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. Within two weeks of a nomination, the Event must be approved by 2/3 of the voters, with a minimum of 15 voters (or 10 YES votes) for a nomination to pass. 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

The Battle of SantLUEville

It's been over for some time now, but the article is well-documented and finally in a conclusive state.

Just as the historical Battle of Santerville proved survivors could withstand a large-scale zombie attack, the Battle of SantLUEville proved that an organized, distributed defense could be overcome by zombies with sufficient numbers and planning. At the same time, it proved how effective this type of defense could be, even against very large and coordinated hordes. Finally, for a large battle it was remarkably organized on both sides, with few active independents, especially on the zombie side. This contributed to a unique dynamic in terms of how the battle was able to progress and be fought.

Major participants include the Dribbling Beavers, the Mad Craskers and the The Burchell Arms Regulars (among others) on the survivor side, and LUE and the RRF's Gore Corps on the zombie side.--Insomniac By Choice 13:05, 21 July 2008 (BST)

For (The Battle of SantLUEville)

1. Insomniac By Choice 13:05, 21 July 2008 (BST)
2. It's nice to see someone cleaned up the conclusion of the page since the battle. For that, and my memory of the battle, which was rather grand, I say Yes. DanceDanceRevolution 13:46, 21 July 2008 (BST)
3. It may not have been as giant and epic as the original Battle of Santlerville, but it was still a pretty big event. It remained the only time that we (LUE) struck with our full force (in other words, excluding the times when we shrunk, going solely by our days of being 300-400 strong) and weren't able to easily dismantle our opponents. It was some extremely intelligent defending on the survivors part, and it forced us to switch up our tactics-if for nothing else, this battle deserves historical status for proving that an intelligent survivor presence can make even a 300 man strike team have to think outside the box--Panthera 00:57, 22 July 2008 (BST)
4. Skullbullet 22:08, 22 July 2008 (BST)
5. Ah, what surprise we LUEsers shared that one time when we went to click "Enter Building" outside Hall NT only to find ourselves with another face full of barricade.--DJ Deadbeat 23:35, 22 July 2008 (BST)
6. LOLosaurus 00:53, 23 July 2008 (BST)
7. Before my time, but an example of a respectable conflict between two groups of classy players. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:10, 23 July 2008 (BST)
8. this was my first major siege, quite memorable--Jamoecw 08:02, 23 July 2008 (BST)
9. Grim is wrong. As both the event's page itself and the testimonials of the participants attest, this event had a major impact on the tactics of the largest and most destructive -- nigh unstoppable, really-- horde Malton had known to date. And it was huge. You don't have numbers like that without drawing people from multiple suburbs together. This event is most certainly historical. --WanYao 09:49, 23 July 2008 (BST)
10. YES! --Fifth Element 10:44, 23 July 2008 (BST)
11. It's what's led to the greater focus on active revives.--Karek^maps?! 11:45, 23 July 2008 (BST)

    Absolutely. StupidGenius 11 No timestamp. --ZsL 00:25, 25 July 2008 (BST)

12. My being a LUEser has no bearing on this decision. No sir, none whatsoever. --Zombie in Pajamas 22:45, 23 July 2008 (BST)
13. Yes. - Brona 23:11, 23 July 2008 (BST)
14. Yes, for reasons stated above. --Lejes 01:26, 24 July 2008 (BST)
15. Yes, and Rexy was real tasty. --Malkav 01:36, 24 July 2008 (BST)
16. Yes - I don't vote here much, but I think this should be a historical event.--Jamie Cantwel3 ^TalkAll glory to the Hypnotoad! 13:33, 24 July 2008 (BST)
17. Yes, it definately sounds like it would be historical. --Mutt 12:33, 24 July 2008 (BST)
18. Yes, It was a very unique fight with the planning and strategy that hasn't really ever been demonstrated on UD so I do believe that if some of the other historical events could qualify this one defiantly should. --SirArgo 18:42, 24 July 2008 (BST)
19. Yes - Well written article & interesting historical event. --Kikashie ^{Read the Dispatch!} 03:36, 25 July 2008 (BST)
20. Yes - For how it changed the purpose of the combat revive; it's now a very offensive weapon, as it pretty much means a zombie effort to kill the living is definitely neutralized - even countered - by an equal survivor effort to revive their fallen even while in battle. And we learned that from all those nights with Sexy Rexy. --Aeon17x 14:29, 25 July 2008 (BST)
21. Yes - --Papa Moloch 23:12, 27 July 2008 (BST)
22. yah - now after reading the article i changed my vote.----Sexualharrison 03:13, 30 July 2008 (BST)
23. yes. --Justin 08:14, 2 August 2008 (BST)

#Yes. Not much else to say. --/\Haliman/\ ^{T | CC | UC | P! | W!} 04:09, 8 August 2008 (BST) Vote striken, because it falls past the 2 week voting period. Sorry. --WanYao 16:28, 14 August 2008 (BST)

Against (The Battle of SantLUEville)

1. Against - Fails to meet the second requirement: The event must have affected either multiple suburbs or how the game was played for a group, such as triggering a change.. Suburbs have been wiped out hundreds, if not thousands of times by now. This is nothing new nor special. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 01:24, 23 July 2008 (BST)

   I'm not forcing *ahem* any historical opinions on you Grim but just suggesting for the purpose of persuading voters and clarifying your opinion on the battle, but does the subsequent rampage the LUE did after SantLUEville count as affecting multiple suburbs? I seem to remember a storm beforehand and a wave of destruction afterwoods, particularly west to a quickly destroyed Stickling Mall... DanceDanceRevolution 08:02, 23 July 2008 (BST)

   It affected how the game was played for LUE; it resulted in a numerical decrease from people not liking the idea of being held off (to the point that we had an attack a week or so later that had about 20 people active, though we recovered for the push to Caiger), and is what resulted in us varying up our attack times and generally approaching things with a lot more caution. Speaking of Caiger, it affected the "siege" there; this isn't too well known, as it didn't really pan out, but the only serious attempt at organized resistance involved a plan that was heavily based on the tactics used at Santlerville against us (I know this because the guy who was trying to organize that is a friend of mine, and he showed me his exact plan after the battle was done). Not much happened from it, but the closest effort to stopping the group of hordes that went on to trash half the city in celebration was directly based on this event. Seems like it would qualify to me.--Panthera 08:17, 23 July 2008 (BST)

2. I have higher standards for events. As Grim. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:39, 23 July 2008 (BST)
3. Grim's opinion convinced me. I know. That's amazing, isn't it? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:08, 24 July 2008 (BST)
4. Nah...--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 21:35, 25 July 2008 (BST)
5. NO... Grim gave me a cookie.----Sexualharrison 03:04, 30 July 2008 (BST)

Voting period finished. The Battle of SantLUEville has been declared historical by a vote of 23 For and 4 Against. --WanYao 16:35, 14 August 2008 (BST)

First Ruining of Fort Creedy

Lasted for only 8 days, but it was the timing of the largest (recorded) PK'er attack in the game with the fall of the traditional bastion of survivor strength to one of the largest hordes ever assembled, combined with it setting up the below battle for giddings, morrish, and farmer, makes it historically significant.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  00:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For (First Ruining of Fort Creedy)

1.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  00:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
2. JoTheMonkey 01:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
3. No reason why this and the Battle of Pitneybank can't both be Historical Events. Garum 17:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
4. --Roland 02:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Nice to see the Creedo's get a rude awakening. Besides, it showed the blitzkreig effectiveness of the Pkers and the hordes against the hubris of the defenders.--Shotstol 00:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Because of being the "largest (recorded) PK'er attack in the game". --Toejam 12:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
7. It is the biggest blitz in UD history and is therefore worthy of historical notice. The man 13:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
8. It wasn't just a PKer thing. The zombies and Pkers worked together. ----Secruss^|Yak|Brahnz!|CGR|PKA||EMLN|Templates|RRF|RFTM|Crap|WHOZ||MU|GN|C2008||20:42, 16 June 2008 (BST)
9. Proved the massive thesis that the forts could not fall wrong, as well as indicated the advantage of a Fifth Column to Malton attacks with the Battle of Giddings happening immediately after. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:13, 23 July 2008 (BST)

Against (First Ruining of Fort Creedy)

1. A bunch of PKers going on a murdering spree is hardly a challenge, and hardly noteworthy. Is there a Pathetic Events section? I'd vote them in for that. --Funt Solo ^QT 00:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
2. I agree with what Funt said. It wasn't that big of an event to have its own historial page and should instead be included in the Battle of Pitneybank.--Bill Striker ^C.I.A. 01:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Nah, IMO, the ruining of Creedy was all part of the Battle of Pitneybank. --Hhal 01:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

   THERE WAS NO BATTLE OF PITNEYBANK. How hard is that to understand?--Karek^maps?! 02:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

   KAREK SHUT THE FUCK UP The man 13:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

   hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 14:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

   You know she's right....--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 15:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

4. Not historical, it doesn't matter, it also doesn't meet Crit 2. Quotes like this "Unlike most other famous sieges, the nearest NT building- merely 2 AP away- did not fall before the Fort did" also have no place in an article of historical caliber as it's not even correct. Please check your facts before trying to get things submitted as Historical Articles.--Karek^maps?! 02:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
5. The Battle for pitney is much better covered in the Bashing back article. While this is an historical event it was just a part of a larger event. Those that don't believe there was a battle of pitneybank should get out of there little hidey hole and come fight like the rest of the survivors did. It was a battle.--Mr NoName001 23:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

   I agree, "there was a firefight!" Lord Rutherford 04:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

6. Funt is right. But, yeah, this is a good Event anyway. NPOV problems too, however. But don't we all have them.--ShadowScope 02:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
7. I'm gonna have to agree with funt here, it's not that important. --Fgon50 03:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
8. The sad truth is that the Big Bash and a group of PKers against the noted trenchcoaters of a fort is NOT that special. DanceDanceRevolution 10:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
9. I think more time needs to pass in order to evaluate its impact. --Z. slay3r •  Talk  17:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Against --Orm Tostesson 19:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Fgon50 03:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
12. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
13. --Catman03 23:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC) I agree with all those who've said that this needs to be incorporated into the Battle of Pitneybank article, i already started but it's more a less POV overview than what was there before than it is a whole article's worth of info.
14. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 00:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Doesnt meet crit 2 --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Against -- as funt and sonny said.----Sexualharrison 20:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
17. What is this? Who are these people? Huh?--Jorm 20:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
18. i agree with previous statements that it was only a precursor to something else, and should be considered part of that larger event. does not really deserve anything on its own. Killer robo 14:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
19. this article is incomplete and basically just badly put together... if it were a history paper, it'd get a D-, at best. also, i agree that it was bart of a much larger event, the battle of pitneybank/giddings... which was part of an even lager meta-event revolving around the 2nd Big Bash vs. many groups in many other locations, but often united in being led by people like the Cannonball Crew and C4NT... Creedy/Giddings was the biggest of those clashes, but not the only one...... food for thought, anyway --WanYao 07:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
20. Not a pathetic event like Funt said, but hardly noteworty.... like funt said.... --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 15:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
21. --Airborne88^{T Zom MIS} 11:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
22. LOLpkers. As Funt--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 07:24, 18 June 2008 (BST)
23. Ruinings should only be historical if done by fully by zombies, not when PKers intervene and make it easy.--SirArgo 21:48, 2 August 2008 (BST)

Bashing Back: The Battle of Pitneybank

This siege has been one of the largest in recent times. Although it only lasted a month, it should be considered for historical status as it was the first large siege to occur after the January 23rd updates, showing just how greatly the update aided the zombies, as until that point survivors had been able to hold out against them through strength of numbers. --Blanemcc 11:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: TO clear up a misconception, I didn't make this page. Blanemcc did.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  01:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms: # comments ~~~~ or # ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a moderator.

The only valid voting sections are Yes and No. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

For (Battle of Pitneybank)

1. I fought through the entire battle. It was truly a great event for survivors and zombies alike. --Blanemcc 11:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
2. I was there as well. I think that this is a an important siege because of the mid-siege rules change and also because the survivors held out for so long. --Hhal 11:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Why is this under REMOVAL of historical status? --Hhal 11:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

   I've moved it as it was in the wrong section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garum (talk • contribs) .

3. Yes, large enough, long enough, and involving enough people to count as historical, plus the barricading rule change makes it noteworthy. Garum 11:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

   A fair amount of details have been left out of the article and I can easily assume a fair amount of No votes probably came from those who may not have been there... But anyways I am voting yes because to those who did show up at the seige and never fled, it was truly an epic battle....I congratulate both survivor and zombies sides again for such a memorable seige! --Chaplain Drakon Macar 17:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

   Actually so far only 1, maybe 2, of the no voters weren't at the siege, everyone else was.--Karek^maps?! 17:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

   Eh...I stand by what I said to those that were not present...--Chaplain Drakon Macar 15:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

4. It was an important seige because it lasted so long and because it resulted in a major zombie buff that required a change in survivor tactics. The page does need improvement though.
5. I loved it, it was a fun time. --Fgon50 20:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
6. It was so good! Best fight ever, even though we lost! - CrazedDoc 21:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
7. It was good fun, despite the negative (from my POV) ending, and definitely important. It gets the basic nomination just for being a huge battle, but in addition to that it has huge historical importance due to the fact that a massive horde-conglomerate was able to overcome one of the greatest and most coordinated survivior efforts in Malton history! Plus i was there, which doesn't make it more important, but it definitely makes it more interesting to me, hehe. Regardless, it's definitely a historical event, and deserves status as such. --Booleanearth 01:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Yes, for reasons listed above. May need to be edited for more NPOVness, but otherwise should be considered historical. Kanoneziel 06:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Moran 20:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
10. YES! I fought as both a survivor and zombie in farmer, moorish, and giddings... Sure the article could use some rewriting, but the event is most definitely deserving of historical status.--Hellalame 23:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
11. yes, Its important to the timeline of UD--Worthog117 22:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
12. I don't care weather the article is well written or not. I participated in this even from the begining before Creedy fell all the way through to the fall of Morrish. Weather you like the article or not the event is an historic one. Record numbers of survivors and zeds were present during the duration. I feel that the people that participated deserve some recognition for it. It was a well faught battle that was great whatever side you were fighting on--Mr NoName001 22:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)]
13. Most certainly. It was a magnificent battle.--TheFireChief 03:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
14. This battle was a Major Standoff versus the Bash. It was a great fight for survivor, and a massive and well rewarded victory for zombie. We cannot forget this event.Nazdreg
15. It was a fun battle.There was one of the largest zombie hordes vs one of the largest survivor force which created a great siege. tom1504
16. I'm definately for having the Giddings siege as a historic event, although the article does need tidying up. Either way I'm still for remembering it, it was fun to be involved in. Mirasta 22:08, 4 February 2008 (GMT)
17. Very good fun, the most fun I have had playing UD since joining July 07 as part of the Yahoo blitzjj 04:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Lived and died at Gidding for most of the seige. Best event i've heard of and seen in my admittedly short playing time. Rddr 18:46, 5 February 2008 (GMT)
19. Definitely counts as historical - a month long pitched battle between 1000+ on each side. However, also needs cleanup and a move to a NPOV title (Battle of Pitneybank or Battle of Giddings would be appropriate.) -Aidan Swart 11:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
20. YES. I was in the Battle of Giddings Mall, and hell, it was a damn long siege. It was huge, and definitely deserves historical status.--Shotstol 00:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
21. It was incredibly dramatic. The first location to halt the Big Bash 2, right when it looked grim as ever once Creedy fell. The way things changed right after the update also added to this monumental and exciting siege. Perfect. Besides, did you see how quickly four suburbs fell in half a week? GG Pr0stSh0cKeR 13:12, 9 February 2008 (PST)
22. It was a time when a division of angry, tired survivors in their bloodsoaked & tattered rags, with half-empty guns, made a real stand. We stopped just about every damn group that thought "Oh yeah, this will be just another cakewalk". It turned out that Kevan even needed to change rules in order to break the stalemate. Didn't help his head from getting shot off a few times, though :D so yeah, it was one hell of a battle. I hope NW, Rangers, C4NT and many others mention and remember it with pride. Milberto 19:44, February 8th, 2008 [CET]
23. As said above this was a great example of survivors giving it there best against some of the baddest zombie groups in the history of UD.--zinker 16:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Zinker^{T!Z!A!R! F !} zinker ^M! Brainzz
24. Very entertaining siege for both sides in this conflict and it lasted a month, it deserves historical status. --Pvt human 12:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
25. Needs fixing, could someone please fix the POV problem with the article aready? most of the no votes are there because its POV. The man 13:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
26. This was an epic battle, and is worthy of recongnition for many reasons. Creeping Crud ^U 19:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
27. The battle is more than worthy of being historical.--Jleggitt^MR 20:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
28. Defenatly a major event in Urban dead--Dnaguy 19:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
29. Have no idea what the drama is about on here, nor do I care. The battle was indeed epic though and should be historical.--Lord Wulfgar 23:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

    the "drama" is not so much over the event itself: it is over the article, which is atrocious. it is incomplete and basically a kind of editorial piece. and a bad one at that. and it is totally biased towards the survivor side. i mean VERY biased, it's sickening. it doesn't even have the merits of the Battle of Blackmore piece, which was a piece cof the history itself, and was at least entertaining, funny and all said and done, for all its flaws, nowhere near as one-sided as this. this article is not worthy of serious consideration. period. WanYao 08:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

30. Lets just say you could do a whole lot worse than the most recent siege of Giddings Mall for historical events. The article's POV aside the event itself deserves the status for several reasons. First of all the sheer numbers involved aren't matched by many other events and the boneheaded rule-change in the middle definitely changed the way things are played. Lastly the event affected all the surrounding suburbs to a degree. AidenFury 09:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
31. For It was epic. Lots of people involved. --Heretic144 02:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
32. For The battle might only have been a month but many other zones fell in about 1 or 2 days! Do i need to say more? Ok i will then, just because the zone was fighting back better then so many other many people from other 'burbs came to aid in the battle because they really wanted to bash back at BB2. They did lose the fight in the end but it was worth it! (I might sound like i don't like Big Bash 2, but what i mean is because of the "We ruin suburbs in 1 or 2 days"'ness they have i think it is Epic that they pushed BB2 back for a month, thats like 15 or 30 days more then other suburbs was able to) --TheGuyWithHisPantsOn March 3 2008
33. For -It was truly remarkable, and a fight to remember!! Worthy of historical status--Airborne88^{T Zom MIS} 12:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
34. For Jordan Salafack 10:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
35. For Important event for both sides in the game. --Meridian100 16:54, 2 April 2008 (BST)
36. ----Secruss^|Yak|Brahnz!|CGR|PKA||EMLN|Templates|RRF|RFTM|Crap|WHOZ||MU|GN|C2008||20:42, 16 June 2008 (BST)
37. -- Ioncannon11 21:10, 16 June 2008 (BST)
38. Big fight, lots of stuff happened and it got documented. --Insomniac By Choice 09:16, 7 July 2008 (BST)
39. I defended Giddings and the Morrish Building before they fell and my character lost his life defending it. It was a very memorable moment in UD B0ba Fett 01:43, 10 July 2008 (BST)

Against (Battle of Pitneybank)

1. This article is in no way good enough for historical status, an article will be written up that is more acceptable to everyone involved instead of this horrible example of everything that an article shouldn't be. The event might be historical but this article doesn't give any realistic information on it nor is the title one that actually describes the event in any real way(no one refers to it as the Battle of Pitneybank, or Bashing Back). This article is far from acceptable--Karek^maps?! 11:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

   May I remind you that what you are voting "no" on is the battle of giddings altogther? This isn't a vote for whether the article is NPOV or not its a vote for whther or not the battle should be considered historical or not.The man 13:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

   i voted against the article. i would be likely to vote FOR the event. although i think it was a part of a much larger event which was the Big Bash vs. Survivors (led into epic battle often by the likes of C4NT, the CC's etc. etc., who proved themselves worthy opponents and leaders in all battles we have fought) in the winter of 07-08, but whatever... the article should go to the recycle bin... then we can deal with the historical stauts of the event.... --WanYao 08:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

2. Sorry, no. Not with the article in its current state. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 12:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
3. As long as POV stuff like "survivors were inexcusably uncoordinated and showed no respect for proper tactics" remains on the page, I will vote against. It would be okay to say "survivors were uncoordinated", if one also provided an example to back up the claim. What exactly is "respect for proper tactics"? The article should be NPOV for acceptance. --Funt Solo ^QT 12:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

   May I remind you that what you are voting "no" on is the battle of giddings altogther. The man 13:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

   Survivors were uncoordinated at certain stages in the battle so that statement is true. At Farmer, we lacked the coordination to repel the horde. At Giddings we lacked the coordination to re-secure the SE corner, and at Morrish... well, at Morrish there was no coordination at all since many defenders were killed quickly whilst Giddings survivors ran for the hills, leaving the mobile groups to die off. --Blanemcc 12:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

   The blatant lies like claiming that survivors managed to empty the mall of 100+ groups of zombies don't help much either, biggest group survivors ever emptied out of the mall was about 70-80. This is why we wait for things to be done properly instead of attempting to be the first to publish. We aren't the Post.--Karek^maps?! 12:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

   I should probably also point out that there's little NPOV in the article, it swings from one extreme to another frequently.--Karek^maps?! 12:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

   Blanemcc, the word "inexcusably" is the key to the POV nature of the statement. I feel sure that any survivor could come up with an excuse for not being coordinated, so a lack of coordination amongst survivors is not impossible to excuse. Anyway, it's only a single example to illustrate a point. --Funt Solo ^QT 13:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

4. Definitely not in it's current state. Chaotically POV. The "Conclusions" section is mostly BS, and for those parts that aren't total BS, the battle had no special significance in proving them. Also, I'd like to see the survivors take back the mall before even considering the declaration of the event as historical. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
5. The article is a pile of crap. It needs, at the very least, a complete rewrite. History should be made with as little POV as possible, and this article is filled with POV to overflowing. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
6. mmm, nay, article should be definitely rewritten --~~~~ [talk] 16:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Needs work. And a lot of it.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 16:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Everytime a mall tour hits an area, doesn't count as a historical event. Sorry.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 17:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

   But the point is that we held them back for an entire month. I'm not sure anyone has held that long against any other Big Bash or Mall Tour. --Hhal 17:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

   big effing deal blackmore 1 was longer... this sort of battle happens every day in malton.----Sexualharrison 22:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

9. While the event itself is clearly deserving of historical status (I mean, how often do two groups of 500+ duke it out for a month?), this article is just plain horrible. Most everything in it, title included, is a NPOV nightmare. A new, more respectable article must be made before my "yay" is given. --JoTheMonkey 19:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
10. It should have hiostorical status but the page needs to be entirely rewritten. It should be more dramatic and add more elements to its writing. --Mrangers2 20:34, 2 Febuary 2008 (UTC)
11. Lots of POV in the article. I hate POV--Finis Valorum 20:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Way too POV. It needs to be guarded against people adding random bits of POV bullshit to it. Blanemcc, I'm glaring in your direction here. I at least had good intentions, and attempted to remove the POV- I wasn't always, or some would argue, even usually successful, but I tried to reduce the POV.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  00:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

    List of what this article needs:

    1.Move to a NEUTRAL page name

    2.Rewriting to remove POV

    3.Time to see what the real implications are of it.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  00:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

    Hah. You're the one who made the page (thus deciding on the page name), and you're the one who wrote the Conclusions section - arguably the most POV bit of the lot. For you to be blaming Blanemcc is laughable. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 01:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

    Hell no. I didn't make the page; BLANE did. Look in the history. I didn't make the page, I was just its most fervent contributor. And I had a bad day the day I wrote the conclusions bit. I'm sorry about that; but everyone has an off day once in a while. I would've replaced it; but it was changed before I could do anything. Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  01:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

    There's always some excuse, isn't there? In any case - whether it's true or not (and severely doubt that it is), the fact remains that you wrote it, and tried to pin the blame on Blanemcc. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 02:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

    I wrote most of the framework; but people constantly came in and rewrote it and added on. If you look at the page before other people started editing it, you'll see that I had it NPOV. And if you look at the page whenever I edited it, I always went to great strides to remove the POV from their contributions. Don't blame me since you're getting in on the ass end of the page's creation and you only have rumor and your own bias to go off of in the terms of POV and who wrote what.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  02:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

    I wondered how long it would take you to lapse into ad hominems. On the topic of your "NPOVness" - I think this speaks for itself. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 02:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, yes it does, you're right, it does mean you're an asshole.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  02:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

    I don't really see how your POVness relates to me being an arse. But sure. Why not. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 02:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

    Because I already addressed that. I admitted that was a POV edit, I was merely having a bad day and was pissed off. Why is it, cyberbob, that whenever I stop editing, you stop editing, and when I come back, you come back? Is it just to piss me off that you remain on the wiki?  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  02:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

    Oh no. I'm not falling for that red herring. We're discussing your attempt to lay the blame on others for the POVness of the article when you - whether you had a "bad day" or not - are in fact the main instigator of this shit. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 02:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

13. Needs to be re-written - W 12:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
14. The event is historical, but the write-up sucks. I would suggest not calling it 'The Battle of Pitneybank' -- we can't call every single important event 'The Battle of Suburb-name', there have been battles in Pitneybank before and there will be more in the future. The Battle of Santlerville is called that because it was over Santlerville specifically, not over a specific building or group of buildings. These events turned from the battle of Creedy to the battle of Giddings to the ruin of Spracklingbank with a quickness. Karaburma 23:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
15. As everyone else - this is historical, but the write-up is absolutely terrible and ridiculously far from NPOV. If some serious revisions take place, I'd change to a for. Sheana ^{T / TMZ} 01:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Any page that gets to be historical usually will get protected and therefore immune from any revision. The page got NPOV problems, hence it probraly should be fixed. If we got lots of people screaming about how the article is evil, it's NOT NPOV. And, besides, the last thing I want to do is have Blackmoregate II.--ShadowScope 02:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

    Historical events do not get protected, while historical groups are. The reason being is so people can edit the event for clarity, NPOVness (althought the article should be at least acceptably neutral beforehand), spelling + grammar, etc. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

17. Needs to get NPOV'ed. --Z. slay3r •  Talk  17:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Against. Way too POV. --Orm Tostesson 19:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
19. The fight does deserve historical event status, but the page needs to be completely redone. Make it more neutral and you'll get a For vote from me. --Zombie in Pajamas 21:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
20. I agree with the multitudes about it being too POV. Perhaps we can strike Creedy and Farmer from it since they were hardly epic and didn't meet criteria #2 and just condense it down to the siege of Morrish and Giddings. --Kingdem 8:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
21. I was there, and yes it was epic and is worthy, but the article seems to be written from zombie POV. needs NPOV. --N41X 16:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

    I assure you that we've been attempting to get the Basher side as well but said attempts have been unsuccessful so far, we're trying, we are, but some zombie players are not being very cooperative...--Chaplain Drakon Macar 16:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

22. Too recent. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 00:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

    I'm sorry but that sounds like a fairly stupid reason to oppose this. I mean, if you don't like the article or something than that's one thing, but who says something can't be historically important just because it's recent? --Catman03 02:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

    Because things can still be added to it since it is still recent you thick fuck. Use your head and think before you say something. And learn how to comment on votes. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 02:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

    You mean learn how to do things like speak courteously when with others? Chill out, hes as entitled to his opinion as you are. --JoTheMonkey 04:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

    Sonny's infamously rude and obnoxious: don't expect him to behave in any way reasonably. --Funt Solo ^QT 16:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

    Meh, he may be rude but the too recent comment is just another example of this not meeting Crit 2 of the voting requirements, we don't know if it has effected how the game was played yet because there hasn't been another real mall siege since as it's been too soon for another one to happen.--Karek^maps?! 18:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

    Just because my way with words is often blunt and to the point doesn't mean I'm any less right. Karek hit it right on the head. And the reason why I choose rude over kind is because if I was kind you would have never read what I said. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 20:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

23. Historical status for a disputed article? Brilliant. Sanpedro 03:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
24. The article sucks. It's another example of survivor bullshit machismo.--Jorm 08:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
25. The battle of Giddings or however you wanna call it is historical in mine eyes but I agree, the article is beyond good nor just.--MisterGame 16:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
26. After reading that article, I can only say: My eyes! My brain! My eyes *and* my brain!! AAAAAAAAAAGH!! --Specialist290 ♠♥♣♦ 21:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
27. Too soon. --The Hierophant 14:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
28. Withdraw - I've got an idea. How about we wait until the article is finished? There are still edits going to this very day. Once it is all set and popular opinion says it is ready, why not protect the page, and then put it up for historical event nomination? Until then, it's pointless to vote on the event. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 16:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
29. Against -- too soon, and really not that big a deal. also I vote against anything that has south park photos from now on!! ----Sexualharrison 20:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
30. DanceDanceRevolution 04:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

    What are your reasons? --Hhal 01:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

    That's not needed here.--Karek^maps?! 07:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

31. Against -- I took a break from the game before this long awaited clash took place. So I wasn't there splattering all the shiney trenchcoats with the remnants of fresh grey matter... I'm sure it was epic, though... But... this article sucks ass and is NOT worthy of historical status. GOOOOOOOONG, next rewrite... --WanYao 15:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
32. Against -- Har Har... No...--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 16:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
33. --Druuuuu ^OcTRR 21:26, 28 May 2008 (BST)
34. Huh -- What? No, let's not. --Vandurn 13:34, 23 June 2008 (BST)
35. The event, like the Bash before it, would earn Historical status on this wiki, however, the current state of the article forces me to vote against. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:15, 23 July 2008 (BST)

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

• Archive 2

The QSG's Library Tour

so it's been two weeks i think we got this one----Sexualharrison 00:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You can cycle it yourself, it's just adding of some categories and a template.--Karek^maps?! 01:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

nah i'm too lazy. but thanks----Sexualharrison 12:41, 27 December 2007 (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)

March of the dead

There's no arguing this didn't affect most of malton. And the find rate for syringes had to be raised to stop it so it sure changed the way we play the game.