UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Rename Historical Events to Popular Events
"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 20:04, 28 July 2007 (BST) "
swiers suggested this some time ago, and seeing the damage that has been caused by Historical Events, I think it might be better to adopt this idea instead of subjecting Historical Events to high standards that can never be reached. "Historical Events" are supposed to be confirmed by the people, in order to help establish what is good. It failed in presenting historical stuff, but it does represent what events are popular and loved by the people. Hence, we just call it what it is: a glorified popularity contest.--ShadowScope 00:57, 17 August 2007 (BST)
Hm, I'd still like to see some Historical stuff, but Popular Events sounds good too. We delete all unused groups I assume? -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:12, 17 August 2007 (BST)
- Events cannot be deleted. Groups can, but only if they are inactive and not historical.--ShadowScope 02:40, 17 August 2007 (BST)
I still think there is room for historical events, however I think these have to be far-reaching and/or climactic. For example, I think that the first seige of Caiger Mall set out what Mall seiges were to be, and Mall Tours have left swaths of the city in ruins. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 08:53, 19 August 2007 (BST)
- if it was popular, then it obviously involved and/or affected a lot people. making it potentially historical...
- you know... this suggestion is all about elitism. and as such is actually quite offensive. it assumes that the "swinish multitude" are stupid, and that popular opinion and **gasp** democratic processes are not worthy of being taken seriously, not worthy of being considered History-with-a-capital-H, feh. i oppose it strongly both on principle, and on the basis of the pragmatic argument i offered above. and encourage the rest of the "unwashed masses" to do so as well. --WanYao 17:26, 19 August 2007 (BST)
- It isn't elitism. I'm trying to save "Historical Events" main goal of having people voting, by acknowledging the fact that it's about voting by the people. There are some events that are not popular, Dia de Mureto, for instance, that is considered important by some people, but not by most people, due to the fact that most people weren't there. Instead of trying to force in all kinds of events that may have a huge impact but that other people don't care (or removing the election-part), we admit that these are the events that the wiki population feel are important, and let pro-zombie and pro-surivior Historians create their own timelines outside of the framework of this thingy. I just want to stop another "Blackmore" feud from happening.--ShadowScope 18:29, 19 August 2007 (BST)
- sophistry, mere sophistry your words.... these proposals are ELITIST, period. you want to create an effective oligarchy to write the "official history" and to relegate the "popular" to an inferior, "semi-official" status. that is the net effect of the two proposals up for discussion. while the drama surrounding the battle of blackmore proposal may be quite disturbing, even a little embarrassing to the community (or at least it ought to be), it is far, far healthier, more open, more democratic than your proposed elitist "solution" -- and thus infinitely preferable. that, my fellow, the whole blackmore thing, is what democracy looks like. sometimes sordid, sometimes ugly, always full of conflicting points of view. and it's what i want. and it's what i hope the wiki community, as well, wants. anyway, i've said enough and said it unequivocally. my opinion is on record, and i think i shall at this point withdraw from this discussion. cheers, all. --WanYao 01:33, 20 August 2007 (BST)
- Um, it sounds like you're talking about a different policy. If you are, your comments would be better placed on that policy's talk page instead of here, because the two policies are different and separate. -- T 15:01, 20 August 2007 (BST)
- sophistry, mere sophistry your words.... these proposals are ELITIST, period. you want to create an effective oligarchy to write the "official history" and to relegate the "popular" to an inferior, "semi-official" status. that is the net effect of the two proposals up for discussion. while the drama surrounding the battle of blackmore proposal may be quite disturbing, even a little embarrassing to the community (or at least it ought to be), it is far, far healthier, more open, more democratic than your proposed elitist "solution" -- and thus infinitely preferable. that, my fellow, the whole blackmore thing, is what democracy looks like. sometimes sordid, sometimes ugly, always full of conflicting points of view. and it's what i want. and it's what i hope the wiki community, as well, wants. anyway, i've said enough and said it unequivocally. my opinion is on record, and i think i shall at this point withdraw from this discussion. cheers, all. --WanYao 01:33, 20 August 2007 (BST)
- It isn't elitism. I'm trying to save "Historical Events" main goal of having people voting, by acknowledging the fact that it's about voting by the people. There are some events that are not popular, Dia de Mureto, for instance, that is considered important by some people, but not by most people, due to the fact that most people weren't there. Instead of trying to force in all kinds of events that may have a huge impact but that other people don't care (or removing the election-part), we admit that these are the events that the wiki population feel are important, and let pro-zombie and pro-surivior Historians create their own timelines outside of the framework of this thingy. I just want to stop another "Blackmore" feud from happening.--ShadowScope 18:29, 19 August 2007 (BST)
Out of the two policies, this would be the one that gets my vote. I think that the only thing wrong with the current system is the name. By calling something 'historical', it has the connotation of 'official'. Hence Blackmoregate, where the pro-zombie wiki users felt that an NPOV attitude was passing for the official line. + - By simply renaming 'Historical Events', this problem can be largely removed. May I suggest though, that 'Significant Events' be the new title. Just as 'historical' is quite a loaded word, so is 'popular'. Just my opinion, but it carries undercurrents of crassness, banality, triviality. -- Pavluk 14:06, 20 August 2007 (BST)
- And yet, by virtue of the fact that it is a popular vote, it makes it "popular" over "significant".--Jorm 00:05, 22 August 2007 (BST)
- Not so. "Popular vote" is not a vote on whether something is popular. Popular has several, distinct meanings. (See [1]) A popular vote is a vote which involves the whole populus. A popular event is one which is viewed favourably or with approval by the whole populus.
To illustrate, the St Valentine's Cherubs passed a popular vote to become an historical group. Were they popular in the sense that the majority of voters approved of or liked them and their actions? Likely not. -- Pavluk 11:41, 22 August 2007 (BST)- Popularity is nothing but the favourite current obsession of the mob (AKA easily led idiots), who are easily swayed by saturation advertising, pretty colours, and cheap bribes. Importance is something else. Go the other way, AKA the other policy about this under discussion at the mo--Crabappleslegalteam 02:06, 26 August 2007 (BST)
- Not so. "Popular vote" is not a vote on whether something is popular. Popular has several, distinct meanings. (See [1]) A popular vote is a vote which involves the whole populus. A popular event is one which is viewed favourably or with approval by the whole populus.
