Category talk:Historical Groups/Archive

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Disqualified

Axes High

One of the oldest groups out there from the time of the CoL. Once the biggest fire fighter group. They ruled Barhahville until they slipped out of existence. If you never heard of them it's because you're new. If you've been around since the beginning and don't know them, you're an idiot. --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 23:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

While there aren't many of them left, the MFD still has occasional contact with them, including a request from a member just today, so rumors of their demise may be a touch premature. A wiki presence was never high on their list of priorities as I recall, and it may be that none of their members have been here to update in a long time. Please hold a final call on this for a few days while I check what their status and intentions are. Thanks! --Gilant talk|DEM 14:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. Yes - --Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 23:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Yes --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 01:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sure Daniel Hicken 01:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC) I may be new, but I know of them, Sonny.
  4. Yes - Heard of them, fought them, ate them. They had moxy, though. -- ∀lan Watson T·RPM 02:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Yes - Absolutely Unquestionable. Peter Moran 02:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Yes - I'm all for it. --Leutinuet Benjamin 02:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Yes - Kind of an obvious choice here. --Rgon 03:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Yes --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 03:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Yes - to bad realy, i always liked that name.. -Bullgod 05:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Yes - I could swear I actually saw an Axes High tag recently, but I remember working with some of their members back when I started out. They were a great group. --Aiden H 4H 07:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Yes - I've heard of them before. They were around before I joined. Pillsy FT 08:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Yes - Wish there were still groups like this around.
  13. Yes - I think I ran into one of their people months ago at a mall while I was restocking.--John Blast 20:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  14. Yes --PsychoPhil CFT 21:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  15. Yes This goes all the way back to the axes/shotguns argument! --Ron Burgundy 22:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  16. Yes - I thought I saw Axes High graffiti not too long ago --Sgt. Expendable 00:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  17. Yes - They've been around FOREVERRRR. --YuriRuler90 01:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  18. Yes - They died? I just figured they were busy. >.< --MorthBabid 16:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  19. A resounding yes- Its a shame groups like this arn't around any more =[ --Rizo299 20:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  20. Yes- i can remember the corleone's fighting many a battle alongside them..--Vito the don
  21. Yes - I will admit that I didn't know they had dis-banded.--Labine50 MH|ME|P 05:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  22. Yes - I don't like the tone of the top of this, but it is true. Also, thought they were still active...--Agent White WTF•W!•SGP•CMS-Meta•CMS 20:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  23. Yes - Axes High is over? I really should keep myself up to date. --MarieThe Grove 12:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  24. Yes - Fought with them back during the first annexation of Barrville. I'm surprised they disbanded; new news to me. --Winnan 22:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  25. No For as big a group as some are claiming, their pages don't have a lot of quantity. Even smaller than Paradox (below). Asheets 18:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  26. Yes - Definitely. Sad to see them go. –Xoid M•T•FU! 01:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  27. Yes - I'd long heard good word about them. Of course, I never knew why they'd use only the axe. Seems boring, really. -Mark 22:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  28. Yes - Yes, they're notorious, and as I've been in the game less than a month, (I think) and I know of them, historify them. Daniel Hicken 02:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  29. Yes -- Officer Otep 12:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  30. Yes -- --Mayor Fitting 23:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  31. ??? - Damien Stahl Im still here and I am in Axes High it isn't exactly dead just a litle low on helmets right now. If AH becomes Hist i an not renouncing my affiliation...

Disciples of Zeko

Recently saved from being Speedy Deleted. While short lived and limited to only Yagoton, the cult had significant historical impact upon the suburb they called home and caused quite a bit of dramatic change on how certain areas of Yagoton are viewed by survivors even to this day! This was mostly due to the astounding act of PKing known as the Valentine's Day Massacre, which may have been for its time the single most impressive/controversal act of PKing in all of Malton; Or at the very least been the first confermed recording of a well-organized "Mass Murder" form of PKing. I've personally helped document and sort out their unique tactics and actions in Yagoton in the past, some of which I've yet to see reproduced by any other groups in Malton to date. I'd hate to see a group, even a PKer group, that brought so much color to an often-ignored and easy-going suburb just fade away. --MorthBabid 18:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  1. Yes -- See above. And take the time to learn more about Yagoton, too! :) --MorthBabid 18:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Yes - A mass PK doesn't seem to really tip the game but it certainly gets talked about. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 19:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Yes - History includes talked about events so they are in for me. Pillsy FT 19:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. No- The event this group is solely associated with, the Valentine's Day Massacre (having either a responsible or celebratory role), has its own documentation. If this group is known for nothing but this one action and praise of it, to the point that their identity/identification stems solely from the massacre, maybe the group's and the event's pages should be merged. If the group had a "glorious history" beyond the massacre, meaning noteworthy participation in other historic events, the group would outweigh events and should be warranted its own historic staus. However, it looks like this group is solely known through this one event and its fallout, so in a sense the event is bigger than the group (I'd heard of the massacre, but this is the first time I've learned of its perpertrator(s)) so the group should be subordinate to the event in this case.--The Envoy 16:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    Re: Hmm. So you're saying that the Disciples of Zeko page should be merged with the Valentine's Day Massacre page, basically. Interesting idea, but it could get a bit messy? I'll look into it. --MorthBabid 19:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, basically the group's historic status is "attached" to this event, so should be written up as such. All that group info may have to be condensed, but a lot of the stuff on the page seems like "internal group drama" that never effected anyone outside the group, except for that big massacre. But I'm in the minority now, so wait and see what other voices think.--The Envoy 20:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Yes --Abi79 AB 14:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Yes -- Chanting "Zeko. Zeko. Zeko. Zeko." -- TexasFlag.gif BubbaT 18:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. No -- I agree with The Envoy. Other than the Massacre those guys didn't do anything of importance. -- ∀lan Watson T·RPM 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Yes - And i would like everyone voting no for a meeting at 72,123 so we can have a "meeting"to discuss this deal ;) --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 00:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Yes - As far as I'm concerned this group was pretty much unique in it's style. The Valentine Day Massacre is only part (though a big one) of their legend --Doubler 19:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Yes - Envoy makes a good point, but still... --Rgon 19:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Yes - That man killed 17 others by himself. Worth more then this vote.--Mayor Fitting 02:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    But we're not talking about "that man" but his devoted fans/accomplices. The deed and to an extent the group are already documented on a historic incident page Valentine's Day Massacre. Passing this, a historical group page is redundant in light of the memorial testifying to the action.--The Envoy 03:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. no 1st line says it all -- recently saved from SD, short lived, and limited to 1 burb. Asheets 18:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Yes - Spawned dozens of copycat groups, and has several reincarnations; even now there are still people who PK in Zeko's name. He, and his followers, made the Whatmore Building a pilgrimage for many PKers. Love 'em or hate 'em, they shaped history. –Xoid M•T•FU! 14:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Yes -- I agree with what Xoid stated. --N0RDAK 01:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Yes -- Absolutely. These guys terrorized Yagoton for a while.--Jorm 12:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. No -- To the best of my knowledge, they didn't even make the UD stats page. --Dickholeguy 16:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. No - As with the other No's. One minor and completely staged event does not make a group worthy of being considered of historical significance. They were a brief, and minor, amusement. Nothing more. --Grim s-Mod U! 10:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. No - I agree with the suggestion to merge it with Valentine's Day Massacre. --Nov W!, M, T 16:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. Yes - They may be best known for one event, but the fact that they made Yagoton so dangerous for a time makes them noteworthy enough. Also, they deserve to be immortalized for their unique tactics, which is something that goes beyond the scope of just the Valentine's Day Massacre. --Reaper with no name TJ! 18:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    Well that'd be all well and good if the page in question discussed their unique tactics or role in Yagoton. But it doesn't. It's just a belief system with no interface on the page with the game. If the mythology translated itself into game effects on the page, or in other wiki pages discussing those effects, it'd warrant preservation. But there was never any effort in the page but an expression of personality. If this page is to be preserved, all the reasons yes-sayers are claiming as cause for preservation ought to be incorporated into it. Otherwise you're arguing apples to defend oranges.--The Envoy 18:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. No - Are you so quick to judge the Children of the Red God as gone? We merely slumber, friends. Many of our number have been vanquished, by the Crimson King himself infact... RedZeko's ways are unknowable, we merely accept them and move on our blessed work. The Disciples are making an making a return friends... as such I official declare us active. I've recruited several new dedicated members to the task of the revival of our dear church. Even now, the saint Merc89 spills heritic blood upon the holy ground of Whatmore...
    Praise be to Zeko, amen..--Rozozag 7:29, 7 December 2006
    Bwaaaah? Then why didn't you try to unspeedy delete your own site when it first got removed? Its been dead for awhile. o.0; --MorthBabid 00:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    Well, to be honest here, we hadn't checked the site in a long damn time. We've been out doing the holiest of work out in Darvall Heights and surrounding regions as a favor for a few groups who gave us a hand in procuring a church of our own a few weeks back. I myself have been pretty busy with other things too, and I just stopped checking the wiki after a while...--Rozozag 20:01, 7 December 2006
  21. Yes They may haven't done too much, both they're so unique. Anachronos 03:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

#No They are not out of commission yet. The group is still intact and PKing......uh......people. Therefore, they are inable to be listed as a historical group. If you don't believe me, just check out Rozozag and the Zeko main page. --Zombie slay3r 05:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC) - Invalid vote struck, after 2 week deadline. Pillsy FT 11:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Well the voting finished yesterday evening and technically the voting has passed as there are 21 votes, 14 are yes and 7 are no and there is one invalid vote. It has come to light that they are still active so this group will NOT be made historical. Pillsy FT 11:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Gingerbread Men

These guys were a group of decent size who's goal it was to reclaim Candyland. They were always going at it with the RRF back in the day.--Gage 03:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  1. Yes --Gage 03:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Yes --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 03:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Yes -- ∀lan Watson T·RPM 07:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Yes --Pillsy FT 10:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Yes - I was very much amused by the Candyland invasion. --Officer Otep 12:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Yes -- Empress of Moldovi 12:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Yes --Winnan 22:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Yes -- Well as a member of this group i think we deserve it :D Night Haunter 22:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Yes -- I loved Candyland. --SirensT RR 22:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Yes -- I wasn't around when they were, but I read their wiki and think they deserve it.--Mayor Fitting 23:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Yes -- I remember seeing the Candyland Invasion plans, and damn, were they intricate... --YuriRuler90 03:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Yes -- They had class, baby, they had style and a plan. I remember reading through their wiki page and wishing I had been a Gingerbread Man. Totally historical. Dimmswick 07:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Yes -Bullgod 17:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  14. Yes - I'd heard rumors that they were coming back, but sadly, only rumor. Pity! --MorthBabid 02:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  15. Yes - $5 says Von Luthius pulls the out of retirement again them moment he isn't getting enough attention. –Xoid M•T•FU! 02:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  16. Yes --Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 06:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  17. Yes - Candyland was simply wonderful. --| scrapped | 20:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  18. Yes - Everyone else said it best.--Labine50 MH|ME|P 06:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  19. Yes --Doubler 19:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  20. Yes --Rgon 19:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  21. Yes --Jon Pyre 04:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  22. no culd i possibly take over the defunct group in the names of all things gingery? - Vito the don
  23. no - This group is still around, in fact I happen to be at a location with about 4 or 5 of them.--John Blast 22:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  24. Yes - Dude they are still active. --Agent White WTF•W!•SGP•CMS-Meta•CMS 04:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  25. Yes - Had life been different, I would have been a Gingerbread Man. --Marcus Payne 13:19, 2 December 2006 (BST)
  26. no I have run into, on occasion, those who still claim membership. They should be brought to current status. Asheets 18:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: The GBM did break up. Those who still have it as their group are just oldbies.--YuriRuler90 01:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: No idea where you get your information but since they used to share a forum with the CMS and I am still a mod on the forum that is now totally theirs (and therefore privy to all sections including the leaders section) they claim that there are still members (even Ram Rock)--Agent White WTF•W!•SGP•CMS-Meta•CMS 23:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  27. yes -- great concept, nice page. -- TexasFlag.gif BubbaT 08:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: As a member of the Gingerbread Men, who took part in the Candyland assault and as a still active member of the Gingerbread Men. I would like to clarify a couple of points, we are still active but are currently taking a break at the moment and having a bit of fun (which was our plan all along), while i support our inclusion as a historical group, as we are at this moment taking a break from active game planning, we are still active in game and are running with the Night_Ravers While we do not have the 65+ members we had on the day of the Candyland assault we are still looking for new members (post on my talk page if you want). Ive posted this as our leader does have a tendancy to be a bit blonde (no offence ment). I would plan to move the Gingerbread Men to the same area as Axes High, but i would have to talk to our great exaulted leader first :Night Haunter 16:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    Well, since you did vote first of all saying yes and seeing as voting has now ended I will add the historical group template and I will request that the page be protected. If you do once again wish to use the page then you can just request that the page gets unprotected and remove the template. Hope that's ok. Pillsy FT 11:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Blackmore Bastard Brigade

No real plans to invade blackmore again, yet they had a lasting impact on the game, as they penetrated ridleybank not once, but twice, so with that in mind, I nominate the BBB for Historical Status --Dickhole Bonaparte Leader, Malton Rangers 21:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  1. Yes My Nomination, I vote yes. --Dickhole Bonaparte Leader, Malton Rangers 21:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. No - They only held a building for a about two months and Shacknews put them and Nicolas Mall to shame. They didn't even change the game all that much, all they proved is that 300 survivors in one place makes for a hard target. Too bad Shacknews exists huh?--Mayor Fitting 22:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. YES Of course the Blackmore Bastard Brigade deserves historical status. They showed that Riddleybank is nothing special, just as Shacknews showed Caiger was nothing special. --Tirak McAlister 22:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Yes Turned Ridleybank from a nogo zone to a battleground. Not among the largest or most efficient groups, but they still deserve to be remembered. Rheingold 22:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. No - Just another trenchcoat team that tried to puff their chests for a bit in the 'bank, only to be eaten just like all the others.--Jorm 22:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. No - Never heard of--Denzel Washington 23:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Nay, I say! - As with Mayor Fitting. --Lucero Talk U! 23:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Yes Of course, they inspired a stand in the middle of zombie territory, that they got thrown out in the end (as they must have known they would) is neither here nor there -- boxy T L PA DA 23:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Yes --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 23:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. No SniffleNose 23:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Yes -- Their attacks helped to reinvigorate the RRF and bring about the second Zombie renaissance that is currently spreading enlightenment and strewn bodies over Malton. -- ∀lan Watson T·RVP 23:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. No - Anyone can penetrate Ridleybank. The fact it didnt take all that long for you guys to get eaten, and the only thing that stopped that from happening was a huge amount of support from numerous other groups, and a buch of stupid zergers (Lets admit it, Humans have more zerg than starcraft). It was a minor little bump in the history of the game, and had no lasting effect on the game, and a very breif effect on the suburb. --Grim s-Mod U! 23:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. No - just a bunch of zergers hiding in a building with their bots. nothing special. --Bullgod 01:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Yes If they are really done. 1) Started a NT-only-with-no-mall-for-a-long-time-style defence that's been repeated a few times. Morrish did the NT part, but they're a block south of Giddings. 2) Jumpkicked the RRF and a lot of other zombies. 3) Showed for two months that Ridleybank isn't what it is cracked up to be. 4) Was instrumental in the formation of later Shacknews tactics and survivor awareness thereof. And what's all this "they're all zergs" thing you're saying? This is literally the first time I've heard it. I know I've been gone for a while, but did this just come out in the last few weeks? --Ron Burgundy 02:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    No, they have no proof. Its just some idioth zombies who claim to take the moral highground. Seriously, stop saying every survivor group ever zergs. Do survivors do it? yes. Do Zombie groups do it? of course. its that survivors get caught more because their Identities can be seen. Seriously, unless you have proof of zerging, kindly Shut the fuck up--Dickhole Bonaparte Leader, Malton Rangers 02:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. No - just another group that got eaten by shacknews lead by a self described dick hole. You can't be historical until you are gone too.--Gage 02:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    I didn't ever lead the BBB. They're an independant minded bunch made up of independant charecters. They went into ridleybank and held off the RRF for 2 months before shacknews came along, nothing to that magnitude had ever been accomplished in ridleybank until that point. That warrants historical status in and of itself. --Dickhole Bonaparte Leader, Malton Rangers 03:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Yes - They kicked but, they kept the RRF on their toes, and were an inspiration to everyone. I was hooked on the radio messages, on the edge of my seat.
    PS: For all of you 'haters' (both zed and human) out there... If it weren't for everyone's resources being tied up at Blackmore, Caiger would not have fallen. Because if they would not have been at Blackmore, they would have been out here. --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 03:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    I do believe, good sir, that Blackmore [1] fell quite a while before Caiger [2] did. A month, if my math serves me correctly. The Blackmore survivors had plenty of time to get back on their feet after Ridleybank was back in zombie hands. And if you think that resources being tied up at Blackmore was the reason why Caiger fell, then perhaps you should say so on the Third Seige page.--New Coldness 22:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Yes --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 03:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Yes It was fun to PK folks in that building --Virus002 03:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. Yes They did what was thought to be impossible....Twice. Cisisero 03:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    I would like to point out that they basically repeated the Candyland invasion twice... hell, they even used the same barricade strafing plan. The only real difference is the amount of self-publicizing they did, which did attract greater numbers to their cause. So while I think they're historical, I don't want to hear any of this "they did the IMPOSSIBLE" crap. -- ∀lan Watson T·RVP 03:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. No Flash in the pan. Not significant.--Gut stench FU BAR 03:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    Right, well if a group like Malton DEA can get historical status, and the bastards fail, then we really see the extent to which this wiki is biased. --Dickhole Bonaparte Leader, Malton Rangers 03:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    JESUS CHRIST, LEARN TO INDENT.--Gage 04:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    STFU n00b, I win at teh internetz!!!--Jesus H. Christ 06:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  21. No Notable? Possibly. Historical? Hardly.--Kibbs 04:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  22. Yes Goes without saying. --Pvt De 04:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  23. No I only say no because I don't think the Blackmore Bastards are ready to be historical yet, they're still quite active from what I've seen, if a bit unorganized. If they ever do go inactive than I'd vote a resounding yes. They showed what survivors could truly do when they worked together, they proved that Ridleybank wasn't just a survivor deathtrap. They gave the RRF a wake up call, showed them that they weren't invincible and they couldn't live off their own mythology. All you people who say they zerged, yes there may have been some zergers but every large group in UD whether Survivor or Zed has some zergs whether they admit it or not, that doesn't make the entire group zergers. As for the people saying they only held one building, have you ever heard of Greater Blackmore? At one time during the first battle the Bastards held most of Ridleybank and large portions of neighboring surburbs. I for one certainly think they had a huge impact on the game, and when the time comes they do deserve to be a historical group.--Lord Wulfgar 05:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  24. Yes - But not if they're not done yet. I can say, having participated in both battles at Blackmore, that they had a huge impact. For a few short days, Blackmore was a beacon of humanity standing next to Caiger. And then, for a few more days, it was the sole beacon of humanity. So yes, but if I see evidence that they're still active, I'll change my vote.--J Muller 06:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  25. Yes - Held a building in Ridleybank for as long as I remember, the RRF were no match and it took Shacknews to stop them. Pillsy FT 09:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  26. Yes - Many wars only have one battle yet they are still historical and remembered. This is one of them. One battle- one great big battle. --MarieThe Grove 13:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  27. Yes - It was good to see that it could be done, and done right. --Razi
  28. yes - ditto. and stop eraseing my posts! --Sexualharrison 16:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  29. Yes - I've heard of 'em. --The Surgeon General 16:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  30. No - Wow two months defending one building, how is that historical? Blackzilla1 17:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  31. No - They only survived 2 months because of their numbers. Put the same ammount of surivors in any resource building and you get the same. - Deyd 19:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  32. Yes - A salute to finest group of hungry suvivors I have ever had the honor to fight beside. I say yes to these proud men of honor and glory. - Axe27 20:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  33. Yes - Many historical battles lasted less than two months in the real world; The sheer level of organization and multi-group communication that went on here ALONE makes this a memorable event worth keeping. Bound to the Battle of Blackmore. --MorthBabid 20:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  34. Yes - At least they tried to take a piece of Ridleybank back for mankind and succeeded for a while. -- TexasFlag.gif BubbaT 21:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  35. No -- They only achieved getting eaten, and only survived for a while because of massive support from other groups. -- Whitehouse 21:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  36. Yes -- Antipathy 22:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  37. No - But a hard choice. The actions of this group WERE notable (holding control of not only a building, but a great part of Ridleybank at least more so than the so called Ridleybank Resistance Front for the span of some months). The fact that most Ridleys deny that they couldn't kick us out until they got help is fairly hilarious, but to hold against a decaying group for 2 months and dissappear is hardly historical. To keep the Battle of Blackmore page is probably enough to record the greatest (and close-to-only) achievement of this macro-group. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Yes - Changed my mind, just for the preservation of a group that witnessed my first retirement. My reasonement above still stands, but the only event that this group participated was of such a great magnitude and considerable lenght that it makes the group deserve historical status at least more so than some other "historical" groups. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 07:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  38. No - I was there, mind, but I don't think a single event makes something historical. It really shouldn't be qualified as a Historical Group so much as a Historical Event. We need to collect said events into their own category, mind. --Ivan Romanov 05:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  39. Yes - Who cares if they won or lost? They put up a good fight and enjoyed the game, and gave everyone of boths side of the battle a memorable time. That's the spirit of the game as it (arguably) should be. For that, yes, honour them. --Rip Purr MR 08:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  40. No They are a great bunch of guys and gals, but I don't think they left a lasting impact on the game, not more so then any other fairly big survivor group has. Just being good friends, good sports and cool to be with isn't the qualification to be a historical group. And in the sense that they left a lasting impact, I don't think anyone will talk about BBB as they do for example the RRF or the C4NT.--Gethsemani 09:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  41. Yes The Battle at Blackmore was noticed by most and followed by many of Malton's citizens. I agree with Ivan Romanov that it was more a historical event, but how can the event be historical and the group that were behind it not be? The BBB started a battle that united many in the survivor community and they will be remembered, they deserve historical status. --Officer Otep 15:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  42. No Seems a bit premature. Plenty of people were wearing the BBB patch during the Stickling Siege. They're fire hasn't gone out at all. Remember Criteria 12 is about defunct groups. A group with an active veteran community boasting of their exploits ain't exactly dafunked.--The Envoy 04:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    As far as self-identifying BBB members active during the Stickling siege goes, at least one of those was probably me. I wore a false BBB tag all through the Battle of Blackmore, and for a good portion of the Stickling siege, until I changed it... to Shacknews. I did that to increase my chances of being revived so that I could go on PK/GK sprees. And I know for a fact that I'm not the only one to ever use such tactics. --New Coldness 22:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  43. Yes - If the group has actually ceased to work together, lets do it. Their greatest achievement wasn't staying in Ridleybank until Shacknews kicked them out. It was getting everyone to stay in Ridleybank until Shacknews kicked them out. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 13:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  44. Yes - they diverted the course of the Big Bash. They secured Ridleybank for survivors (y'know, for about an hour). They fought to the bitter end. They went back for more. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 17:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  45. Yes If they're really done. They showed that it was possible to hold ridleybank, if even for a short time. Sure, they got eaten in the end, but we all knew that would happen eventually (any sufficiently determined zombie horde will win eventually, it's only a matter of time and how long it takes for them to get lucky; and ridleybank is like the zombie Mecca). The point is that they held it for as long as they did. They showed us how defensible a lone NT could be. They may not have been the first to try all the things they did, but they did it much better than anyone ever thought possible. --Reaper with no name TJ! 19:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  46. Yes - As others, if they're really done. Had a significant impact in their time, made Ridleybank worth a visit, inspired others, made good copy on various suburb news pages, got solid name recognition, and a gave an otherwise uninteresting building a history. --Barbecue Barbecue 20:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  47. Yes - They had their momment, and that's enough for mention hear. Seriously! - Nicks 05:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  48. Why the hell not? They took the choked heart of Ridleybank twice and held for 2 months. Better than V either way. --Whap 08:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  49. Yes - That Blackmore resisted two months of siege was impressive; the longest siege our Shacknews Horde ever participated in was 3 weeks (The Third Siege of Caiger Mall). The duration of that siege also motivated me, personally, to prove that a large, uncoordinated zombie force is nearly worthless, when compared with a smaller, more tightly-coordinated zombie strike force. The Blackmore Building was what drove the Shacknews Horde northwards, after we defeated our first mall (Pole Mall). They get my vote. -Chronolith 14:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  50. Yes - Although they certainly could have been the tiniest bit more efficient at holding the damn place.--Labine50 MH|ME|P 06:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  51. Yes For all the reasons stated above. Incursions into Ridleybank have occurred before, but this was the first time that a public and well advertised location was held. And not for an insignificant period of time. The Gingerbread Men relied (famously) on their own cunning and guile to secure several locations at once in the suburb but none were chosen for a lasting defense. The arguments that it took several hundred survivors to do so are weak as for the first weeks survivors were significantly outnumbered. All records of the battle note this. Fifteen to twenty survivors managing to keep out many dozens more zombies for weeks. In arguably the most hostile suburb in Malton at any time. The final defeat of the Blackmore also took nearly every major zombie horde in Malton as well as one of the best organized pker/death cultist groups. Of course, it also diverted the course of the Bash. For that alone it deserves special mention and preservation as the Bash had previously advanced wherever it pleased at its own pace. Tyler Whitney0 20:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  52. Yes - Cant see why not. nozzer 23:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  53. No - Once Blackmore was breached and ransacked everything returned to normal. In my opinion the BBB did not leave a lasting impact. Sure they held Blackmore for 2 months, but they did not use a new and innovative strategy, they just crammed a bunch of people inside, which is no amazing feat. --Flogging Molly 03:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  54. No - I know of them, but they were hardly historical. Torec T-CC 04:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  55. Yes - --Lt. Raptor 09:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  56. Yes - Pfff, having to vote on this one was stupid.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 10:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  57. Yes Fought all the way to the bitter end. Bluetigers 15:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  58. Yes This group coordinated the only battle I can ever remember actually knocking down the UD server. While I do agree that the Battle of Blackmore is more of an historical event, the group that put it all together deserves to be chronicled every bit as much as the battle that was waged. --Aiden H 4H 06:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  59. Yes Because they were just that, damn, black MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 13:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  60. Yes - Not recognising the impact of the Blackmore Bastard Brigade on the game is plain... stupid. Robin Robinson 08:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  61. Yes - Wonderful as it was to have so many lovely human targets in one building. --The Supreme Court RR 23:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  62. 'Yes - They were delicious --Lehk 07:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  63. Yes-They finally fought back--Sgt Ender20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Mod Note - The Blackmore Bastard Brigade is apparently active, with a considerable membership. As such it does not qualify for Historical status. As such, I am constrained to disqualify this nomination. 38 members is not inactive. Feel free to re nominate yourselves once you drop off the stats page. --Grim s-Mod U! 07:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Other Discussion

While I'm cleaning the Category:Confirmed Groups I keep finding tons of groups that haven't been updated for more than 6 months. Decide if they are worth being historical or not, because I have NO IDEA.

Kinda empty..

Seems like a defunct group. Could be deleted if you ask me.

Delete?

This one we took out, and it seems to be kinda old, so it sould be historical.

Other things...

Anyone wouldn't happen to know what to do with these two?

There are million more of these groups, but I'm not gonna look for those now. --Niilomaan GRR!•M! 12:07, 19 September 2006 (BST)

What about asking their allies, if they're still active?--John Blast 19:34, 4 October 2006 (BST)

That would've been a good idea prior to deleting them. The MPGeeks are still active, we run with a couple of them in Huntley. --Aiden H 4H 02:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

We are still active in the game and we just use the "FVZA" page rather than the full name one. I guess I'm lucky someone brought this page to my attention, next time you could just ask me. -- Prophet - FVZA Commander

New template?

I made a nomination template similar to the suggestion one. What do you think? -- Cheeseman W!ASBTalk 19:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I like it, it will make the job of sorting the votes out easier. I'll change the current ones to the templated and I'll put a note at the top. I'll move this to archive for space saving. Pillsy FT 10:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
After looking at it the template has a few issues that I don't have time to sort out myself. The nominations do not pull through correctly. Pillsy FT 10:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we need this, and I think we need it with one addition (made below) in order to make "never heard of them" votes actually meaningful, in that groups put up for historical votes well past their existence will be (hopefully) at less risk of being voted out by a bunch of new members who otherwise wouldn't understand why they wouldn't likely have heard of said group. --Barbecue Barbecue 18:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Example Group

Nominator: Cheeseman W!ASBTalk 19:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Nomination: Example Group
Group Timeline: Approximately January 2006-October 2006
Reason: I nominate Example Group because they had over 130000 members and took over every suburb in the city. They have disbanded and I think their page should be protected for evermore.

Yes Votes

  1. Yes - Best group ever. -- Example Voter

No Votes

  1. No - This group is made up. -- Spoilsport


The code for this template would be:
To use the template, enter the following to the bottom of this page, but replace the red text with text relevant to your suggestion: 

===Nomination===
{{HistoricalNomination|
nomination_time=~~~~
nominated_group= [[Link to groups page]]
group_timeline=Start-end dates (estimated) of the period the group functioned|
nomination_reason=Reason for nomination.|
nomination_for_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE IF FOR - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
For Votes here
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE IF FOR - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
|
nomination_against_votes=
<!-- VOTE **BELOW** THIS LINE IF AGAINST - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
Against Votes here
<!-- VOTE **ABOVE** THIS LINE IF AGAINST - DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -->
|
----

Blackmore Bastard Brigade

I request for the immediate restoration of the bid for historical status of the BBB with votes intact because stats page's numbers cannot be held as evidence of a group activity, as they can be forged, based on alts, on people that want to take advantage of the group affiliation, or is just lazy to change it. BBB was an agrupation of groups, and the main body of groups that constituted the BBB had made obvious that they won't be joining such a venture anytime soon. If you do take the stats page seriously, you can see that a group as organized as Shacknews still has 26 guys on the stats page when they declared that they won't be there anymore, so why is their bid kept and not ours? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 08:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Then Shacknews should be removed from the list, too. Rules iz rulez.--Jorm 08:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Shacknews IS a retired group just as the BBB and deserves Historical status more so than the BBB. If you're so convinced that it's like you say, grow some balls and archive their bid. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 08:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC) EDIT: Also, in the stats page there's even a group called "Falsifying Statistics" with 45 members. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 09:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I would but I'm not a mod. Durr. --Jorm 09:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
It's necessary for me to point out that you don't need to be one? Anyways, before getting deeper and risking "back seat moding" criticism once again, I didn't do something like that because when someone does something I don't like on community pages I ask for concensus before reverting... even tough it seems logical to revert an obvious last ditch attempt of Grim to take off BBB their maybe deserved, maybe not, but consensed Historical status. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 09:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Shacknews was a very large group, If i recall correctly it was in the range of 300. Whats left is less than a tithe of the original number, and they vanished in short order (After publicly declaring their last action and then migrating to another game). Whats left would be stragglers with no affiliation. Unlike the Blackmore Bastard Brigade, Shacknews will not reform, but the brigade will almost certainly re-emerge if another attempt is made to cram people into the blackmore building. Unfortunately before numbers for the Blackmore Bastard Brigade do not exist, and the majority of members are probably still active as members of its component groups (As such, it is probably also ineligable as it was an ad hoc metagroup, rather than a group formed for the purpose of doing what it did). Thus the remnants with the affiliation count doubly so. Feel free to contact them through the methods used originally to gather them and have them change their affiliation. Until then i am forced to consider the group active because of its nature as a super metagroup (In fact, to properly get through, it should probably wait a few months without any action being taken, just to be sure). That said, if another mod wishes to toss Shacknews, i will not stand in their way. --Grim s-Mod U! 09:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you admit that the BBB was a super metagroup and not a group further proves that group affiliation is not valid as the BBB was conformed by groups rather than individuals. The leftovers are obviously stranglers that in the euphoria changed their group affiliation and later left it alone and forgot about it, as most stranglers don't care until they change it again. The BBB group itself, created by actions taken initially by the C4NT, is officialy dissolved, their objectives terminated and it's a fact as much as that there's no one alive at the Blackmore Building at the moment, or at least if there's somebody he won't last. Neither did the BBB ask for individual people to change their group affiliation or did they list individuals as members, but just groups: to assume that people that incorrectly used the BBB name as a group affiliation are valid members or that they necessarily have the legitimacy to carry the name on their profiles and act in the name of the deceased group holds as much ground as the argument that ultimately failed and made the CoL page to be divided in "new" and "original". The "original" BBB is officialy dissolved and had a bid for Historical status, restore it please. And the fact that you mock at the bid by saying that you'll have to wait full months just to be sure that we're done shows what your true intentions are: rather than the enforcing the rules, you just want to serve your personal wishes... --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 09:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
As an unofficial leader of the BBB, I can assure you, that there are no plans to reinvade blackmore any time soon, if ever. I think that Grim needs to either play by the rules both ways, and shelve shacknews's bid, or put ours back up. It shows a terrible bias to the zombie side to do this, especially because the BBB was sure to win historical status, and this was a dirty trick. Never thought I'd say this, but Jorm is right, you either leave both up or take both down. I'd be for putting both up, they're each inactive groups. and grim, by your logic, shacknews should be taken down as well. In my eyes, and apparently matthewfarenheights as well, this was a dirty trick, and while not subject to misconduct due to the technicalities involved, I'd still say that this display right here shows you are unfit to be a moderator, as moderators are supposed to not have a bias, which clearly you do. Also, the BBB had about 80 or so members at its height, and while its not cut down as much as shacknews, I'd argue shacknews are far more likely (and lets face it, capable) of reforming, as they are tight nit and organized, the BBB are not. --General Lee A. Dickhole Malton Rangers 02:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The statement of the leader condemns you: "there are no plans to reinvade blackmore any time soon, if ever." This strongly implies activity on the part of the group, if only on a planning level, and the rather strong possibility of the group re-emerging. In any case, i have made my decision, and it is final. Please re-nominate in a month or two, when we can be sure the group is really gone. And i know shacknews is really gone because the group declared that giddings would be its last action, and then told the members that wanted to stay in UD to join up with other existing hordes. Shacknews as a horde is dead and gone, however, as i said earlier, if another mod wants to remove it, i will support that decision. --Grim s-Mod U! 04:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, can we agree at least to not delete the BBB page, because I understand where your coming from, but it is my understanding that if a group is inactive (as the BBB is) that their page has a possibility of deletion. If you agree to give me your word that you'll protect the page, and that when the group is inevitably renominated, the votes previously cast are counted.--General Lee A. Dickhole Malton Rangers 06:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Make a null edit (Click edit page, then submit with no changes) to it once a week and it wont qualify for deletion, as the page is still "active". Also, no. When it is renominated, the votes previously cast will not be counted. It will be a fresh nomination with a fresh vote. --Grim s-Mod U! 07:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
This shows clear bias from Grim s, and also quite possibly a case of misconduct, given that he's using his moderator status as part of his reasoning (otherwise, why has he added a mod-note, instead of just a note to the disqualification)? He says that he's "constrained to disqualify", and yet hasn't done the same for other nominated groups who also qualify (to be disqualified). Clear bias. Possible misconduct. Pure bad faith. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 12:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I explained my reasoning rather clearly. Blackmore Bastard Brigade is at 34 active members currently, down 4 from when i disqualified it a week ago, the shacknews total is now down to 14, and plummeting, down 12. Furthermore, the present tense used by the leader when he mentioned the possibility of a reemergence strongly indicates activity on the planning front. I also voted against Shacknews, in case you missed it, i just didnt think the case against Shacknews given the information i had on hand (Publicly disbanding, massive plummet in active members of 90%, now 95%, actively encouraging the people who wanted to stay to join other existing hordes) was worthy of outright disqualification. I did specifically mention, however, that if another moderator felt it was disqualifiable, they could do so without protest from myself. Furthermore, it can be argued that the BBB's status as a metagroup which counted among its members a large amount of very active groups, and also the fact that if you get right down to it, it was a post hoc collaboration to hold a goal and would more accurately be referred to as an event rather than a group, and thus could possibly be eliminated from the running that way as well. Feel free to take it to the misconduct page if you like, but i have done no wrong. It was what is called a judgement call based on evidence at hand. Just because you dont like teh judgement doesnt mean its bias or abuse. Truthfully, i wouldnt have done it had i not seen the number of actives on a chance peek at the stats page to see how my old group, the Drunken Dead were going. --Grim s-Mod U! 02:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Hrmn...nice dance, but methinks thou dost protest too much, m'lady. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 11:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
It took you 8 days to come up with that? Im still waiting for you to file that misconduct case ;) --Grim s-Mod U! 04:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I said it was "quite possibly a case of misconduct", not that I was planning to file a misconduct case. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 13:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Disciples of Zeko

Disciples of Zeko were nomianted for historical group status but during voting it came to light that the group is still active. This group has therefore not been made historical. Pillsy FT 11:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


Gingerbread Men

"Agent White, can you post up on the wiki on our behalf that The Gingerbread Men are still active, currently running side by side with The Night ravers group. Just because the vast majority of us don't use the wiki, nor the other main forums anymore, and also that we haven't updated the wiki for a while does not mean we are not running around. we are still here and have been here always." said by Ram Rock Ed First, leader of the Gingerbread Men. Would it be possible to unlock the page, since it misrepresents the group. --Agent White WTF•W!•SGP•CMS-Meta•CMS 07:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Crap, did put this in the first post, but yeah. I DID say they were still active, all in all, I told you so.--Agent White WTF•W!•SGP•CMS-Meta•CMS 07:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Axes High

I had requested a hold of action on marking Axes High as a historical group. Not on merit (they would certainly deserve it!), but because I knew there were still at least a few members active in Malton. While the group has hit on hard times and has a small membership at the moment, they are still active. They recently approached us to have Axes High become part of the DEM, which the Council passed with a resounding yes. I will show the groups current leadership how to updated the wiki, but we need to have the page unlocked first please. Thanks, --Gilant talk|DEM 19:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

They might be still active, but they are still important for malton history... they should get the historical group flag even before they are gone... --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 23:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Malton DEA

This group is listed as historical yet one of the Adeptus Sororitas sited several members including this one sporting the Malton DEA as their group. I believe it should be removed from classification as a historical group.--Garviel LokenMaltesecross2.jpgNo Pity! No Remorse! No Fear! Talk22:09, 26 April 2008 (BST)

Those are people who were in the group that still play with the group tag. The group itself is dead, long dead. --Canderous Ordo RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n 22:22, 26 April 2008 (BST)
So how does that make the group dead if there are still people who claim to be part of it? Isn't there a similar debate underway with the Blackmore Bastard Brigade? --Garviel LokenMaltesecross2.jpgNo Pity! No Remorse! No Fear! Talk00:03, 27 April 2008 (BST)
The Malton DEA is dead. It has been for a long, long time. If someone is using that tag, it isn't us.--Jorm 01:09, 27 April 2008 (BST)

Problems?

On the Historical group voting archives, there are 22 successful groups, yet there is 51 historical groups in this category. Is there something I'm missing? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to start unprotecting and removing "historical status" to 29 groups if nobody answers.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Doodoo. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised that people are adding themselves, a few groups have done it in the past.--Karekmaps?! 06:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
There were a few added before historical voting was implimented. These are now so old very few people remain who would know of them. Kill everything that was added without vote after voting was implimented, but otherwise, leave them alone. That said,: This is more popular groups, rather than historical. Ah, the failings of democracy. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 06:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
When was voting implemented? I need a cutoff date. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll try the earliest timestamp on Historical group voting archives and I'll go from there. (It seems like Feb 20ish 07 is the date, no?)--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Pretty sure there was a revoting thing anyway, so groups that were originally listed, back when Historical Groups was being used in place of Category:Defunct Groups, actually did/do have to requalify for historical. Then again there are some common sense ones that should have it kept and don't need voting.--Karekmaps?! 00:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed these FEBU, The Malton Mafia, 101st Airborne Unit, South Blythville Militia. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed a few groups from historical status, from originally 52 to 48. This one group The Apocalypse Horde I'm not sure about. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've not protected that page for that reason, but I can't think of why they wouldn't be or shouldn't be.--Karekmaps?! 06:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Blackmore Bastard Brigade

According to the stats page, they still have 27 active members. They've also been actively holding The Blackmore Building off and on for a few months now. I think their historical status should be removed and the leaders of the group update their wiki. --Benigno SSZ RCC 21:43, 23 July 2007 (BST)

Agreed, a active group is hardly considered "historical" me thinks. --Gus Thomas 22:35, 24 May 2008 (BST)
screw that! as a member of the original BBB. we are disbanded, RON IS GONE!! it was never really a group but a collation of pro surviver groups mostly based over at the NMC. there is no more support on our forums. we earned our place same as the others and won our vote fair and square. just because a bunch of posers sill carry the tag it shouldn't effect our place in malton history. ----SexualharrisonStarofdavid2.png Boobs.gif 16:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Historical Group Is Back

The Ministry of the Dead -- which in character I will deny ever existed -- has reformed. Does one create a new wiki page like "Ministry of the Dead (Part II)" or does historical status get revoked when such a thing happens? -- Murray Jay Suskind 16:26, 25 June 2007 (BST)

Anyone have any advice on this? -- Murray Jay Suskind 20:00, 26 June 2007 (BST)
Feth if I know. I think a new wiki page would be the best option though, with a disambiguation link thingy at the top.--Lachryma☭ 20:05, 26 June 2007 (BST)
a disambiguation page is the solution for your problem. At the top of the historical group, we add a {{redirec|Ministry of the Dead}} template, and this new group then uses Ministry of the Dead (2007) or Ministry of the Dead (new) or Ministry of the Dead (reloaded)... you get it... it will be on another page. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 20:31, 26 June 2007 (BST)

Paradox also back

Paradox is also back. Anyone who's seen the Stats page knows that. There should really be a clear-cut procedure for un-historifying groups. --Anonymous4401 18:40, 22 July 2007 (BST)

Yep. Doesn't seem like you need a process so much as an attentive wiki mod.--Insomniac By Choice 06:43, 23 July 2007 (BST)
Well the thing is, unless there is a clear edit history between the members who are returning, and the old wiki page, I don't think the old page should be re-opened for editing. Otherwise some whole new group of players can come in and take over a historical group page. I think that Hagnats idea is best, a similarly named, but new group page that can be linked in a disamig type of way from the original page... how about The Paradox or similar? -- boxy T Nuts block it! DA 12:48, 28 July 2007 (BST)
Fine. We will make a new wiki page, pending being allowed to take back our old one. I understand that you must be convinced that we are in fact the original Paradox for this to happen. There is a thread in the public area of our forum that I think you should look at: here The Gonzo (member no.1) and Underhand (member no.2), who is me (for proof that I am me, see this thread), among others, insist that Paradox is back again. Note that the forum is the same one that is linked to on the locked Paradox page, and note also that the two mentioned users registered there in August 2005, as did two other users in the first thread linked to. Those of our members who used to edit our wiki page no longer play Urban Dead. Just in case it's necessary, I also ask you to look at the game's stats page, which at time of writing says that Paradox has 110 known members. Underhand 11:20, 29 July 2007 (BST)
If you hold off for a little while in creating a new page, I'll have a look at your links, and fix this up now The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 11:32 Sunday July 2007 (BST)

OK, I've moved the original, historical group page to Paradox (2006), it will remain in the historical category (pending any decision about this issue), and you are now free to edit the Paradox as normal. Hope this suits everyone The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 11:47 Sunday July 2007 (BST)

Thank you very much. I'm in the middle of creating a new page right now, but I'll just paste the code I've got so far into the Paradox page. I appreciate the welcome you put on my talk page, by the way. Underhand 12:03, 29 July 2007 (BST)

Which

The rules on this talk page say "...with a minimum of 10 yes votes for a nomination to pass" but the rules on the article page say "...with a minimum of 15 voters for a nomination to pass" (emphasis added). Does anyone mind if I change the version on the main page to be the same as the (sensible) version on the talk page? --Toejam 12:26, 23 May 2007 (BST)

I like the rules on the article because it makes sure we ensure that 15 people actually see the thing, therefore, allowing us to get an accurate view of what the people desire. However, a similar change on the Policy Discussion page was approved rather quickly...and it does make sense.--ShadowScope 05:49, 25 May 2007 (BST)
I hadn't considered that, and it's a good point. Still, it's strange and dysfunctional that "No" votes can help a suggestion. And it would be worthwhile picking which rule to follow before it becomes an issue. --Toejam 14:02, 26 May 2007 (BST)
We need to be following the policy. Someone might create a policy discussion for the merits of lowering the bar. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 05:13, 31 May 2007 (BST)

The Stats Page

Just how useful is it as an indicator of groups "no longer actively [contributing] to the game"? Can we get a bit of consistency here? There's a group up for historical status that the nominator himself admits, in the nomination, still have enough members to feature on the stats page. What's the ruling going to be from now on? Ignore the stats page as long as the group leadership is no longer organising stuff? If they say they're finished? Or just if they're popular enough? As it is, it's just being used as an excuse to pull nominations that are borderline, by those that disagree with result -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 09:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ending declarative statements with a question mark makes my brain hurt? Other than that, I'm all for un protecting/categorizing Shacknews, On Strike, Mall Tour '06 and whoever else, allowing those folks who like to cling to their identities to maintain a voice on the wiki. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 11:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the thing is, that it's pretty obvious that some of those should be historical. Mall Tour '06 is out of date, there is a Mall Tour '07 now, and who's going to start up an 06 group again? On Strike was for the big zombie strike, and that history should be protected, and further strikes have their own pages (or disambig). But nominating groups who weren't time specific, and continue to have members show up on the stats page? How do we get some consistency in which historical bids can be struck down? -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 04:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather have this: If the leadership declares his group dead, it's dead even if people still show up on the stats page. If no one on the leadership or membership shows up and there's a bid, the stats page info would have to be conclusive in judging if a group is still active or not (in this case, the SD of the Randallbank Coalition was wrongfully filed as it was still present on the stats page). In the special case that a group is in line with an event more than an organization (as the Strike, Mall Tours, Big Bash and BBB), confirmation that the event is over should be enough to declare said group inactive. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 20:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I think that is a group is on the stats page then they should not be allowed historical status unless there has been a notice on the wiki for a certain time frame. That would be my opinion. Pillsy FT 14:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't have too much of a problem with what Matt says about "event groups", though I also like the idea of Mall Tour '06 still running around, maybe with a new motive to show Mall Tour '07 how it's done "old school." Retros vs the Trendies. Silly, but the whole packaging of "mall tour" itself is silly.
I'm not entirely sure how much I support "when the leader says its done, it's done." Makes groups sound like they're basically the vanity project of their leadership, which is true in a lot of cases. However, if people are identifying as something, they're that group, whether the leader dissociated him or herself from the group or not. A (temporarily) leaderless group does makes matters more confusing, since leaders generally exercise or delegate editorial control of their wiki pages, but the wiki supports the game, not vice versa.
As I'm more invested in "role playing" Malton than the "scoreboard" keeping that seems to motivate most wiki editors, I'll add something more from my interest. Take this hypothetical case: There are a lot of groups with "real world" analogues. SAS, 101st Airborn, Mossad, etc. Now if a leader quits, and it's member does follow suit, it's possible for the group to be "historical." Let's say Mossad goes defunct, but did manage to somehow create a Jewish neighborhood in Malton, and got the historical status for that and general badassery. Say another player is really keen on Mossad, either because of a personal interest in the RL Mossad or an appreciation of the accomplishments of the game group. Can he not revive the group because it was "historicized?"
I've been against Crit 12 as is. It just seems to be a way for deletionists to find happiness through fixing a "clutter problem" that doesn't really exists. Any group or entity with more than two months activity in game, and has wiki content reflecting said engagement should be "historical" and read as a reflection of the myriad ways the game can be played. As is, I think editors are thinking of "historical" as some sort of "hall of fame" category reserved for groups who did well in a narrow "scoreboard" interpretation of the game and those who invented novel ways of PKing and Griefing.--The Envoy 17:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Well said, Envoy. The clutter is not physical (well, unless a literalist wants to take it down to the DASD level), and unless someone can point out how it otherwise griefs, I don't see an issue. The "hall of fame" notion is probably what a lot of voters are really looking for, or at least voting under--not so much that they worry about clutter, but more an indication of an interest in protecting group pages of groups significant to them. --Barbecue Barbecue 02:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
yeah good points. so when are you going to update the mossad page like you said you would?--Sexualharrison MR• ה •TStarofdavid2.png Boobs.gif 05:50, 22 May 2007 (BST)

Church of New Eden

Ok, I've been around since the beginning and have seen all types of groups. However I never saw the Church of New Eden ever do anything. All I remember people telling me that it was a death cultist group but we never saw nor heard of them in game. So...how'd they get historical? --Sir Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 14:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Their level of communication in-game was astounding, second only to IZONE. My older journal logs show a typical encounter with them. I'm quite surprised so many older players never ran into them, they had quite a field of experience. They were one of the early terror-spreaders of infant-PKing. I wish a few of their members were on the wiki to speak up about it. --MorthBabid 23:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Paradox

Not sure if this is the right place but, Paradox have 31 members on the stats page. That doesn't seem very "not active" to me. And as not being active is a requirement to be listed in historical groups shouldn't they then be removed from historical until the time they go inactive again. Whitehouse 01:53, 8 July 2007 (BST)

See above -- Necrodeus 19:46, 6 June 2008 (BST)
First note the timestamp. You are almost a year late with that. Then note that this was posted before the above one. :P - User:Whitehouse 11:47, 23 July 2008 (BST)

Iron Cross Brothers

I'd like a re-evaluation on their historical status. They were never important or big, in fact the only reason why they got this status was because before voting on status all you had to do was put up the Category on your page and you were historical. When we switched over to voting no one wanted to remove old historical groups so they stayed. The ICB should have been called Iron Cross Brother because there was only one member. The guy made the page, claimed Fort Creedy as his, and almost went into a PK war with the CDF because he was too stupid to realize others were there first. Then that dude buggered off and someone else wanted to make a group with the same exact name, so he created the New ICB which also only consisted of himself. The group is not historical and should be removed. --Sonny Corleone DORIS MSD pr0n 00:28, 10 June 2008 (BST)

Or not. No one gives a shit. Thanks assholes. --Sonny Corleone DORIS MSD pr0n 06:38, 6 July 2008 (BST)

Historical Groups Use Discussion

I have nominated the Regulators Alliance group for historical Status, however I couldn't figure out the category talk page. I added a note under the wikki news, and the historical group consideration on the group page itself. If someone could help me with this it would be much appreciated as I would like to add some info as to why they should be considered such. Thanks --John Blast

just a question why and how did the roftwood assault force become historical?--User:Sexualharrison04:16, 23 June 2011 (bst)

here's the vote. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 05:45, 23 June 2011 (BST)
man did it squeak by. must have been when i was inactive for a few months.--User:Sexualharrison06:06, 23 June 2011 (bst)

TX

Pker Bias?

Place your bets here. As much I think TX does deserve a spot in historical, I don't think they will make it. From what I'm seeing, this is basically half the PKer meta striking back at the BHer meta for making CK fail. Twice. This is what happens when you're biased in these things. We have ourselves a silent subconscious meta war...Who wants to bet something will blow out of proportion soon? -_-" --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 05:20, 5 July 2012 (BST)

Nope. I don't see how this vote is going any different than any other recent vote. You're either in the purist camp (those that cling to the vague voting criteria) or the popularity camp (voteing based on how well you personally like/dislike the group) or you're a meatpuppet. Don't see any evidence of a so-called "meta-war" or "payback" voting. ~Vsig.png 22:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Never part of the PK scene, nor did I ever BH. I have no stake in voting against your group other than a proper understanding of what it means to be Historical. Have a nice day. --WanYao 14:33, 7 July 2012 (BST)
It's what Vapor said. With a little side of the standard "let's get our friends out to upvote us". --Karekmaps 2.0?! 20:56, 8 July 2012 (BST)
Get a grip, son. Look at all the PKers who voted for (To The) Four Winds and C4NT, among many other deserving groups. You're the one blowing this out of proportion. Just because you think your group should be historical doesn't mean your group is historical. And let's not forget that without those nasty, biased PKers you would never have had a group in the first place, yes? --Paddy DignamIS DEAD 16:06, 7 July 2012 (BST)
You're talking to someone who plays PKer alts exclusively, mate. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 17:11, 7 July 2012 (BST)
badly i might add. --User:Sexualharrison01:09, 8 July 2012
It's only badly 'cause I was the one who began the "Axe Hack is a horrible PKer" joke. And let's face it. That joke accomplished what I expected it to accomplish. Now mostly everyone sees me as a bad and incompetent PKer. 'Cause I wanted them to. Wink The actual truth is, "I'm just lazy and don't really give a crap enough to be a serious PKer." --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 01:49, 8 July 2012 (BST)
MJPopcorn.gif ~ Kempy “YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD | 17:20, 7 July 2012 (BST)
I'm a Player Killer and I voted no for the CK almost everytime they pop up. And it has nothing to do with not liking them. To be honest before they retired I had a character I was leveling to join them with, but never got around to applying before they retired. They're a great group, but other than their reputation and roleplay style they weren't really noteworthy as a PKer group. They're a great group with great players and a really good theme, but they're not historical to me. I'm about to no vote Team Xtreme for the same reason with roughly the same sentiment. - Goribus 02:08, 8 July 2012 (BST)
no in fact you voted yes and missed the first vote.
Goribus said:
Fuck yes. The Columbine Kids are one of the most infamous groups just based on name and reputation alone. If you played the game on a regular basis before they disbanded, you most likely heard of them. The group also polarized people you either got it and loved them, got it and hated them, or didn't get it and hated them. The only thing about them that sucks is that they won't be around anymore and I never got around to leveling the character I wanted to join with before I left the game. -- Goribus Talk 600px-Cobra.svg.png Cobra•RDD RDDInsignia copy.png 12:50, 3 April 2011 (BST)

Lucky we have archives to catch people in their bullshit --User:Sexualharrison02:47, 13 July 2012

I've never had any issues with CK in any way and I vote the same. Although, I have a reputation as an almost but not really notable zombie player it can be argued I've contributed far more to survivor strategy over the years. Either way, CK failed because they didn't add anything to the game beyond in their direct meta-circle. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 20:56, 8 July 2012 (BST)
What a perplexing anaylisis of the votes. I've been everything at one point or another but a PKer the least, hold no biases about CK or anyone but to be honest these guys were nobodies to me. Know Josh Clarke but TX... What is that, Texas? DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:15, 11 July 2012 (BST)

Additional Moved Comments from Summary

ADD - Alright. You people who keep using the "What have you done to change the game?"...you people are fucking morons. Take a good look then at the whole category and throw it the fuck out. Aside from 2, maybe 3 groups, NO ONE has changed the game. It's too big. So if that's only criteria, We might as well shut the whole thing down now? K? Good. Bye bye. Christ, half you duffs don't even play the game anymore. I'm about done with it. Hence my rant. -Hibernaculum 03:55, 9 July 2012 (BST)

There are plenty of groups that are recent-ish that deserve inclusion, this just isn't one of them. Here's a short list of a few of the more notable ones; The Dribbling Beavers, THEM, (To_The)_Four_Winds, 404:_Barhah_not_found, COMBAT REVIVE(ever wonder where DIRT:NAP came from?), and MOB. Their achievements? DB => Battle of Santlerville2, THEM => the modern NT Defense, Four Winds and 404 => C4NTness along with having a significant impact anywhere they went against groups many times their size, COMBAT REVIVE => This group is why DIRT:NAP exists along with the offensive revive strategies numerous popular UD extensions and are the documented source of the modern mobile group strategy, MOB => Pick a reason they all apply to MOB. All of these groups(except MOB who are 07) came around during or after yours, a few by years. I could throw the Dead in there too actually since they also came later. I'd actually rank even The Malton Globetrotters, the Dulston Alliance, and Extinction as more notable groups though I wouldn't include them on an historical list, particularly not that last one. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 14:11, 10 July 2012 (BST)

I have to go with Hib on this. Now a days all the groups still active can't change the game. The historical votes should be closed if that is the case. The Pathetic Bill votes just goes to show the biased PKer base the wiki has. A Pker group can get the okay, but a BHer group does not stand a chance? And from a bunch of people who do not even play the game anymore? How can that be fair if they aren't even involved in the game? Put it this way those who don't even play the game probably do not remember Samhain Slaughter 3 Team Xtreme was the force behind getting as many of the Bounty Hunters together to attack the PKers before their strike on a Mall. This action made it so the PKers had to try to create a decoy Mall to throw the BHers hunting them off the trail. (This did not happen in the previous Samhain Slaughters) We did find the true target and did strikes on the PKers. We even warned the occupants in the Mall of the upcoming attack (Although they chose to ignore our warnings) The Mall of course was destroyed do to the fact that PKers have always out numbered the Bounty Hunters. But there is no denying that we were a challenge and Samhain 3 would not have been as fun with out the cat and mouse game. For those who do remember Samhain 3, tell me this how was the other Samhains after that? When the BHers did not bother to interfere? I also would like to point out that Team Xtreme always took pride in the fact that we were the first and biggest thorn in the PKer group Heathers side. To my knowledge no other Bounty Hunter or group have targeted the Heather's them selves as well as their "Man Slaves" The battles TX had against the Heather group are things of legend. I also would like to point out our battle with the LUEshi's Rangers on their Journal here http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/LUEshi%27s_Rangers/Campaign_Journal if you would read the entry for their The Penny Heights Campaign November 05th, 2010 - November 23rd, 2010 The rangers words speaks volumes. From our works in both Text Rapists hunting and Zerg Hunting as well as all the other things mentioned from numerous people who knew Team Xtreme both as allies and adversaries Team Xtreme should be listed as Historical. But the way things are run on the wiki it is clear that this proves to be impossible until things are changed. --Josh Clark 17:05, 9 July 2012 (BST)

josh I'm sorry but you can't compare your group to the bills you aren't even in the same league. bills famous. TX again as ddr what is that texas? --User:Sexualharrison13:13, 12 July 2012
For one, Samhain Slaughter 3 is a non-historical event for the same reason this group is having trouble passing the bar, a lack of significant impact on the game or the meta-culture thereof. It was also the most prominent thing on the Columbine Kids' bid which is part of why they also failed, if you want important PKer related events you'll be hard pressed to find any mostly because they just don't happen. Neither of the other two groups you mention having involvement against have similarly had a significant impact on the game. The few pker groups that have been listed had high membership and/or(inclusive, as the 2nd applies to all) a massive psychological impact on the meta-psyche of the game, Red Rum, Malton DEA, the ALF, the Disciples of Zeko, etc. These are all PKer groups that were notable terrors at the time in the game. People as a survivor you always worried about showing up and who represented the absolute best of what made the PKer threat mentality that led to the formation of BHer groups and lists in the first place. People changed how they played because of them, Urban Dead was changed because of those groups presence in the game. Team Xtreme or Colombine Kids are simply not on that level, and two of those groups had less than 20 people. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 13:45, 10 July 2012 (BST)


"Columbine Kids = offensive + famous + didn't change game = 100% absolutely fucking Historical!"
"Team Xtreme = famous + participated in events more than CK + didn't change game = Not Historical at all."

Go fuck yourselves. --Penguinpyro 23:36, 9 July 2012 (BST)

Columbine Kids are not an historical group. Matter of fact they failed on vote Twice. Many of the same people were also against them. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 13:19, 10 July 2012 (BST)

Historical Characters

The Hierophant said:
If there were a category for Historical Characters (and I have long believed that there should be)...

Good point. Why is there not one and who do we see about getting there to be one? Admittedly the voting on such a category could get ugly from time to time, but it would seem to be a useful thing to have a who's who of the zombie apocalypse past and present divided into reasonable subsections (survivors, zombies, Pkers, BHers etc) with explanatory text or profile links. If in game personalities were only considered if they had contributed to UD for a long enough period (say 3 or 4 years) outlined in a guidelines section, the ranks of such a category should not get too overcrowded--Albert Schwan Albert Schwan  Sunday, 8 July 2012

I'd imagine the introduction of such a category would require a vote and the usual wiki bureaucracy. As far as potential ugliness goes, I can see a couple of possible flashpoints: The first is voting, as you mentioned; the other is write-ups: Just who would write them and what/how much could they say? On the length of contribution, I agree that we don't want it to get too crowded, but three or four years of contribution for a character (as opposed to player, which is a matter of further discussion, as some players are more influential than their characters) is, in my opinion, rather too long. There are people who have done a lot in no time at all and others (the majority) who have done nothing in a very long time. There also also the matter of whether we'd accept entries for active players. All points for discussion. Considering those who could be included, here's a starter list just from the top of my head (if anyone truly viable has been excluded it's down to a lapse in memory or my own lack of insight into their playing 'faction', not because I'd necessarily vote against them):

Zombies

  • Petrosjko (Founding Papa of the RRF).
  • Sonny (Second Papa of the RRF, leader of the Big Bash, controversial character, Papa during the Battle of Blackmore).
  • Murray Jay Suskind (Fourth Papa of the RRF, rebuilt the War Council, the man who conceded defeat at the Battle of Santlerville).
  • Lord Moloch (I hate putting my own character forward, but the case is there. Not wanting to go ego-pumping, I won't denote the reasons unless asked to).
  • Goolina (Founder of the Gore Corps, hugely famous and controversial character).
  • Grim (Former Warmaster of the RRF. Notorious, hugely influential in the formation of the horde).
  • Jorm (Leader of the RRF's Barhah Brigade, founder of the MOB... We all know he would have to be in).
  • Bisfan (Second leader of the MOB. Famous and very well-known).
  • Keith Moon (Leader of Minions of the Apocalypse).
  • Bullgod (Leader of Feral Undead).
  • Katthew (The Dead and others. Also, just... Katthew).
  • We'd also need reps from Eastonwood Ferals, LUE and Shacknews, though it's a matter of debate which ones.

Survivors (Others will need to pad this out, as there are gaps in my knowledge, especially on individual CVs. I'm a killer, not a breather...).

  • Kristi of the Dead.
  • Alex DeWitt.
  • Sir Fred of Etruria.
  • Ron Burgundy.
  • Sexy Rexy Grossman.
  • Jensonson.
  • Someone from CDF.
  • ... Yeah, help me out here!

PKers

  • Sirens.
  • Karloth Vois.
  • Headless Gunner.
  • Kyle the Feared.
  • Alf Landon.
  • Pathetic Bill.
  • There are more, obviously. I don't know much about the foundations and histories of the Philosophe Knights and DARIS, for example. Also, if high bounty characters are to be considered then we should rule out all self-reporters. The isn't a single truly significant PKer who self-reports, as far as I'm aware.

Bounty Hunters

  • AidenFury.
  • Strayla.
  • Nicholas Risto.
  • Josh Clark.
  • Ciskokitty.

Others

  • The top Zerg hunters such as Prudence and Caesar Augustus (the latter is me again, full disclosure FYI) are worth considering.
  • Someone come up with more, as I'm done with thinking for now.

So yeah, there's a start based upon characters alone. Obviously if it was extended to players then there are more to be considered (Anime Sucks, for example), as that would have to encompass the metagame. --Papa Moloch 07:35, 8 July 2012 (BST)

PKers: Bob Hammero and Jimbo Bob. Others: Me (for reviving the Malton Manhunt and making those events such a blast during the Manhunt's golden era). BHers: minus Ciscokitty, plus Lois Millard, Raven Corvus, Erica Rackham, and Katie Burns. Survivors: Dickholeguy (best fucking leader the Malton Rangers ever had), Lachyrma. Zombies: The organizers of Big Bash 1, 2, and 3, and whoever founded Shacknews. Just my two cents. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 13:56, 8 July 2012 (BST)
Make it too complicated and the wiki may experience some slight turbulence and then explode. Call it historical characters and give it the exact same criteria as historical groups, and you might see the category debut in early 2015. Or hold a discussion on how to improve the groups category so that's it's not such a preening popularity contest (assuming there's a way for it not to be), and then institute the characters category. That would take us to 2017. --Paddy DignamIS DEAD 16:54, 8 July 2012 (BST)
^This. Honestly, no need to put such a list through the typical wiki beuracracy. Not only would it breed contention, I'm sure you'd run into some issues with userpage edits should someone want to add a Historic Characters template. I believe Ross started something in his userspace already. As for some of my contributions: Kevan (duh) and Akule (contributions to zerg hunting). I'd include more but I don't think this is really the place for nominations. ~Vsig.png 18:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
we could honestly make it a consensus driven article like Notable Suburbs voting. That actually historically works better for filtering out the *Really* notable ones as opposed to the popular can win an at the time vote ones. I would be against any vote type system for this and since we're discussing it here's my take on Moloch's list. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 20:56, 8 July 2012 (BST)

RE:Moloch

Zombies
  • Petrosjko (Founding Papa of the RRF). This is a given
  • Sonny (Second Papa of the RRF, leader of the Big Bash, controversial character, Papa during the Battle of Blackmore). He was more notable as a survivor actually.
  • Murray Jay Suskind (Fourth Papa of the RRF, rebuilt the War Council, the man who conceded defeat at the Battle of Santlerville).</stike> An argument might be possible for him but, this is more an RRF notable not an actual notable
  • Lord Moloch (I hate putting my own character forward, but the case is there. Not wanting to go ego-pumping, I won't denote the reasons unless asked to). Some fame, some infamy, all mostly only in group though, like Murray
  • Goolina (Founder of the Gore Corps, hugely famous and controversial character).</srike>As a PKer, sure. She reinvented a significant part of PKing. Not really notable though outside of her groups
  • Grim (Former Warmaster of the RRF. Notorious, hugely influential in the formation of the horde). Although there may be an argument for some of his TDD contributions. If we're listing for Notworthy contributions him and Beauxdeigh would be an auto-in though
  • Jorm (Leader of the RRF's Barhah Brigade, founder of the MOB... We all know he would have to be in). Yes yes yes, a million times yes
  • Bisfan (Second leader of the MOB. Famous and very well-known). Not known outside of his circles. He's not a name you'll hear whispered in terror across Malton
  • Keith Moon (Leader of Minions of the Apocalypse). Pretty Much
  • Bullgod (Leader of Feral Undead). People still get amazed when he pops up however rarely
  • Katthew (The Dead and others. Also, just... Katthew). The Many would also seal this one
  • We'd also need reps from Eastonwood Ferals, LUE and Shacknews, though it's a matter of debate which ones. Mentions for mentions sake. However there is a name I know I'm blanking on right now that was someone's alt Identity and that alt was uniquely famous
  • Sweet Zombie Jesus
  • Warlord Xyu

Survivors (Others will need to pad this out, as there are gaps in my knowledge, especially on individual CVs. I'm a killer, not a breather...).

  • Kristi of the Dead.
  • Alex DeWitt.
  • Sir Fred of Etruria.
  • Ron Burgundy.
  • Sexy Rexy Grossman.
  • Jensonson.
  • Someone from CDF.


PKers

  • Sirens.
  • Karloth Vois.
  • Headless Gunner. in-group meta
  • Kyle the Feared. More for meta contributions not actual playing
  • Alf Landon. If I haven't heard of him there's a problem
  • Pathetic Bill.
  • There are more, obviously. I don't know much about the foundations and histories of the Philosophe Knights and DARIS, for example. Also, if high bounty characters are to be considered then we should rule out all self-reporters. The isn't a single truly significant PKer who self-reports, as far as I'm aware. This would be a horrible measurement

Bounty Hunters

  • This is all only in a specific small meta groupset of players, not relevant to the game said:
{{{2}}}
Honestly the list can possibly be even more shrunk down to Petro, Keith Moon, Burgandy, Karloth, Xyu, Rexy, KotD, and Jorm for the super short list. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 20:56, 8 July 2012 (BST)
I agree with Karek on a lot of these, although I don't know if excluding someone for making a big impact on the metagame is entirely fair. There's only so much a single player can do without it being classed as 'metagame'. Headless Gunner, for example, organized and led the PKA during its heyday for a LONG time, besides which he gained notoriety for leading the CGR to victory for years.
TBH, I don't think there's a single Philosophe Knight who would be eligible for the page either way, though, Moloch. I've been one since January 2007 and I couldn't name a single one besides maybe Flogging Molly whose name was recognized outside of our forums. We go out of our way to not make a name for ourselves, and frankly, I don't think the group itself qualifies as Historical (longevity isn't enough). You can pretty much exclude any of us from this page.
I DO like the idea, though, and would very much like to see it become a reality. --DTPraise KnowledgePK 21:10, 8 July 2012 (BST)

I totally am thinking about this, it's in my usespace at the minute, but a small template thing would be good. (About the size of Bub would be ideal. Plus that way I can definitely put Dermot O'Leary in . --Rosslessness 18:31, 8 July 2012 (BST)

With all due respect it is a good idea in theory, but there's already a potential circle jerk going on due to the fact that the requirements for a Historical Character would be even more vague than a historical group. I mean no offense to Axe, but if he seriously thinks that he belongs on a list with the players Moloch listed then he's fucking insane. But given his number of friends he'd be a shoe in. People complain about meat puppetry and popularity contests as it is with Historical groups. What do you think's going to happen when it's individual players? For example, I could probably get myself on this list if I called in enough favors and asked enough people to vote for me despite the fact that I clearly don't belong on that list either. Food for thought. -- Goribus 21:30, 8 July 2012 (BST)

ditto--User:Sexualharrison00:30, 10 July 2012

I think people are getting confused as to whether we are basing this on characters or players.  CrunchyCake  T  Breakfast Club 21:54, 8 July 2012 (BST)

I was thinking that considering only players would weed out some of the meta-game that people find offensive. Some of it is unavoidable; let's face it here, we are dealing with 9 colored squares and a couple dozen boxes. Also, there are fewer players active consistently and contributing to the state of Malton for long stretches of time than there are users who stick around and run different players. The more stringent the application requirements, the fewer will be eligible and the easier such a thing would be to manage. As to it becoming a popularity contest, voting always is. Why fight it when you can work with it? The only control you can exercise regarding the quality of the applicants is in eligibility requirements. If those are more black and white (A certain active duration, no self-nomination, etc.) you insure that anyone who has managed to meet them and still is able to win a popularity contest, belongs in the category. To a certain extent, being important makes you popular most of the time if not necessarily liked in all cases. Founders of historic groups would be a good bet to win a vote like this as would milestone characters like Bud, but it would also open up the category to influential individuals. As to whether the players need be retired, if you think about it, knowing the heroes and villains of the past is handy from an academic standpoint but knowing the living legends who are still hanging around Malton is a lot more useful from day to day. I would argue that, as long as they meet the requirements, active/inactive status should not be an issue. While this would be best in a more public space, if it must be confined to Ross's userspace for the time then so be it. Just let me know if there is anything I can do to help. For the record, I would not vote for Axehack either but that is because he stopped using his namesake alt in manhunts some time ago. Given another year or so of continued advancement of the institution of manhunting in game, I might be inclined to vote for his mudkip. --Albert Schwan Albert Schwan  Monday, 9 July 2012
It'd be characters for sure. Case in point; Huey Long was a super famous personality in zombie culture, Keith Moon/Petrojsko level famous. Most people don't know that he's actually an alt because the player in question intentionally separated their personal reputation from the characters. Notability in the game should reflect notoriety in the gamespace, things people can be curious about without needing external knowledge or forum participation. That at least should be the basic starting barometer of if a character is truly noteworthy. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 09:30, 10 July 2012 (BST)

Hay guys what about uncle zeddie lul DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:11, 11 July 2012 (BST)

Ha!--Rosslessness 18:49, 11 July 2012 (BST)


User:Rosslessness/Persons Of Note is now up and running. --Rosslessness 18:49, 11 July 2012 (BST)

Removing Historical Status

In Historical Events there is this to remove events. Does the same option exist for historical groups? If I understand correctly once upon a time, being historical just meant important enough to not be deleted? --Open the Box Org XIII Alts 15:02, 8 July 2012 (BST)

Yes and no, historical groups was intentionally established as certain groups got grandfathered in. There's a list along with reasons in the archives. In addition to that certain groups in this case don't quite make sense years after the fact. Most players have no idea who The Shining Ones or ALF were these days but back in the day they were the equivalents of RRF and RedRum. There's more than a few like that in the current list and the ones that likely deserve removal and seem to have passed voting by popularity(and most of these are actually more recent, like FoD) aren't likely to be nominated for this status or effected by it. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 14:18, 10 July 2012 (BST)
How long will a group's page stay up if they fail a historical bid? --Paddy DignamIS DEAD 17:53, 10 July 2012 (BST)
I'd imagine it will stay up permanently, or until one of the group in question requests deletion. The status category was originally created to prevent the pages in question being deleted under an old criterion which I believe has since been done away with. Removing the page from the category will simply see it struck from the list and unlocked for editing. I may be wrong though, as I'm not really up on all this bureaucratic cack. --Papa Moloch 18:20, 10 July 2012 (BST)
Groups are no longer deleted. We got rid of the horrendous Crit 12(deletion of defunct groups) in 2007. Only groups that clearly never were or request it get deleted these days. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 02:57, 11 July 2012 (BST)
Gotcha. So, when a group achieves historical status, we see this at the top of the page: "This historical group is no longer active. However, its wiki page is preserved to reflect the group's significance in Urban Dead history." I guess this was written before Crit 12 was nixed. --Paddy DignamIS DEAD 16:34, 11 July 2012 (BST)
Yup, there's also a template for otherwise inactive groups. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 21:07, 11 July 2012 (BST)

Un-historiciseing a group

After coming back to the game, I want to un-historicise a group the Gingerbread Men, as I am active and I want to edit the page to someithing a bit more resonable - but I am unable to edit the page I guess I need to get it removed from historical - (Night Haunter 02:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC))

Well, there's no need to make them un-historical just to edit the page. I'd suggest heading over to this page instead. There, you can either ask for the page to be unprotected so that anyone can edit it or can ask for specific changes to be made to it. Just so you're aware, however, if you're interested in revamping the page since you're getting the group going again, you'd be better off just making a new page with a similar name (e.g. The Dead and The Dead 2.0). —Aichon— 04:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Category_talk:Historical_Groups/Archive&oldid=2374552"