 2007 (BST)

Yeah, that makes sense, I've added it to the list at the top of the page. --  T   16:31, 14 July 2007 (BST)

Critics

Historical importance derived from popular vote makes for poor historical accuracy. This is a joke.--Jorm 20:28, 16 July 2007 (BST)

Especially since 60% of the voters weren't arround for most of the events. --Sonny Corleone RRF CoL DORIS CRF 20:31, 16 July 2007 (BST)
So we should delete that old feth and move on with our lives?--Lachryma☭ 20:56, 16 July 2007 (BST)
I'm not even sure why he have this setup. Historical groups are there to safe guard them from deletion. Events that get written up either are noteworthy or get moved to grouppages right from the beginning. Deletion isn't a problem-- Vista  +1  13:22, 17 July 2007 (BST)
There has to be some way to differnate between ordinary Events and Historical Events, to make sure they are "noteworthy". If we let anyone claim the Historical mantle, then it could lead to trenchies abusing the system, calling whatever they are engaging in currently as a very "historical" event. It's more of an easy way of letting newbies shift through the past and see what happened, rather than perserving events from deletion.--ShadowScope 09:58, 18 July 2007 (BST)
That's the problem with this category AND the historical groups category. Many of the players around here never took part of any of these events. Huge events like the first siege of caigar (that granted it his invincible fame), it didnt even got 15 votes! The Malton Iditarod was not huge, but was famous at its time. Many players participating on it, and many others trying to stop them from winning (i have bitten one once). Ask a newbie, and he wont even know about this events... like here in the wiki... ask many of the active players around here who Amazing and Katthew were. Many wont be able to answer you that. *I* wouldnt be able to answer who Katthew were, but i know he/she was famous in its time. A user recently told that the Crossman Defence Force wasnt famous enough to share the CDF redirection as a disambiguation page. He might be right, the CDF is low profile now, but in its time it was more know than the Creediers.
Now, some of the events that were listed in here didnt pass through as historical. What should we do with them ? Delete their pages and remove their names from the history books of urbandead ? Like we do with many of the groups that fail to achieve historical status in Category:Historical Groups ?! That's why i am strongly against deletion of age-old group pages. Many groups were formed in this wiki, many events were played. People dedicated their time to the game, and dedicated more time editing their wiki pages. And how do we treat them once they leave ? We simply remove them from our history, leaving several pages with references to empty pages, making us wonder who was the Bella Luggosy Fan Club (i dont remember their name correctly), who were The Mongolian Horde (their page still exist, but only because it was undeleted after someone deemed them inactive). The Valentine's Day Massacre wasnt historical ? Then why several PKers groups repeated the feat this year ? I'll bet that for them the event was huge, and they are players too (as much as many users like to think otherwise)
Historical categorys should work to display the noteworthiness of a group, event, suburb, or user, not to serve as basis as to what should be kept in the wiki and should be removed. And its not asking the new users that you are going to get the true importance of them, but ask the ones who lived in that period of time. Thus, voting should only be an option on current events/groups/stuff that just recently happened, not for stuff that many around never heard about. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 17:16, 18 July 2007 (BST)
Why would events not voted historical be deleted, just seems stupid because they were important enough to get here in the first place. In other words I agree with Hagnat.--Karekmaps?! 16:22, 19 July 2007 (BST)
Hagnat, the propsal that creates the Historical Group catogeroy adds in the "let's delete any group that is far too old" clause. I hated it, which is why I voted against the Historical Groups policy. But most people supported the policy, so what can we do? But that policy of deleting all groups DOES NOT APPLY TO EVENTS. Events can remain there basically forever. So, what the Historical Events page is just a badge of honor. Those that do not pass it will not be deleted. That would be plain stupid.
Though now, it seems that one person has added in his Event without going through the voting. Wouldd it just be better to bypass the voting and just have people add their events in Historical Events, as long as they write a small paragraph on why the event is so important for us new players? Again, I fear that trenchies will just add any old event they particpate in...Popular elections may make poor historical accuracy, but letting anyone add in their own event leads to no accuracy.--ShadowScope 06:03, 21 July 2007 (BST)

Simple solution. Change the name from "Historical Events" to "Popular Events". The meaning in this instance is essentially the same; if an event was popular, it had a lot of participants, and hence is historic. And if it was popular, it should be able to pass a popularity contest- well, except some of the older ones, where the people is was popular with are no longer around. . . . swiers BigEYEwitnessLOGO.png 20:04, 28 July 2007 (BST)

So It Turns Out...

That the reason none of us ever saw that the Battle of Blackmore was up for Historical Event voting was that it was never posted to wiki news. There was no notification about it.

So, you know, it kind of got "snuck in there," and was added against the rules. Hey, isn't that kind of funny!?

So, awesome! What does this mean? Do we actually get to have a real vote on it now?--Jorm 04:41, 15 August 2007 (BST)

Your hilarity underscores the gravity of this conspiracy. I think that the Blackmore thingy should be put up for remov-wait, didn't that already happen? Has justice been served?--Lachryma☭ 05:36, 15 August 2007 (BST)
Actually, under the rules, it should actually be put up for revoting for admission. If it fails to meet the requirments, it gets removed. --The Grimch Mod-U! 05:42, 15 August 2007 (BST)
Well. You know. Since I've been getting so much shit for failing to immediately put it up on the wikinews page, I thought it only fair to point out that it was never there in the first place. And you know, couldn't it be that there was some giant, survivor conspiracy to make sure that the zombie side never saw the page, knowing that we'd never allow it in as written? Because it wouldn't have gotten the 2/3rds majority.
Just sayin'. Kind of funny and suspicious. Maybe someone should look into that.--Jorm 05:45, 15 August 2007 (BST)
Speaking of that, I'm the only member of the zombie side that voted, I'm pretty sure most everyone else was NMC and I only voted keep because I was voting for the event, not the article, and it was already considered historical by many.--Karekmaps?! 06:01, 15 August 2007 (BST)
Hmm...this seems like a lame technicality, but A. Wasn't the Event page new then? Was that rule around then? And B. The WikiNews thingy is sorta new and only been in use for a while...was it even on the Main Page then?--Lachryma☭ 06:33, 15 August 2007 (BST)
And yet, the sheer volume of comments about "how come no one complained before" and "how lame we are for bringing it up now, after it made it through the vote" makes it an interesting and valid point. That, plus the amount of shit I was given about technicalities makes me not really care so much about "lame" part of the "technicality" part of it.--Jorm 06:36, 15 August 2007 (BST)
There was another announcement feature that was up there before the wiki news. It was a bar up the top of the page with impirtant wiki notices in it, such as policy discussions and important votes. Such a vote should have gone in that. --The Grimch Mod-U! 06:42, 15 August 2007 (BST)
Jorm: I see your point. And yah, it be valid. Grim: Aight.--Lachryma☭ 06:53, 15 August 2007 (BST)
Yaknow, the nice thing about the Wiki is it has a detailed listing of edits through the History section, for folks willing to check it. And I notice a few things through the links made to us. And when I look at the voting history, I don't see any 'illegal' activity at all. You can see from where Toejam archived a lot of the entries how the voting went down here. The event was posted on June 18th, and ended on July 10, more than meeting the listed time requirements. The event had MORE than fifteen voters, meeting the minimum voter requirement. The event HAD been declared over by the involved groups, as the site itself notes, too. The article also involved multiple suburbs due to the various groups from different suburbs that banded together, even though the event itself took place in a specific location. It also marked a change in survivor tactics. So thats those requirements met. The Wiki News system did not exist at the time in a fully functioning method, as we can see from the timestamps involved for both systems. This vote was completly legal and handled properly. That said? I agree with you that the PoV for such an entry is a bit off putting, given its companions. BUT. There is no current policy or mandate that demands it should. If you firmly belive these types of pages should conform to a certain format, you should go here and submit a policy for voting. You should NOT create a previously untested and unestablished voting system to revoke a Historical status based on flawed claims and evidence. Go make a Historical Page POV policy. If you word it correctly, I'll more likely than not personally vote for it. Heck, I'll even offer to write it, as long as we preserve the existing site by perhaps moving it elsewhere. Work within the current system, please. ---MorthBabid 00:59, 16 August 2007 (BST)
Oh, see, I thought I was talking about it not being posted to the wiki news thing - you know, that part I got so much shit about and was accused of a conspiracy for? I'm guessing we're talking about something completely different now, since the history edits you're posting don't point at the "Wiki News" template or a discussion saying that it was okay that the entry completely bypass that step.
I'm not going to go make a policy; I expect that I've got as much chance of that going through as a vote, and it wouldn't fix the problem, because everyone would bitch about how the page needs to be exempt. This is a pathetically bad case of politics now, not a case of what is "right and wrong." Zombies vs. Survivors; Democrats vs. Republicans. Only we're "whiners" instead of "liberals" and they're "trenchies" instead of "suits". People vote in blocs without knowing what they're voting for just by seeing names in the list. Go back and read the "keep" votes and tell me you really, truly think that half of those people even knew exactly what they were voting for and/or were not voting that way just because it was counter to a proposal from a known zombie.
This entire "vote on what you think is important historically" system is just plain stupid. It has a merit score of zero; history defined by popular opinion is usually wrong. This is like going to slashdot and asking for advice about the best way to treat diabetes in a patient that also has alzheimer's: LOLZ MAK HER EAT APPLES AND SUK DIK (5, Insightful!). My unbeatable, proof-from-god evidence that I am right: Blackmore made it and Caiger I had to get in by fiat.
Whether or not that the "Battle of Blackmore" was an historic event is actually irrelevant to my point. I don't personally think it was that noteworthy (come on! Stuffing a single building with more survivors than zombies and claiming victory over a weakened and leaderless horde? Please - the CDF had been doing that for months beforehand); but I'm willing to concede that it is. However, the entire process by which this went about making its way into "official record" is not only an insult but laughably inept. We're talking about a page that has an official stamp that claims that one of the oldest organizations, the first one to enact a policy of "one character for player", the first one to call for "fair play" across the board - it calls them spies and zergers. Officially.
What we have here is a really screwed up mess that should, indeed, entirely be scrapped and rebuilt from zero. All pages need to have the tag yanked, and a new, more realistic, intelligent policy enacted (preferably something that doesn't involve voting). Make a council of historians and vote on its membership is probably the best way. And yeah, that sounds like a policy, but like I said: my name is poison on stuff like this and I fully well know it.--Jorm 02:47, 16 August 2007 (BST)
Well, if democracy doesn't work to get things done as you think they should then we can have an oligarchy, and if that doesn't work we can get a monarchy up an running! </joke> Now seriously, you, your affilliates and, if you pardon the rude generalization, people from the "liberal" point of view as you call it (there's actually a lot to discuss in such a tag, but I won't be doing it right now) constantly called members of the Administrational team "useless", the content of the wiki itself "trash" and the users that vote on it "stupid". Why would you even care what we useless people put our "official" tag on events voted by stupid users on a trash filled wiki?
Also, using the same logic as you made, half the "remove" votes are as valid as the half "keep" votes you called "flawed", because they do nothing but bandwagon behind the name of their zombie leaders. I know you did it only to annoy people like me, but you still included a header on the IRC channel of the MOB that commands members to vote for removal, making some people that never readed the whole article vote for against it with with the same weight as a future "erudite" from your so called "council of historians".
Finally, don't martyrize yourself please: a lot of people including me have poisonus names when using them on high visibility projects, but we still manage to get things trough. You can see that on things like Hagnat's latest changes on the UDWiki:Community Portal (that I myself discussed heatedly until he inclued a new news thingy on the main page as well, planed or not but pretty cool anyways) and my own promotion bid (my third actually). Get your policy wrote and running or don't come crying about it in front of us. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 03:41, 16 August 2007 (BST)
Lets get a few things straight here before you all get full of yourselves more.
  1. UDNews or WikiNews, or whatever the hell it is called was up and running at the time of the vote.
  2. A new policy was put in place specifically because only about 15 users were voting on historical events at the time
  3. Since the first vote(which included Blackmore) there have been a massive number of responses, on this page, of people who were completely unaware of the votes because of how they were announced, this is why events are now announced the way they are and why they get MORE THAN 15 VOTES. At that time BoB was the most voted on event, unsurprisingly by NMC members who participated in it.
  4. Mathew, get over yourself, you are a sysop but you are not any more of an authority than anyone else, stop trying to be. Also learn the whole story before commenting on someones actions, Jorm did the MOB thing well after Lachryma started organizing people in the NMC to vote against removal at a time when the only announcement was the Wiki News one and the people for removal were winning by nearly 3:1.
  5. The only reason half the people have voted against removal is the thread on the NMC and the fact that Jorm used the word Delete, people apparently are too lazy to think about what he meant vs what he said and how doing what he said really wouldn't have changed much of anything.
  6. Regardless of what the event is or who it invovled Jorm has a very valid point, a few of them actually.
Starting with the voting system causing thing people like getting into historical regardless of how many or what criteria they meet(such as Blackmore or the currently voted on Open Air), followed by events groups participated in getting auto-historical because people like that group(again Open Air), then there is the misconception that a well written, popular, or well liked article will be the official Historical document(again Blackmore and every other event) regardless of how valid or invalid it's information is, and finally there is the fact that we are voting on historical events. History isn't determined by voting it's determined by accepting it as history. Everything is history, notable history however determines itself. Yes Blackmore is historical, not for any of the reasons mentioned here and not for it meeting the criteria(which it doesn't). Jorm is right, the system has and is failing, it was not set up right, important things weren't taken into account, and this whole thing has been a horrible mess since the first event went up for voting, which is why it is where it is now. The system needs to be changed, the events with the tag need to lose the tag, and a better way of applying it needs to be done, hell it might even be better if every event, regardless of size or effect, got the tag when it ended, after all it is all history.--Karekmaps?! 11:55, 16 August 2007 (BST)
Agreed! But again: the way to solve that ISN'T by fixating on the single Blackmore entry, and trying to delete it. A policy for all entries should be submitted, and then we can review all our historical submissions. Otherwise this'll just melt down into a circle-jerk over 'Blackmore-did-this'/'No-Blackmore-didn't', and not achieve the valid points highlighted above. I personally don't think there IS a need for such a policy, so such a policy's creation would fall upon someone who actually does. But that said? I'd probably vote for a well-constructed one if it outlined some of the points and gave specific methods (Telling us HOW to do something and not just WHAT to do) for dealing with these entries. Heck, I'd even help with the various entrys being edited if it passed. --MorthBabid 14:58, 16 August 2007 (BST)
Karek, don't bother trying to argue with Matthew, as he is possessed of a peculiar form of flexible morality. When a page makes fun of him or his group (such as Sonny's old Faerie Queen page), he is correct in his righteous fury to have it immediately deleted and the miscreants punished and banned. But if the same yardstick is applied to someone else, well, it's okay - and especially okay if it's done to people he doesn't like. If it is he who complains about wiki process and the administration, it's okay, but now that he's part of that same engine, you must kneel before it. So you can't argue with him; he's already made up his mind. Don't bother doing it with "facts", either. Those are the tools of liberal scum, and cannot be trusted.
Morth: The single entry is being fixated upon because it's the most egregious. If you look at every other page in that category, it's NPOV and follows a specific format and style. All save Blackmore. The Caiger III page contains some quotes from Ron Burgundy. But Blackmore? No. That one has got to be POV. It stands out like a sore thumb, so it's an excellent target.
There are other events that could probably be made historical but I don't think they have pages. The only one I can think of is Candyland (but that has the "Pete Rose" problem: we caught Ram Rock Ed first zerging the shit out of Ridleybank as well as calling for other groups to zerg the 'bank, so it wasn't really an accomplishment or event so much as an irritant) (I just realized that many nerds here may not get the Pete Rose reference. Pete Rose is/was one of the greatest players in baseball history. But he's never, ever going to get into the Baseball Hall of Fame because he got busted betting on baseball games while he was managing the Cincinnati Reds.). The Many's defeat at Giddings. The Scouring of Shearbank. Stanstock. And you know: each one of those events actually did change the way the game was played or introduce a code modification. Blackmore certainly didn't.--Jorm 17:36, 16 August 2007 (BST)
I thought the Hidden Tower was funny... --Sonny Corleone RRF CoL DORIS CRF pr0n 17:42, 16 August 2007 (BST)
I think I'll ignore Jorm comments from now on until he stops the rantings about me and gets more factual. Vecusum/karek, you made a lot of points and accusations towards me and I can see your point but you still got some things wrong:
The wiki news were up and running as you say at the time of the BoB vote, but the additional rule that forced people to publicise votings on Wiki news wasn't added until 4 days after the vote for BoB was ended (as you can see here). Also, I didn't ever implied on any of my arguments on my year and so long wiki stay that my personal POV as a Sysop would, had, has or will have any more weight than that of any other user and that's a personal policy I don't think I'll ever break even when some other Sysops did in the past without even getting a word of punishment, so I did feel wronged on that sentence you made. When I pointed to the IRC MOB channel I clearly said that he obviously did it in order to annoy people more than really getting votes in an unfair fashion, and I did know about the post on the NMC forums. Then, you make a lot of factual errors concerning it and how "the NMC post was super unfair and it's the only reason the keep votes are winning now", falling into constant generalization and other simplification sins: I don't recall a time were the removal votes were winning 3:1 since I casted my vote (totally unaware at the time of any advertisement on non-wiki channels), but they did had more votes until AN ANNOUNCE WAS PUT ON THE NEWS THINGY as well as, almost simultaneously, the "forum advertisement war" began. There are lot's of other factors to take in account too, but my point is already made in that you made a pretty picture that leaves your cause as the fair one and the other votes as totally wrong and lacking any weight, while the facts points a lot more towards grey tones on both sides. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 21:40, 16 August 2007 (BST)
Reading is fundamental, do it again until you learn to understand the words, especially the part about the historical events policies/rules. --Karekmaps?! 12:13, 17 August 2007 (BST)

Pie

--Sonny Corleone RRF CoL DORIS CRF pr0n 05:54, 15 August 2007 (BST)

VS. Cake. Who will win?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:06, 16 August 2007 (BST)
No, no, you are missing the intricate and deep meaning of Sonny's edit.--Lachryma☭ 01:13, 16 August 2007 (BST)
π + ꁓꁔꁈꁖ?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:29, 16 August 2007 (BST)

Open Air

It's been over two weeks, and votes have stopped accumulating.
Could someone finalize the voting, please ? Sir Fred of Etruria 04:48, 31 August 2007 (BST)

There we go, it's done. --Toejam A 12:03, 31 August 2007 (BST)

Stanstock

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Stanstock Could someone put stanstock up for historical, i would do itbut i do not know how to, the prcedure is very confusing for someone that hardly ever uses the wiki, if someone could put it up for historic events it would be great, thanks.--Thekooks 18:03, 15 September 2007 (BST)

The Extravaganza

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Extravaganza I'm not sure exactly what your procedures are for this, but I'd certainly like to nominate the extravaganza for a historical event. It certainly merits a place as one. It might be a little late in the coming, but it certainly deserves it PadreRomero 19:30, 3 October 2007 (BST)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Category_talk:Historical_Events/Archive2&oldid=1283044"