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)

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 Yes - Whether or not their 'leaders' officially announce that The Dead are no longer active, I will always vote them for this in a heartbeat.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)
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)

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)

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)

   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)

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.