UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Policy to Revamp Historical Events

Why don't we just get rid of the historic tag? It's unneeded. It serves no purpose at all. It all started with groups and because we delete those if they're unimportant and inactive. We don't delete any other content. This whole historical event business grew out of some misguided idea. To create yet another idiotic position here for something as purposeless as giving out honorifics to to events is counter productive. Lets burn the current system and simply let a couple of old timers who feel like it create a page with an overview of interesting events in link form.

To formalize some non-issue like this is creating senseless bureaucracy beyond the pale. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vista (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Yeah! Burn the witch... err, i mean, lets simply get rid of this historical event tag... i never liked it anyway. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:32, 17 August 2007 (BST)

If it could be done right, I'd like to see historical events remain a part of the wiki. Caiger I & II seem to be the only events from "a long time ago" people remember, which is sad because the people who played UD in 2005 and developed the strategies and metagame for it are probably the only reason why it's popular today. The darkest days where every suburb was mostly abandoned and closed doors was a survivor's only defense is a far cry from sieges involving thousands of players, but that all happened within the first few months. Granted, "historical" may lead to all kind of problems as far as the official record goes and what it is, but there are a lot of events that aren't popular at all and yet still deserve to be considered noteworthy. The whole DARIS saga and its end when zombies came in and wrecked Shearbank for weeks afterward is great drama, then, now, and any time. Survivors like the SLA chose zombies over other survivors, and once DARIS was pushed out, even made a point to hunt them down so they couldn't ever reform. But today, most players don't even know who the original DARIS was. It's important to have a timeline to see how the original Council of Leaders sufficed when safehouses were a rarity, to now the uber-bureaucratic survivor organizations like the DEM that have branches everywhere. It's important to know why The Many killing a dozen people in a night inspired fear in people in a way much larger groups like the RRF or Shacknews never have. A history of Urban Dead is a context to it, past present, and future because without it, things just happen.--Insomniac By Choice 03:41, 17 August 2007 (BST)

As Insomniac, I'd like to see historical events remain a part of the wiki, but this system seems too sinister to be a part of it, so much that I rather see historical events dissapear than remain as this. It's is extremely vulnerable to abuse, like if we have 6 historians that like, let's say, "donuts" and 4 that rather "eat cookies", the 6 historians will vote the "cookie eaters" out the position of Historians and leave space free and repeat until all seats are occupied by "donut eaters". Also, it's stated on the policy that it has a preferance for perpetuate Historians on their posts, another rather obscure rule. Also, these "Historian" guys will be the ONLY users, including Sysops, to have a bigger authority on the wiki. The policy itself doesn't follow the spirit of a wiki at all, and it's more of what you would expect on a corrupt country or something like that. It actually reminds me of the 1880's generation in Argentina... kinda strange. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:14, 17 August 2007 (BST)

Could we just have a long, over-arching timeline of many events in UD's history that simply 'marks' events and leaves the subjecticity to the articles themselves?

I think UD is sorely lacking some sort of timeline. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 08:56, 19 August 2007 (BST)

as mr. farenheit said, this idea is sinister. and elitist and anti-democratic. and thus runs contrary to the spirit and intent of wiki-ism. see my comments on the other suggestion's talk page for my polemeic on this theme. in short, bad bad bad idea. and... viva la raza!! --WanYao 17:34, 19 August 2007 (BST)

but to be more constructive, we could have board of historians who could work on "official" history pages. but, those "historians" needs to be able to be recalled by those who elected them -- by the wiki, and not just by each other. and do not take the history from the people, this is our history, not merely some elite's version of events. make a semi-official board of historians if you really feel the need, and y'all can go nuts. but leave everything else as it is, don't steal our history. --WanYao 17:39, 19 August 2007 (BST)

Urban Dead has had a time line for quite sometime, it just has a habit of falling into obscurity from time to time. The Timeline was for maping out the events that changed the history of the game so why not just complete the already existing timeline page. It would be easier for everyone involed and would avoid adding another layer of bureaucracy - Vantar 21:26, 19 August 2007 (BST)

Why create a new post to elect to fill for something that is so obviously going to be filled with candidates incapable of being NPOV. Why not just use Sysops instead. It saves time and effort, and means impartiality is already assured (What, you mean you trust us to mod your wiki, make judgement calls on all sorts of things, yet you dont trust us with a silly historical page?). --The Grimch ^Mod-U! 04:07, 20 August 2007 (BST)

Hey, man. Someone said "create a policy or shut up." So I did. I don't want this to pass at all; I actually want to have Historical Events go away.--Jorm 04:12, 20 August 2007 (BST)

The stuff in parentheses was a joke towards those who would dismiss the idea of using mods instead of freshly elected people. And hey, with that change, it could actually work. --The Grimch ^Mod-U! 20:43, 20 August 2007 (BST)

This is a very bad idea. This is a wiki about a text-based game where zombies and humans chase each other round a giant grid. It doesn't need to have a level of bureaucracy to rival the United Nations. There's never going to be a perfect system for dealing with the 'historical event' issue. Even getting rid of them entirely would lead to a lot of people wanting them back.
The current, democratic system will obviously be seriously flawed, because democracy itself is seriously flawed. The oligarchy being proposed here will have the same flaws as all oligarchies. Those who want to keep the concept of historical events will have to accept that no solution will leave all parties satisfied. In conclusion - the other idea up for discussion, a simple renaming, is better. -- Pavluk 14:18, 20 August 2007 (BST)

There are merits to the idea. A dedicated "Supreme Court" of (I won't say unbiased because that's next to impossible, but how bouts "less biased") historians is an ambitious, worthwhile goal. Limiting the number of sitting historians to ten might be a mistake, and having elections every 3 months might be too close together. The idea of the post is for objective long-view evaluation of the path of the city right? I'd argue to lengthen the term to 4-7 months, or that removal depends on more stringent requirements. I will get ridiculous and preachy for the next sentence: I like the idea of dedicated historians a whole hell of a lot but giving them veto power over the wiki seems to go against the purpose of the fourth estate you're proposing to create. If any group of historians shows up I'll be first in line (as many of you might have guessed from my past contributions). I just don't think they should be given the power to strike down what anyone else wants to create for the game in good fun. A simple tag for those pages deemed of exceptional merit and perspective might be enough. Anything with that badge can have the distinction of the Historians' approval and patronage. Anything without the badge can be understood by the public to be taken with a grain of salt.

And I absolutely agree with Dux Ducis. First order of business for the timeline should be the numbering of the seiges of Caiger. Maybe Shacknews as third, and the combined back and forth between the CRF and MPD/CMS/NMC of late 2006-early 2007 as a grand Fourth Seige. Or maybe not even a seige. Something more like a campaign. "The Legacy Campaign" or some other stupid name, as both sides were fighting for bragging rights regarding a seige from years ago.Tyler Whitney0 02:34, 21 August 2007 (BST)

I'm afraid I can't agree with this 'Supreme Court' deal. It's too messy and risky, espcially considering who we are: A wiki for a freakin' internet browser game. This policy, while I appreciate the attempt, seems to drown us so much in the letter of the 'law' for Historical entries that it seems to kill its spirit. Rather than risk making a tiny and potentially corrupt and biased group of people, shouldn't we focus on just making set guidelines for the entries that we can ALL agree on, and that can be ammended need they be? Wouldn't THAT be serving the spirit as WELL as the letter far more than this rather convoluted (yet well meaning) attempt? --MorthBabid 02:36, 21 August 2007 (BST)

Unless you have some form of independents doing the voting, every single vote will be passed or rejected simply on popularity. Case in point: Blackmore. It should never have gotten in as written. --The Grimch ^Mod-U! 10:53, 22 August 2007 (BST)

This is complicated, which is good. Either scrap the Events idea all together, or make some tough guidelines and qualifications for Historical Status. Make it a pain in the ass. Make it work, so Joe BlackCoat from Army of One has a hard time nominating something retarded. Can you add an Electoral College, a veto system, and a shitload of red tape? If so, I'll vote for it. --Gut stench ^{FU BAR} 13:30, 22 August 2007 (BST)

Something does need to be done. The current policy is too vague. A prime example has been mentioned above. D.A.R.I.S. is once again active and a disambiguation distinguishes the old group from the new one due to it's classification as a "Historical Group". Also, someone, or some team, call it what you will, needs to take up the helm again to beef up the Timeline and decide what qualifies as "historical". This team should be separate from the SysOps. While what they do is generally a good job in maintaining the Wiki, it doesn't necessarily qualify them as Malton historians. I've been playing UD for over 2 years now and things are nothing like what they were in August '05 when I started. There are more groups, more skills, more tactics and a lot more players now. There's a lot of history here that doesn't get the degree of attention that it deserves. This policy seems to be a good idea. --Headless gunner ^W! 07:10, 24 August 2007 (BST)

That's because Caiger is The Only Mall Ever, and no other suburbs exist outside of its immediate neighborhood. What makes you think that having a couple of Heroes of Caiger (no offense to Caiger mall and people therein) elected historian is going to change anything? In fact, the best way to have less important historical events get some attention is to not have any system that promotes some historical events over others. I was never a big fan of protecting pages, and deciding that they are done, either. --Daranz^{.t.mod janitor.W(M)^∞.} 13:26, 25 August 2007 (BST)

This sounds like T-shirt-commercially-available envy! Who cares? Our favourite malls are Calvert and that one in Shearbank that always does well in sieges! Anyway, enough about us - this is a great policy to help defend history from those who can't remember what happened 2 weeks ago. We recommend you further change the rules for voting historical events/groups etc. to weigh in favour of keeping them. Unless you're running out of room.... too many voters are too subjective, and have a habit of rejecting things based on subjective factors. Blame it on the kiddies!--Crabappleslegalteam 01:57, 26 August 2007 (BST)