Category talk:Historical Groups

Obtaining Historical Status

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

Groups must no longer actively contribute to the game. A nomination should be made on Category talk:Historical Groups. Within two weeks of a nomination, the group must be approved by 2/3 of the voters, with a minimum of 15 voters for a nomination to pass. The only allowable votes are Yea and Nay. Groups that pass will be added to the category as described below. Groups must allow a week to pass between nominations.

Nominations for Historical Status

When nominating a group, please add a note to Template:Wiki News and add {{HistoricalGroupVoting}} to the top of the group's page.

New Nominations

Guardians of the YRC

I am nominating Guardians of the YRC for historical group status for the following reasons: it was mostly due to their contribution that Yagoton was one of the safest suburbs in Malton at that time. Also, they were the first group to publicly protest against the RG. Lastly, the group founder, Gasbanit brought Urbandead notoriety in the blogosphere.Axel27 13:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Against - Zergers get no recognition here. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Yes - For the reasons mentioned above.Axel27 13:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Against - Never heard of them, but a look over the page shows me I'm glad I haven't. 14:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

   They were active in 2006 and early 2007. Axel27 15:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

4. Against. having read the article linked from the groups talk page I don't know why we should be rewarding them for what they did. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Against - Zergers. --Private Mark 15:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Against - Oh, I say. Who were these fellows again? -- Adward  16:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Against - After a very interesting read, it has to be said, I can't find much that makes the group noteworthy other than it is built off Zerging. Which is bad. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}16:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Against – Zergs Not Welcome. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 17:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
9. Strongly Against - Who? And WTF? Everyone should read this the link here. Immature, selfish, clueless, not historical, not even a group.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 17:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, because giving it more links for Google to add to its rating is a good idea... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

   I didn't consider google. I just thought it important for anyone voting to know the score.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 17:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

   It's linked on their page, the guy's page and talk page and everywhere else he can. He's trying to push the rating up, might want to 'unlink' that bit of your post. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

   This? --Thadeous Oakley 18:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC

   Done.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 18:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

   Fuck Google. Get a life. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 18:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

10. Fuck Off --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 17:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
11. Nay - Even when ignoring the self-admitted zerging, this group hasn't really made an impact or sufficiently contributed to Malton history.--Thadeous Oakley 18:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
12. No - GTFO. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
13. No --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 18:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
14. No - I never heard of them other then what i saw on the zerg list ;) -- 
    •   Timmah!  
    •   Talk  
    18:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
15. No - To quote C. Montgomery Burns, "Who the Hell are you?" --Papa Moloch 19:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
16. Nay - You shall not pass. —Aichon— 19:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

    On ne passe pas!--Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}21:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

17. No Is for Niggers--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 21:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
18. No - <insert witty and mildly condescending remark here> --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 21:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
19. No - The only thing that I can recall about this group is zerg-related. --ZsL 00:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
20. No - Zergs. --Haliman - Talk 00:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
21. Yes - I can't find any good zerg players in StarCraft anymore-- SA 00:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    00:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    SA, we've talked about this before. Despite the fact that they both have a hive mind, the Zerg in StarCraft are not the same as the ones in Urban Dead. You really should know better by now. —Aichon— 00:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    But, but.... ;_;-- SA 00:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    Against - Frankly I'm surprised anybody remembered this, much less considered it worthy of historical status. The GoYRC, in the end, was nothing but smoke, mirrors and zerglings, propped up by multiple network connections and an overzealous wiki presence. As I said in the post so graciously linked above, I never came back to UD, and I still take full (unapologetic) responsibility for my actions. Nice to see the game is still suffering from the same brokeassedness it was when I turned down the dark path, though. Reaffirms, in my mind, I did the right thing, have no regrets, and was also right not to "go straight" and keep playing with a new character. Honestly, you guys can just delete the GoYRC page for all I care, but hey, Axel, thanks for the gesture. If any of you are playing Warhammer Online on Gorfang, look me up. I run a guild there, and I promise I'm not playing multiple accounts ;) --Gasbandit^{(Talk | GoYRC)} Invalid sig -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:57 5 December 2009 (BST)

    You're welcome, bro. You played an important part in UD history and I think everyone should acknowledge that.Axel27 08:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

22. No too much suck.----Sexualharrison 02:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
23. No Who the hell are they? --Kelly_U ^{RR talk} 05:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
24. No - Only PK zergs get historical. Congrat's Yagoton, one more zerg group -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:57 5 December 2009 (BST)

    Why the apostrophe? Axel27 08:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    Congrat's is a contraction of the word congratulations, the apostrophe replaces the missing letters -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:22 5 December 2009 (BST)

    Congrats doesn't use an apostrophe; it's an exception to the rule. Cyberbob  Talk  11:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    "Congrats" is slang, so it isn't an exception to the rule; it's an intentional, but common, departure from the rule. Technically, he's correct, since it is a contraction, but I've never seen it done that way. —Aichon— 11:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    It's a sociologically-conceived exception :smug: Cyberbob  Talk  11:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    I've always been a bit of a prescriptivist when it comes to grammar, so long as it's not unwieldy. —Aichon— 11:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    You do know spelling and grammar are two different things, right?Axel27 12:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    Oh, explains why you're a nazi about one but you suck at the other. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    You do know that contractions fall under the purview of grammar, right? —Aichon— 12:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    Don't post. Cyberbob  Talk  12:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    Congratulations is plural, when shortening you do not add an apostrophe or it would indicate a possessive. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    It's only a plural when used as a noun; it is more commonly used as an interjection. Cyberbob  Talk  12:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    Can everyone give it a fucking rest? Boxy was obviously wrong, the question is, why is everyone's attention being drawn to something so trivial when the user is just as bad at English as those he preaches against? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    Irony is just a five letter word to you, isn't it? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    Irony Def: Kind of iron like --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    I invite you to explain why you are obeying these rules constitutes a difference with Cheese's rules explains the difference between what you're saying and precedence's example. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    Are you aware of how drunk I was when I wrote that? Jesus, I'm surprised I didn't accidentally stick it in an email to whoever the President was back then. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    So you keep professing; no fucking excuse. I am drunk off my tits right now and even the worst english-speaking noobs, when drunk, don't fail that incredibly hard. You aren't the english language incarnate. Deal with it, you fucking prig. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    Well, I may, or may not have been wrong, but meh. I like using arn't instead of aren't as well, and people can usually understand what I'm writing regardless. Pity there's no talk page to this talk page really -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:08 5 December 2009 (BST)

    Just pull a Karek and delete the entire convo! --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    He doesn't need a raeson. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

25. Against - Who? --.Ryanon. ^[Talk] _{[HKL] [/zom/] [Red Rum]}--15:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    The Guardians of the YRC-Axel27 17:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

26. Against - Who? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:07, 5 December 2009 (BST)
27. No - --Hibernaculum 20:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
28. Against - Zerg --KyleStyle 20:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
29. No - what makes you historical. Weren't even good zergers ... Delusional maybe, then again I got you beat on that one. Matt Aries 20:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
30. Yes You are part of the games history even if it is just for zerging--C Whitty 20:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
31. No - Zergers are not historical.--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 23:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
32. No - Only ever heard of their zerging. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent Nominations

• Assylum - Ineligible and therefore Failed
• The Church Of The Beyonder - Failed

Previous Discussions

There are 3 archives for this page.

General Discussion

	Things Best Forgotten
	This Category talk page has an archive.

Voting Succeeded

	Things Best Forgotten
	This Category talk page has an archive.

Voting Failed

	Things Best Forgotten
	This Category talk page has an archive.