Category talk:Historical Events

Obtaining Historical Status

A policy is in place which outlines the method to attain historical status.

Events must have been declared over. The event must have affected either multiple suburbs or how the game was played for a group, such as triggering a change. A nomination should be made on Category_talk:Historical Events. An announcement should be made on Wiki News, and {{HistoricalEventVoting}} should be put on the event's wiki page. Voting will last for exactly two weeks following nomination. To be successful, an event must be approved by 2/3 of eligible voters to pass. A minimum of 15 votes must be cast for the vote to be valid. The only allowable votes are Yes and No. Events that pass will be added to the category as described below. Events must allow a week to pass between nominations.

Nominations for Historical Status

Battle of Pitneybank (2)

I'm reopening voting for Battle of Pitneybank, which failed about six months ago, mostly due to the recounting of the event on the old wiki page. I've created a new page for the event, which I feel is a neutral accounting of the event.

Battle of Pitneybank was a 3-4 week siege which took place in Pitneybank, most notably at Giddings Mall and The Morish Building. The interferance mechanic was added to the game mid-siege, which meant both sides were forced to adjust their tactics. I feel this event deserves the notiriety of Historical Event categorization. ~ _{04:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)}

For (Battle of Pitneybank (2))

1. Make it so. ~ _{04:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)}
2. This time it's actually neutral. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 15:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
3. It's a bit light on the detail and a touch dry, but still worth the vote. —Aichon— 16:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Against (Battle of Pitneybank (2))

1. I hate to do this, because I was at the Battle of Pitneybank, and as I've always said, it is historical. And I also hate to say it, but I think I actually like the original, more controversial, more shunned article more. Sure, it needed fixing and was full of over-the-top POV drivel, but I really like the narrative structure it had, and find that more interesting and realistic to read. Fixing that article shouldn't have involved starting with a blank slate and just throwing drab facts onto a page, leaving links to much of the real content. It should have involved fixing the wording and adding a few more differing opinions. That's just my opinion. I once tried to re-write that article at one point to achieve historical event status, but it was just too difficult to do in spare time, so I do appreciate the effort you guys have done to make this article. But again I'm not sure it really reflects the sheer greatness of the original event in question, so I regretfully say no. A ZOMBIE ANT 05:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

   That's why there are links to that article (and others) at the bottom. ~ _{06:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)}

2. So much more possible than is here. Can we have another go at shopping this, please? --Rosslessness 16:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

   Any progress? ~ _{17:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)}

3. This again? --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 16:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
4. fuck you vapor--User:Sexualharrison19:48, 15 January 2013

Unsuccessful ~ _{20:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)}

Malton Uprising

Breaking my self-imposed rule about nominating events because I think it'd be interesting to see how this goes. MU was an event (yes an event, not a group) that happened between July-ish to November-ish of 08. It took place over many suburbs and had an effect on the way in which a group (DEM) played (though you might be hard pressed to get DEM to admit that MU was driectly responsible for it). Be sure to read the talk page.

For (Malton Uprising)

1. Duh. ~ _{22:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)}

   Question - If this is an event and not a group, why was it protected? The protection log isn't very clear. And in my quick searching I couldn't come up with any protected events that hadn't already been voted in. If I'm totally misunderstanding wiki policy again, my apologies. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 01:14, 11 August 2012 (BST)

   Pretty sure because of the high vandalism potential. As I mentioned, some serious business drama arose from this event. --DT^PK 01:21, 11 August 2012 (BST)

   That answers it. Do you think it would pass a de-protection so people can work on it? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 01:22, 11 August 2012 (BST)

   I dunno. There'd be a lot of people who'd oppose it. Frankly, if you need a ~fair and balanced~ account of the entire campaign, a community page - not a political organization page - ought to be created. --DT^PK 01:26, 11 August 2012 (BST)

2. Um. First of all, the above blurb is terribly written, and doesn't give even an iota of info as to what the MU was. The Malton Uprising was a massive movement that began as a long over-due reaction to unfair policies the DEM had. It was started by two much maligned players who managed to convince a host of Pro-Survivor groups, many of them quite prominent in the city, to join, as well as the usual PKA groups, and the RRF's Gore Corps. It generated several threadnaughts of drama, and its PKing spree of DEM members (which the Pro-Survivor groups took part in) enveloped most of the city. Towards to end of it, Axes High was prepared to surrender to the MU, and within a few months of the MU's dissolution, DEM internal opinion had been changed so much that most of the MU's demands were met. Also, prepare to see some serious tears be shed on both sides over the course of this vote. --DT^PK 01:01, 11 August 2012 (BST)

   Aye. Sorry it does deserve a better blurb. My annoyance with the last vote showing through. DT is right, there was lot going on, then. The survivor participation alone should be an indication of just how big this was. Whenever I talk to old PKers, this is the event that they talk about. Sadly, there will never be another moment like in this game, although that's probably not a bad thing because it means there is nothing to rise up against. ~ _{04:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)}

3. For, but ONLY if a neutral, NPOV version is made, and more than a political manifesto. -- Johnny Twotoes 02:48, 11 August 2012 (BST)

   This, to be honest. The page that V4por portrays as an 'event' page is much more along the lines of Imperium Must Die and St. Valentine's Cherubs, in that it is both a Coalition/Group page and an Event page. It has an accompanying Kill List, and the talk page is absolutely amazing, but altering it to reflect a neutral position or making it 'Historical Worthy' would to be doing it a disservice. --DT^PK 20:24, 11 August 2012 (BST)

4. shame the page is so ugly D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:26, 15 August 2012 (BST)
5. For. I thought it was an event that I was part of, though others think it was a group I was a part of. Jesus Sante ^CFT 21:25, 19 August 2012 (BST)t

--Rapture 11:58, 22 August 2012 (BST)Chris the Hunter cried so much it made so many people happy. DEM command turned out to be zerglings and TZH got shot at anyway, not because they not only zerg, but hey do not worship Donny Whalburg in his rightfull place.-Rapture 11:58, 22 August 2012 (BST)

Against (Malton Uprising)

1. Duh. You say the event changed the way the DEM played, but there's no mention of this. At the minute it's a list of problems with the DEM and a map of where people killed them. Plus, telling people to read a different page to understand why it's important is just, weird. Why was it important? How were things changed?--Ross^WHO????ness 23:00, 10 August 2012 (BST)

   Again with the rediculous notion that an article need be perfectly written to qualify for historical category inclusion. When has this ever been the case? *sigh* Most of the discussion regarding this event took place on Brainstock and whenever any of it was brought to the wiki, insane drama followed. It is no surprise then that the wiki article excludes some of the information. Don't expect to be spoonfed every detail of every event. Read into it before deciding if it was a historical moment inthe game's history. ~ _{23:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)}

   Me writing "The Dead Destroyed Everything" using MS Paint would be a similar example. I'm not asking it to be perfectly clear, I'm asking for a concise summation. What you've nominated here is basically a group page, albeit one for a coalition of groups, of people who didn't like the DEM, and so over a 4 month period killed about 2 DEM member a day. If loads of the discussion happened on Brainstock, then surely you can give us the links so we can actually decide if this did cause any changes? --Ross^WHO????ness 10:15, 11 August 2012 (BST)

   That's a terrible comparison. Its nothing like that. You've also hit on one of the controversies during the event. People claimed MU was a group and was guilty of the same thing DEM was doing, even though the coordinators of the event vehemently claimed it was not not a group and provided an explanation why it shouldn't be considered as such. Do you really think all of that information needs to be on the main article? What purpose would it serve? A link to brainstock is on the article under the heading "An Invitation to All of Malton" if you'd like to read further into it (I think you should). I don't think you're going to get a new article out of this, Ross and I think any demands for one will just create another bandwagon during voting. ~ _{16:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)}

   I'd bloody love a link, shoot me one on me olde talk page, and I'll say no more here, you mucky pup.x --Ross^WHO????ness 17:13, 11 August 2012 (BST)

   It doesn't have to be perfect, but at least the basics need to be there. When did it happen and for how long? What actually happened? The page is little more than a propaganda-driven recruiting / rallying tool, which while extremely hot and sexy, doesn't do a good job of describing what actually occurred during this event.-MHSstaff 19:26, 11 August 2012 (BST)

2. i was there and i barely remember it. so meh --User:Sexualharrison04:32, 11 August 2012
3. I wasn't officially involved, so not historical.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 08:48, 11 August 2012 (BST)
4. Historical but it's really hard to get an idea what actually happened from the current page. The talk page rocks though.-MHSstaff 19:02, 11 August 2012 (BST)
5. That is not an event page, no matter how anyone tries to spin it. It wasn't a huge deal, but it should probably make Historical, in the event that a worthy record is made. --Papa Moloch 21:37, 11 August 2012 (BST)

   FTR, the Gore Corps' involvement amounted to a single token strike, just because... We felt like it.

   which is why i don't really remember it. or i don't care.--User:Sexualharrison03:41, 13 August 2012

6. Spite is not historical. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 15:57, 12 August 2012 (BST)
7. So a number of things. The first being that this was not even close to historical. The DEM has had these complaints for years and in 2008 they got a particularly large number of them from a lot of respectable and semi-respectable players along with them also outsourcing a number of their tools. The "Uprising" had nothing to do with it even in the slightest portion, nor do I think they actually even really noticed it at all(as a group they get things like this all the time and mostly have ignored them). Second, as a person who frequently got in arguments with them about these specific things, was extremely active during the supposed time the group existed, was frequently around brainstock and DEM members at that time, and was witness to the actual discussions that lead to this change I can assure you this wasn't a blip on anyone's radar. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:55, 13 August 2012 (BST)

   Actually I take that back, it was User:Garviel_Loken, I remember that name. He was a running joke, the Warhammer kid iirc. He was a running joke even among those who actually didn't like this stuff. I don't think he ever had more than one person in any of the 20 some groups he tried to make, this one was no different. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:55, 13 August 2012 (BST)

   Wait, wasn't Garviel the Warhammer kid who started The Imperium and thought he knew everything, and then Sonny started The Imperium Must Die, which wasn't the Malton Uprising but similar in that it was petty retaliation for shit said on Brainstock. Or something? --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 17:23, 13 August 2012 (BST)

8. Somewhat influential. But the current page is a group page (meta-group or alliance), not a record of an event. So, even if it's historical (debatable), not in this form. --WanYao 20:39, 15 August 2012 (BST)

Voting has closed. This was Unsuccessful --Ross^WHO????ness 14:35, 27 August 2012 (BST)

Battle of pitneybank

I just noticed Battle of Pitneybank had never been voted upon for historical, which is kind of surprising. Yes, the article and title is POV and some of the details are contested, but that isn't criteria for historical. This was a pretty huge thing back in 2008. It followed right on the heels of one of the biggest battles of Fort Creedy and some may even argue that Silent Night and the battle of Creedy were was a part of the bigger battle. Though a lot of buildings in Pitney were ransacked by BB2 during this battle, Giddings took center stage. Certainly, it was the highlight of BB2. It completely stalled the Bash for nearly a month. Some even claim the Giddings battle was the direct result of the Interferance game update, since Kevan's zom Bub was present during the siege. The interferance update was added a few weeks into the Giddings siege and was debatably directly responsible for the beachhead leading to the end of the battle. However you feel about the documented accounting of the battle, I think its a no-brainer for Historical Events. ~ _{19:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)}

For (Battle of Pitneybank)

1. See above. ~ _{19:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)}
2. For - And I added the Historical Group Voting template to the page. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:42, 4 August 2012 (BST) (see below)

Against (Battle of Pitneybank)

1. • Nope At was frequently stated over the course of the articles talk page most of the information placed there is wrong and was done in an attempt to spin the happenings in a survivor weighted PoV. This is one of like three articles this particular user wrote in this attempt. iirc. Read the talk page, it covers EVERYTHING that justifies this article being burned in a fire and forever forgotten about. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:44, 4 August 2012 (BST)
     • I did read the talk page and I agree that the article is horribly written but does that mean we should throw out the in-game event completely because of it? Why not rewrite the article? Or write a different less POV article? I thought the purpose of this category was to nominate major events in the game's history. I think this qualifies. How many other events had a game changing mechanic mid-siege that could potentially be tied to Kevan acting directly as a result thereof? Not many.~ _{01:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)}
       • Since an historical article is protected, it should be rewritten before this stage. Everyone will probably agree that the in-game event has some historical significance. The problem is the out-of game description sucks, which means that anyone reading the event is going to come away with the wrong impression regarding the event and game, and think we are completely stoned and drunk for voting this monstrosity in.-MHSstaff 02:15, 5 August 2012 (BST)
       • Even then Vapor, this had nothing to do with Pitneybank itself beyond the zombie horde feral fall out. This was all about the Mall and the Mall adjacent stuff, at least for the noteworthy portions of it. One of the issues at the time was that even the title was PoV and inaccurate. And actually you'd be surprised about that last one, for every major siege there have been people claiming it was all because of one specific change that caused the other side to have an unfair advantage. In this particular instance the end siege information was, last I read, wrong and thus made the assumption horribly wrong. It's also worth note that Kevan has had a character embedded in most of the historical going-ons in the game.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 06:48, 5 August 2012 (BST)
2. As Karek. The event itself is noteworthy, the article itself, not so much. Although the talk page is absolutely hilarious. -MHSstaff 23:19, 4 August 2012 (BST)
3. nope as Karekey--User:Sexualharrison15:28, 5 August 2012
4. As Karek. The event itself, I'd say was historical. That page, however, is awful. --DT^PK 23:55, 4 August 2012 (BST)
5. Nominate the talk page. What are the other articles Kark? --Ross^WHO????ness 00:17, 5 August 2012 (BST)

   This had been so damn long ago that I long put it out of my mind and couldn't tell you. Check spam variants of the battle of fort Creedy, Morrish, giddings X, etc. This particular person had a history of naming up loses in a way to try to minimize the events of the event that didn't play to ZOMBIES ARE BEING GAMEBUFFED AND OP. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 06:42, 5 August 2012 (BST)

6. The event was definitely historical. This account does not match what happened there, however. Write a new account of the event (this one is beyond saving, since even the "Bashing Back" part of its title is POV), then resubmit. —Aichon— 03:03, 5 August 2012 (BST)

   I wasn't there but I'll attempt to rewrite it since clearly that's what people want (and frankly it needs it). Moloch is absolutely right, though. Not a one of the events in this category is nuetral. Some are even more poorly wriiten than this event (March of the Dead? WTF that was huge at the time and that's the best that could be done?) I'll make it known now that I'm not arguing with you bastards about the details of this event during the rewrite. If the talk page turns pear shaped, I'm just gonna say fuck it, it ain't worth it. ~ _{03:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)}

   I could take a look at March of the Dead, I'll try and make a replacement page and see if we can replace the current one with that one. Any and all participants or witnesses are free to send me info they have regarding the event or certain stages on my talk page. -- Johnny Twotoes 04:26, 5 August 2012 (BST)

7. Historical Event, but a dreadful article that needs to be rewritten before the status is conferred. We already have dreadfully biased articles that should be removed from the category. Let's not add to them. --Papa Moloch 03:09, 5 August 2012 (BST)
8. Nope See all of the above... -- Johnny Twotoes 04:26, 5 August 2012 (BST)
9. I very well remember this being nominated at one point but I could be wrong. It certainly deserves it but whether it was actually nominated or not, no one denies the amount of backlash at the time about the POV and [original editor here]'s failure to rectify the amount of butthurt (justified or otherwise) that the page created. I had a quick but hard go at fixing said POV on a page here many years later, which I intended on using to amend the article before nominating it for Historical Events myself. As you can see, I made some flavour changes and fixed up about a third of the article as much as I could, but I never got close to completion.
   I would strongly suggest, if anyone wants this as a historical event (as I very much do), that rewriting the article (with or without the changes I've already made) is the only way it's gonna happen. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:21, 5 August 2012 (BST)
10. Nope - It's pretty biased. Wasn't necessarily our fault for that, we just didn't get the right people to contribute to events. The page was written mainly by the pro-survivor side, and when it became a popular page anyone with an account on here could edit it, the result being a jumbled biased mess. The "Battle of Pitneybank title is still accurate in my opinion as there was a lot more going on outside Giddings such as the skirmishes over Creedy, Farmer NT then concentrated efforts to maintain auto-repairs and other resource buildings as backups to the mall. Main events in the battle were notably the fall of Creedy, the tidal wave of zeds hammering Farmer NT and scattering 300+ survivors within hours, followed by the Siege of Giddings itself. And if you want to be cute and add in a little side note, this siege directly contributed to Blanemcc is a PKer. But yeah, probably needs a full rewrite and needs a lot more input from the zed leadership at the time and possibly some PKer perspective as they're kind of neutral..right? --Blanemcc 13:07, 5 August 2012 (BST)
11. Against - For now. Didn't realize that Historical Event status made an article protected. Silly me! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 14:44, 5 August 2012 (BST)
12. Against -- Forget the article being badly slanted -- I was there and didn't think much of anything happened that was worthy of recognition. Asheets 17:17, 7 August 2012 (BST)
13. Against - as Asheets--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 23:40, 7 August 2012 (BST)
14. Against - as Papa Moloch --WanYao 20:44, 15 August 2012 (BST)

Voting Closed. Battle of Pitneybank unsuccessful. Feel free to finish the new article Battle of Pitneybank and reopen at a later date. ~ _{04:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)}

Battle of the Bear Pit

Currently not listed due to the lack of a single vote. This was last put to a vote when the events voting process was new and few users were aware of it and was never put back up for a vote even though it's failure was due only to the minimum votes rule. Time to fix this travesty. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 14:55, 25 June 2011 (BST)

For(Bear Pit)

1. Speaks for itself.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 14:55, 25 June 2011 (BST)
2. Obviously --Papa Moloch 15:03, 25 June 2011 (BST)
3. Damn u Ron Burgundy --hagnat 15:19, 25 June 2011 (BST)
4. You know, when you join a game in 2009, and yet have heard about an event from 2006, you know it must have been HUGE. -- Spiderzed█ 16:16, 25 June 2011 (BST)
5. Part of why the Abattoir should be historical as well. -MHSstaff 20:35, 25 June 2011 (BST)
6. Yep. —Aichon— 21:21, 25 June 2011 (BST)
7. YES. my first action under the C4NT banner.--User:Sexualharrison23:40, 25 June 2011 (bst)
8. This isn't already historical? How did that happen? -- Goribus 02:57, 26 June 2011 (BST)
9. Asheets 16:37, 27 June 2011 (BST)
10. I immediately regret this decision. --Rosslessness 16:40, 27 June 2011 (BST)
11. You woke the bears! Why did you do that? --Louis Vernon 19:27, 27 June 2011 (BST)
12. --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 12:09, 29 June 2011 (BST)
13. My tenure in UD has thus far been short, but this was one of the first articles I read. Epic. Wish the community still had this type of activity left in them. --Mightymonkeytoe 14:11, 29 June 2011 (BST)
14. Make it so. 11:41, 1 July 2011 (BST)
15. Baaaandwagoooon. Smyg 21:47, 2 July 2011 (BST)
16. “Time to fix this travesty.” As Karek. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:28, 3 July 2011 (BST)
17. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 12:31, 3 July 2011 (BST)
18. I, Ron Burgundy, do hereby vote for this historical event to become a historical event. --Ron Burgundy 23:43, 4 July 2011 (BST)

    Oui --WanYao 20:47, 15 August 2012 (BST) voting closed last year wanny --User:Sexualharrison21:10, 15 August 2012

Against(Bear Pit)

1. Nah... it was more famous in post event litigation.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 18:02, 30 June 2011 (BST)

Voting closed at some time yesterday. Didn't bother with checkuser, since the support is obvious, and 2/3 approval and 15+ votes are obviously fulfilled. Successful. -- Spiderzed█ 22:30, 10 July 2011 (BST)

Blackmore 4(04)

Voting closed 4:30 September 22, 2010. Passed with 46 in favor and 19 opposed.

Archives

• Archive 1:

• Battle of Blackmore
• First Siege of Caiger Mall
• Malton Iditarod
• Second Siege of Caiger Mall
• Third Siege of Caiger Mall
• Battle of the Bear Pit
• The Siege of Giddings Mall
• Yahoomas day
• The Battle of Santlerville
• Valentine's Day Massacre
• Mall Tour '07
• Malton Block Party
• User:RadioSurvivor
• The Imperium Must Die
• Blackmore 4(04)

• Archive 2
• Withdrawn Nominations

Historical Events Discussion

Battle of Pitneybank

Before I try again, is there any major objections to the state of the article as it is? I think some others were writing a different accounting of it butnits been months now. Just trying to avoid what happened the last time this went to vote. ~ _{20:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)}

I'd be in favor of this version. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Secondary list of chronological order?

Any votes against the creation of a timeline below the alphabetically ordered list of historical events? I'd list the events along with the dates they ran. I just think it'd provide for a more reasonable reading of this page, and world lore. Jeffool 10:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

On a Category page nothing can go below the alphabetical list, however, if anyone is interested in making something like this it could be useful, although I think one might already exist somewhere. And I found it Timeline--Karek^maps?! 13:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Although it looks like that needs much reworking.--Karek^maps?! 13:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)