UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Rename Historical Events to Popular Events

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Historical Events has been proven to be inadequate, and in order to fix it without causing too much problems, it will be formally renamed to Significant Events. All mentioning of Historical Events will be replaced by Significant Events.

(NOTE: Orignally, the proposal would rename Historical Events to Popular Events, but due to a suggestion, I changed the word Popular to Significant. This is why the title of Renaming Historical Events to Popular Events remain.)

Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
  • # ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.
  1. === Against ===

Just like in regular democracy it's not perfect but I still would like to have a say. 9/2/07 Doctaratchetti


  1. ForYeah, this gets my vote. I still would rather have we kill voting altogether. The popular vote voting system is rubbish. Implement that other policy with the "historians", rather than by popular vote. I get what you mean by trying to preserve the democratic system, but there are too many problems.
    First off-Lack of voters. The sieges of Caiger involved thousands of players over several months and what, fifteen voters showed up?
    Second off- Idiocy. Plain idiocy. One of the stupidest things I have ever seen on this wiki was votes against groups.
    I remember a pker event was up for voting and three people voted against because "Zomg lol pking is bad the point of the game is 2 kill zombies and it not fun when u killed by pker" So what, pkers don't exist or make an impact because you don't like them? Third off- newbs. several voters voted against HUGE events involving hundreds of players and tens of groups because "Never heard of it. Maybe because I joined two minutes ago is why." Seriously, if you've played for 2 months don't vote about an event that happened months ago. POPULAR = RUBBISH! POPULAR VOTE = RUBBISH!
    --Wooty 02:59, 22 August 2007 (BST)
  2. For - if this'll make people who cry out "nothing historical here" calm down it would be very cool --~~~~T''' 08:01, 22 August 2007 (BST)
  3. Yup More accurate.--Seventythree 08:04, 22 August 2007 (BST)
  4. For - simplest way to go about things. -- Pavluk 12:24, 22 August 2007 (BST)
  5. Why is this even a vote? - Look up correct words for things, they have a very good point with many considered historical game events never having a chance of getting in and all.--Karekmaps?! 21:35, 22 August 2007 (BST)
  6. For A very small change, and more accurate. Buddhagazelle 03:36, 23 August 2007 (BST)
  7. For Historical barely describes the events listed there. Significant is a better name. --Dr Frank 06:20, 23 August 2007 (BST)
  8. For. Author's vote.--ShadowScope 20:03, 23 August 2007 (BST)
  9. For Why the hell not? BoboTalkClown 02:01, 25 August 2007 (BST)
  10. For makes sense to me, as being historical aslo makes it significant in a way --Blanemcc 10:49, 25 August 2007 (BST)
  11. For The title of 'historical' causes too much hysteria. A rose by a more neutral name... Doc'Oc 09:18, 4 September 2007 (BST)


  1. Against -- for the same reasons I argued in the talk pages of the original suggestion: it's elitist and anti-democratic. And if Wooty's self-serving and infantile elitism, in the first "For" vote above, serves as an example of the spirit and intent of the people who think they are above and better than wiki democracy... well, we're doomed... And, this change of name does not equate with a change in the content of the policy. It's all merely cosmetic. "A rose by any other name..." and all that. --WanYao 04:51, 22 August 2007 (BST)
    Huh? Please read the proposal at the top again. Also, don't confuse this proposal with this proposal. What's being voted on here has nothing to do with the other idea about Historians etc. It just changes the name of the current system from 'historical' to 'significant'. The current method of voting remains the same - popular ballot, one user one vote. How can that be "elitist" or "undemocratic"? -- Pavluk 12:21, 22 August 2007 (BST)
    My arguments are intertwined and not really seperable, they're different facets of the same basic theme: the denegration of "popular" History. Your renaming basically says, "If it's voted for, that means it's popular, and the will of the people isn't good enough... Thus it can't be Real History. So let's rename it..." Thus, I say it's elitist and anti-democratic. --WanYao 04:36, 25 August 2007 (BST)
    Nope. What's being said is that ridiculously NPOV pages like the Battle of Blackmore one can't be "Real History". To call something historical implies that it possesses factual accuracy. To call something significant does not - myths can be significant for instance. Finally, I don't believe that the decision to make something historical necessarily needs to be democratic. To give all people an equal vote assumes that all will be equally capable of making a rational decision. -- Pavluk 19:05, 26 August 2007 (BST)
    Democracy is DEFINED as assuming that most people can make a rational decision. And as flawed as it is at times, I prefer democracy over any other system -- though apparently you don't... Is it any wonder I call your policy and the thinking behind it elitist? And, I'm on record supporting the idea of forming a prominent "board of historians" ... I see them having no "official" power or status other than the fact that they are trusted and experienced members of the community whose knowledge is respected... They would have a kind of "semi-official" status, though, and can offer their own semi-official historical pages and could possibly even place "approved" or "under critique" templates on the current Historical pages. Possibly. No such proposal has been put forward... if it were, and it were done right, I'd support it. --WanYao 16:57, 29 August 2007 (BST)
    Democracy is defined as giving the people power, whether or not they are qualified to wield it is irrelevant. I am certainly not an elitist, however I don't believe a democratic system is the best way of making decisions in every case. A true democracy requires an educated, rational populace. Otherwise it descends into a popularity contest between bickering factions (as evidenced by Blackmoregate).
    The policy being put forward here is, let me reiterate this, a democratic one. One user, one vote - democracy at its purest. I support this, as I believe it's the best solution that's being offered.
    Your idea of advisory historians seems flawed to me. If the historians had too much power, then you'd have your elitist oligarchy. If they had too little power, then I don't think anyone would want to spend their time filling one of the posts, as an uninformed mob could still shout them down. -- Pavluk 17:24, 29 August 2007 (BST)
    [edited] First of all, dictionary definitions don't cut it... And I'm growing tired of this, anyway... And of your "uninformed mob" bullshit arguments. I'm not bothering with this anymore... Ciao... --WanYao 17:32, 29 August 2007 (BST)
  2. Against - This is not a policy. This is a purposial for a one off edit which doesn't make a difference either way. I noticed that no one even tried to alter the categories name by beginning a discussion on it's talk page. A real policy is about adding new rules, changing them, or removing them. This does none of the above. Above all this "policy" doesn't give a reason for change.- If Jedaz = 14:20, 22 August 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
    The reason for the change is on the discussion page of this topic. swiers came up with the idea of renaming, and since Historical Events was established by a policy, I think the only way to resolve it is to have the name change come up as a policy again. I don't want to risk anyone complaining about the name change and having an edit war here. I also point to the policy that rename moderators to sysops, even though it was a name change, it still went through policy.--ShadowScope 17:04, 22 August 2007 (BST)
    The policy to rename moderators to sysop is different to this in the sense that it was changing the whole communitys attitude (and thus the rules that they were thinking by), where as this policy doesn't even begin to attempt that. Have you noticed that the Sysop-related drama since then has droped? Anyway after reading the talk page I entirely doubt that changing it from "Historical Events" to "Significant Events" will alter peoples voting or expectations of what can fit in there. As for your comment about risking people complaining about the name change, that just doesn't make sense, why are people going to start an edit war if you open up a reasonable discussion on the talk page? Just because a page was created by policy, doesn't mean that it can't be modified without one. A perfect example was the old suggestions system where it worked by general census and alot of discussion. If you use that style you'll get more informed voters, don't expect people to sell this policy to themselves just because you say a system is "inadequate". - If Jedaz = 23:38, 22 August 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
  3. Against - No point to it. Nalikill 21:59, 22 August 2007 (BST)
  4. Against - I'm with Jedaz in this. Also, it's really pointless as the people that complained originally still will be as their requests aren't fulfilled with this policy enacted. Why do we have this problem in this case? Because they didn't manage to make the Battle of Blackmore page themselves first. You can look at the pages that they did make first, and they have Category:History tags on them also, but no one has complained. Then, if people chooses by mayority a page they don't like as Historical they claim the process to be invalid, democracy to be worthless and want an oligarchy of themselves to be the choosers. This insanity ends here. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRCT+1 05:26, 23 August 2007 (BST)
  5. Against - Renaming a problem doesn't solve the problem. --MorthBabid 10:27, 23 August 2007 (BST)
    It does when the problem's with the name -- Pavluk 20:52, 23 August 2007 (BST)
    The problem is deeper than a simple semantical misunderstanding. It's a lack of any clearly stated policy for these entries, be it an accepted policy of structured formality or one of accepted informality, or a mixture of the two. Renaming the homeless to 'the unfortunatly displaced' does not solve the problems behind homelessness. --MorthBabid 05:46, 26 August 2007 (BST)
  6. Against Historic sounds more official, and the new people who get involved (I think) will be less likely to read these articles if it changes. When they DO read the articles (even if they are silly like the Battle of Blackmore) it will give a more rich backround to one of two things. 1. The community. 2. The 'history' of Malton. Either one of those will get the newer players more involved in the game. Besides, when you get right down to it... what's the change? They both kinda mean the same thing. -- EternalOne 14:25, 23 August 2007 (PST)
  7. Against - Problems are not solved with semantics.--Roger Thirnell 23:14, 23 August 2007 (BST)
  8. Against The specific utility of accumulating history was considered an important enough function the provoke a policy. History involves a culture and mechanisms for accumulating facts, determining their credibility, organizing them, analyzing their significance and interrelationships, and giving the consumers of history information unattainable by other means. Significant Events conveys a disjoint set of facts, without some or all of the refinements provided by history, which may accurately describe the product in its current state but not in any way contribute to achieving the ends sought by the original policy or by the contributers. Dylan Mak Tyme 07:12, 24 August 2007 (BST)
  9. Against - I've not really seen the point of this change. Everyone knows that the articles on this wiki have never been a very objective. This just seems like a move to satisfy a disgruntled minority. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 04:09, 25 August 2007 (BST)
  10. Against - I had a couple of big, long, rants written up. Ultimately, I decided not to post them. Changing the name will not make the NPOV Crusade go away. --Ryiis 17:32, 25 August 2007 (BST)
  11. Against - It's still the same thing and all the same articles will just be renamed. Everyone has managed one step forward one step back --Virus002 15:59, 27 August 2007 (BST)
  12. Against - Bellyaching spilled over from one page dispute. Nonsensical change. Next there could be vote to change "events" to "time instances". --Zod Rhombus 06:13, 29 August 2007 (BST)
  13. As all above. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 22:57, 29 August 2007 (BST)
  14. Against - "significant" is actually worse, as it suggests that it should be the opinion of the voter, rather than an intrinsic historical event that they should be voting on. I say thee nay. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 16:22, 30 August 2007 (BST)
  15. Against Just another case of wiki crybabyism. --Oliver Bigler 18:02, 30 August 2007 (BST)
  16. Against ~zing----Sexualharrison ה QSGTStarofdavid2.png Boobs.gif 05:15, 31 August 2007 (BST)
  17. Against -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 05:03, 3 September 2007 (BST)
  18. Against -- Calling a woodchuck a pig doesn't make it a pig. And calling a story "history" won't make it anything but fiction... so why bother with a name-change? Chronolith 07:40, 3 September 2007 (BST)
  19. Against --ZombieSlay3rSig.pngT 17:05, 6 September 2007 (BST)
Personal tools