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

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)

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)

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

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)