Category talk:Historical Groups

Obtaining Historical Status

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

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

Nominations for Historical Status

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

New Nominations

Assylum

nominating for historical wiki group. Many users from this group ended up becoming sysops and strong contributors for this wiki. During the existance of this group, the antics of their members lead to drama (heh) and somehow helped improve the rules that guide us all. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 16:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Aye - for some reasons i thought we were deleting 'historical group', but we are rather deleting 'confimed groups'. Therefore, Assylum should have a chance to acchive historical status --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 16:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Aye-- SA 16:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
3. No Shouldn't be mixed in with historical groups that actually did stuff in game beyond a little radio spam. --Papa Johnny 22:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Yes - No idea who these guys are, but they sound like total geniuses. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Yea -Sheep vote From what I have read about them they seem to be Historical enough.--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 23:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

   Nay - I agree with later voters. (e.g Aichon) --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 23:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

6. Nay - I haven't seen any evidence of in-game activity of historical significance. I do admit that their wiki shenanigans are somewhat humorous, but wiki actions have nothing to do with historical status. I'd love to vote Yea, since I also know a few of the group members, but I can't. —Aichon— 23:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

   You can and you should. If this passes, a whole month of me being nice! What more could you want?-- SA 11:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

   A free Tibet, a supreme stuffed crust pizza, a new computer, another four hours of sleep, and a Rhodesian ridgeback puppy, off the top of my head. I'll compile a list for you later of other things I want. Besides, you've always been nothing but nice to me, and I get a laugh out of you being mean to others. :) —Aichon— 15:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

   But...but... :(-- SA 20:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

   <3 u! —Aichon— 21:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

7. No - As Johnny, Aichon and Iscariot. This nomination should just be removed. --Papa Moloch 23:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
8. No - Who?--
   
   | T | BALLS! | 00:56 17 November 2009(BST)
9. Nay - Aichon said it best.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 08:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
10. No Was there another group with the same name? Asheets 21:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
11. No The nominator can't even spell "achieve" correctly. And the group has nothing to prove it's importance on its wiki or in game. Criminally Insane ^{Talk | LoD} 22:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

    Uh, har? Nothing to prove its importance on the wiki? We are the wiki. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

12. No - The group was a notoriously massive spam-fest, but they didn't really have any in-game activity that I can recall. --ZsL 23:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
13. Nay - Wiki activity may or may not supplement a group's viability as a historical group. But I've never even heard of this group, let alone know of anything historical/unique that they did in-game. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
14. No - Lack of in-game achievements. Garum 08:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
15. No - do i even need to justify this? --~~~~ [talk] 18:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
16. No. I have never heard of them, and I have been here a LONG time --Roland 00:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
17. No --Hibernaculum 01:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
18. no as above----Sexualharrison 14:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an invalid nomination, the policy specifically states groups that no longer contribute to the game, this means they must have at some point contributed to the game. Note, the game, not a game resource, RG mods are not applicable for historical status, Assylum isn't either. This is Hagnat's bad faith attempt to shore up a category he created against policy as a vanity exercise. This nomination needs removing for these reasons. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

We spammed a bunch of shit on the radios with Ghetto Cow support.-- SA 16:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehehe. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

ALSO LOL ASSUMING BAD FAITH. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"you accused another user of pure bad faith.... you could get someone perma-banned pulling shit like that". - Just to put what you just said in perspective.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The difference? I'm not requesting the power to vote and ban people based on my opinion. I'll wait for you to respond before mentioning this on you promotion bid. I'm nice like that. Also, given more than one person has pointed out that this group is ineligible for historical, given I had Hagnat's vanity category removed earlier, why has the sysop team not stepped in to remove this ineligible shit from clogging up the system? Or do I need to nominate ex-old-BS-RG-Mods as the next 'historical' group to illustrate how this nomination abuses the system? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Do it. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 06:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said this was an eligible group. I was just saying that you shouldn't accuse Hagnat of bad faith when you got so aggressive with me about it.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you not pay attention? The difference is that your jumping to conclusions behaviour could land a innocent user with a ban because you're chomping at the bit to get the power to ban people on this wiki. I am not. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Say whaaaat? I have no intention of accusing people of voting in abd faith, as you have. I pointed out that loads of the clauses in your PD were about punishing people you don't like.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC) NO

1. Nay I've never heard of them, and it seems to me that they had more of a presence on the Wiki than the actual game. --Justin 20:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Church Of The Beyonder

Nomination added by User:Paedobear at 05:09, 15 November 2009

1. Against - Allied with TZH, a quick shout to the PKA should kill this. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
2. No - Who? 11:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
3. No - Bad. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
4. No Another example of why historical voting is fail. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

   Dunno... I'd consider it a better example if this trashball actually passed. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

   Because its a populartiy contest, and this example shows that people don't understand what "historical" even means. Note the complete lack of justification for the nomination. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

5. Spam - Lack of justification makes this worthless. Because no one will know you otherwise.-- SA 15:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
6. No - Never heard of them. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
7. No - I've never heard of you and you don't appear to have contributed significantly to the game, even in your own suburb of Dulston, but your wiki page is amusing. Have fun with MW2!--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
8. No - You've got to be fucking kidding me... --Papa Moloch 13:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
9. No - Never heard of you folks. --Janus ^talk 13:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
10. No - Haven't heard of you and i'm currently in Dulston. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}14:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
11. No - Not historical if no one knows them. --Haliman - Talk 16:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
12. Nay - As Haliman111. --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 17:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
13. No - Hibernaculum 19:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
14. No - Had a zombie and a survivor go through Dulston. Never heard of you on either. —Aichon— 20:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
15. No - who you --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:55, 15 November 2009 (BST)
16. Who? - The total lack of description and justification isn't helping... --DT^PK 20:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
17. No fucking way - Never heard of you.-- Adward  21:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
18. No -Who? --Kelly_U ^{RR talk} 23:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
19. Triple no who the fuck are you guys?----Sexualharrison 01:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
20. Who???? - In other words: fuck no. --WanYao 02:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
21. Lolwut? -- 
    •   Timmah!  
    •   Talk  
    02:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
22. Who? This is the last time I follow a link on Sexualharrison's talk page.--The Argonauts 03:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
23. No --30 members? Maybe if they zerged. Criminally Insane ^{Talk | LoD} 10:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
24. No Barely 18 months old... Asheets 15:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
25. Yes Although apparantly Urbandead is serious buisness...--Paedobear 18:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
26. No Never heard of them. --Papa Johnny 22:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
27. What - No. (as above) --Private Mark 01:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
28. No - I've never heard of them. The fact that they're allied to or connected to Team Zombie Hardcore is their only claim to fame. And if you piggyback a group that doesn't matter and hasn't ever made a lasting impression on the game and that's the biggest thing you're known for, then you aren't even remotely a candidate for a historical group. --Goribus 02:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
29. No - Who?--
    
    | T | BALLS! | 07:48 17 November 2009(BST)
30. No - Although Vida Guerra's ass is banging, I have never heard of this group - including a vast amount of others. --ZsL 23:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
31. No - Never heard of 'em. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
32. No - Again, I have never heard of them or seen one of them in Malton--Roland 00:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
33. No - Who? -- Papa Jadkor ^{(RRF) (MotA) (MT11)} 21:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
34. Yes Won't make any difference, but am voting yes simply because the page keeps making me laugh when I go back and look at it. --Xyu 14:21, 20 November 2009 (GMT)
35. No - No. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 19:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
36. No - Not known, did nothing useful.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 20:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Voting Closed - This group has failed to become a historical group. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent Nominations

• Flowers of Disease - Succeeded
• Detulux Inc - Failed

Previous Discussions

There are 3 archives for this page.

General Discussion

	Things Best Forgotten
	This Category talk page has an archive.

Voting Succeeded

	Things Best Forgotten
	This Category talk page has an archive.

Voting Failed

	Things Best Forgotten
	This Category talk page has an archive.