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 Yes and No. 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.

The Dead

The_Dead. Let's do this and move on before the rules change. For those of you that don't know us.

• Largest Zombie horde ever topping 1,500 at one point.
• Created the most red suburbs on the Danger map.
• Brought the survivor population down to around 32%
• Took down 3 malls in one night.
• Irritated the hell out of the wiki.

The last two are the ones we are the proudest of.-- #99 ^DCC 23:18, 13 June 2009 (BST)

My "the Dead" is disbanded. The Dead responsible for all of this is no more. I seriously doubt that any members of The Dead (2.0 or The Next Generation) will have any wiki presence. All of the "known" members - Katthew and well, anyone on V/B - have long since retired. The Dead will never have this kind of impact again. And if for some odd reason it does, then I will make sure the goons come up with a new name and not be assholes.-- #99 ^DCC 19:17, 15 June 2009 (BST)

Yes

1. For/Vouch/Pro etc What can I say about the dead that hasn't been said before? Creating an apocalypse in a game that is apocalyptic itself. Good times it were. Some intentions like "breaking the game" were perhaps not so noble but in the end, you provided unseen excitement in the sometimes dull city of Malton. --Thadeous Oakley 23:33, 13 June 2009 (BST)

   On a side note, wouldn't it be better to nominate the March of the Dead as a historical event? This because this group is still active and such.--Thadeous Oakley 23:35, 13 June 2009 (BST)

2. For --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 23:45, 13 June 2009 (BST)
3. HELL YES - The only group that ever brought challenge to the "game". DO IT AGAIN.--Zombie Lord 00:45, 14 June 2009 (BST)
4. \o/--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 00:54, 14 June 2009 (BST)
5. Yes - User:Whitehouse 01:33, 14 June 2009 (BST)
6. Yes - duh. Also - why not nominate the March while you're at it, DCC? Linkthewindow  Talk  02:26, 14 June 2009 (BST)
7. Yes - Whether or not their 'leaders' officially announce that The Dead are no longer active, I will always vote them for this in a heartbeat. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:11, 14 June 2009 (BST)
8. Yes - As DDR. --Haliman - Talk 03:37, 14 June 2009 (BST)
9. Yes - they were annoying nutcases that i would love to personally ban one-by-one and have their faces set on fire. So, when is the group becoming active again ? :) --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 04:05, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   right back at you hagnut. :) -- #99 ^DCC 19:17, 15 June 2009 (BST)

10. Yes - There are people who play UD and don't know about you? Holy crap. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:19, 14 June 2009 (BST)
11. Yes as one of the principle targets , both personally and as a member of a group, The Dead I cannot in any fashion be opposed to this nomination. It was outstanding. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 05:31, 14 June 2009 (BST)

    I'm still pissed about that DoDH workaround, you magnificent bastard!-- #99 ^DCC 19:17, 15 June 2009 (BST)

    awwwww I feel the love...wait....thats not love, THATS NOT LOVE AT ALL!!!! Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 04:11, 16 June 2009 (BST)

12. Yes --Cyberbob 06:11, 14 June 2009 (BST)
13. Yes - Nuff' said.--SirArgo ^Talk 06:35, 14 June 2009 (BST)
14. Yes - It had over 2000 members at one point, didn't it? Any group with over 2000 members is historical, in my opinion.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:32, 14 June 2009 (BST)
15. Yes --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:40, 14 June 2009 (BST)
16. Yes - Bad times, man. Bad times. You have my vote. But is The Dead no longer active...? o_O --Met Fan ^F 18:56, 15 June 2009 (BST)
17. Yes.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 00:28, 16 June 2009 (BST)
18. Yes --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 14:47, 16 June 2009 (BST)
19. Yes -- J.I 13:23, 17 June 2009 (BST)
20. Yes -- One of the most well known groups ever. Almost as historical as Caiger itself. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}18:32, 17 June 2009 (BST)
21. Strong Yes --Pyrranha 22:16, 18 June 2009 (BST)
22. Yes - come back Sanpedro 07:53, 19 June 2009 (BST)
23. Yes - I Love you Cisisero 08:58, 19 June 2009 (BST)
24. Yes - I don't know why this has taken so long. --Labine50 ^{MEMS | MHG} 17:30, 21 June 2009 (BST)
25. Yep - Cheese 00:38, 24 June 2009 (BST)

No

1. No - Fails crit 1 "Groups must no longer actively contribute to the game." Perhaps you can vote yes on historical event status for the March of The Dead.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 01:38, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   Both you and HonestMistake are retarded. the dead leadership cannot get all of their 1500 members to remove their tags. The group is dead but the characters are still used by players. Criteria 1 does not mean active characters but active groups. The group is not active. Kill yourself. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 03:05, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   So, a group's official, or "defacto" leader decides whether or not that group exists, without regard to the remaining 249 members? I didn't get that memo. Prior to killing myself I think that point should be clearly defined, since the only real question on The Dead's historical status is whether or not they are "active". --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 04:25, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   I bet there are still members that have The Dead of Dunell Hills tags (less than 10). But basically, I was the leader during the March. I say the group is dissolved as far as the wiki is concerned.-- #99 ^DCC 18:04, 14 June 2009 (BST)

2. yes and no Certainly one of the biggest things ever to happen to the game and certainly worthy of inclusion... On the other hand Historical Groups are supposed to be defunct so technically the Dead are unlikely to become historical in that sense.--Honestmistake 01:43, 14 June 2009 (BST)
3. Vouch, but needs Crit 1 - As Giles. They deserve historical status, but currently have too many members still acting, or at least with "The Dead" in their group tags. --Private Mark 01:55, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   To all three of you, it has been kind of decided that if the leader of the group officially disbands a group, it's considered defunct. That's what DCC is doing, as he's the defacto leader of The Dead. The group is done, it's just that people aren't going to idle out or stop wearing a name tag just because a group is done. Hell, Ghetto Cow had something like 15 or so people on the stats page still when we went up for historical because our members were too lazy or too stubborn to remove the tag. But because Lach nominated it, it was considered defunct.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:05, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   The Angel has spoken. Any large group is going to leave splinter groups and remnants behind once it collapses, and one as large as The Dead was makes an even bigger imprint. That The Dead's remnants still consistently rank as the top 1 or 2 placed groups on the Stats Page is testament to their worthiness for Historical Status. The only single group that ever brought down the Wrath of Kevan. 90% Syringe search rates for God's sake. I was expecting crucifixes to suddenly gain powers and witness Survivors REPELLING zombies with cries of "The Power of Kevan Compels You!". All this from a single group. If these guys don't deserve Historical Status, no one does.--Zombie Lord 02:25, 14 June 2009 (BST)

4. Making a group that is still the largest in the game, historical? Hysterical. Active? Always will be -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:24 14 June 2009 (BST)

   You're just pissed because we got you voted out and Grim voted in as Crat. It's ok. Maybe you should ask Iscariot what to think? -- #99 ^DCC 18:07, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   It's not exactly the same group. When they had 1,500 members, it was something totally different that Malton had never seen before. I don't know, maybe we can have some kind of protected historical event page dedicated to their flood or something. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:26, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   I'd vote for it if a page was created to document what the Dead was pre-2009. As it is now, the page is of almost no historical interest though -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:33 14 June 2009 (BST)

   Well, thing is, that page has no relevance to the current Dead - it mostly shows stats from the first major Dead uprising. Even then, it's through links and not directly on the page. Hence, why I'm for making that page historical (maybe moving it as well) and possibly asking a Dead authorized Wiki denizen to make a more relevant page about the current active group. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:23, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   No current active Dead member will touch this shithole wiki. The mark we left on the wiki (our talk pages, our various VB cases, our policy that KEVAN himself had to veto to kill, etc.) those are more meaningful than an article forced to be neutral and still reflect our group.-- #99 ^DCC 18:04, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   Giles is right, the whole idea of having the de facto leader say "GROUP DISBANDED" when they are still remenants shows to me that The Dead isn't, well, dead. That being said, if you just wait for a few more months, and that wiki page doesn't get updated, then I can be assured that The Dead will remain Dead, and I'll change it to vouch.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 06:22, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   The page has been locked for over a year, numbnuts. We didn't even create it in the first place. Ask old Connie about that mess. But clearly, this wait and see idea is stellar.-- #99 ^DCC 18:04, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   Alright fine. But don't insult the voter.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 00:27, 16 June 2009 (BST)

   Why not? You've already voted against him, he has no obligation to impress you. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:18, 16 June 2009 (BST)

5. fuck no----Sexualharrison 08:17, 14 June 2009 (BST)
6. tevs. mehvs.--xoxo 10:01, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   What's the phrase? Thank you for your input Fuck off.-- #99 ^DCC 14:04, 17 June 2009 (BST)

7. no Still having double the numbers of others groups doesn't make them inactive. Besides, I thought the dead were against a big wiki prescence. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:05, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   We aren't on the wiki anymore. Just me. You all suck. But this is a test to see if the wiki is really about UD or about you asshole users (not you ross so much) that just want to use it to stroke your lame ass RP fantasies. There is no fucking denying that the Dead changed the whole game, but if they don't get historical status because of some shitstain policy that should kill any last thought that this wiki is really about UD. If the ONLY group that has ever had an impact in EVERY SUBURB gets denied then seriously stop pretending this wiki is about UD. Go back to posting your lame ass *sips beer, loads shotgun*-- #99 ^DCC 18:04, 14 June 2009 (BST)

8. Get the ef out! Ain't no way I'm having a group which 'caused me a good promotion bid go historical! NEVER!!! NOT IN A MILLION EFFIN' YEARS!!! This is revenge for pissing me off and forcing me to drop out of the promotion run!!! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 00:32, 16 June 2009 (BST)

   You couldn't handle a little drama and yet you still think you would have made a good sysop? I'm pretty sure we weren't the cause of your crash and burn.-- #99 ^DCC 14:04, 17 June 2009 (BST)

   Hm...Let's see. Who was it that started all this nonsense before I got pissed? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 19:32, 18 June 2009 (BST)

   is babby hungry? --Cyberbob 01:07, 24 June 2009 (BST)

9. no I have read all the arguments above and im not convinced, in the eyes of the "originals" the group may be inactive yet there are still many tagged as this group who are not idle. Whether they have any cohesive strategy is debatable and I think requires further discussion.--C Whitty 09:11, 16 June 2009 (BST)

   My The Dead practically ruined the game in 2 months. This The Dead hasn't even taken down a mall in over a year. I think those two "groups" are quite different. Hell, this The Dead can't even keep DHPD out of DH. We did it with a skeleton crew. These aren't the same groups. -- #99 ^DCC 14:04, 17 June 2009 (BST)

   I recognise your points but what do the current "The Dead" think of your above statements - if they agree then this sways me, has anyone been in contact with them to ask their opinion/ does anyone have their details so that I may?--C Whitty 16:43, 17 June 2009 (BST)

10. no I gotta go with boxy on this one. Asheets 23:17, 16 June 2009 (BST)
11. no --Doctor Oberman ^MBEK 20:00, 18 June 2009 (BST)
12. No -- T^HEL^ORDG^UNS^LINGER 00:32, 21 June 2009 (BST)
13. Conditional No - Not truly inactive yet, although the leadership clearly is.--Violet Begonia _{Dean MCM MOB} 17:16, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Recent Nominations

There have been no recent nominations

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.

Historical Groups Use Discussion

This is a heading to which discussion of the use and catagorization of Historical Groups can be put.