Category talk:Historical Groups: Difference between revisions

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
Line 35: Line 35:
#This might be the worst nomination ever. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 01:07, 5 September 2010 (BST)
#This might be the worst nomination ever. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 01:07, 5 September 2010 (BST)
#I browse the wiki quite a lot to read about Malton history and I've never heard of these guys.--{{User:Rolfe Steiner/sig}} 02:18, 5 September 2010 (BST)
#I browse the wiki quite a lot to read about Malton history and I've never heard of these guys.--{{User:Rolfe Steiner/sig}} 02:18, 5 September 2010 (BST)
#Fail.  I thought actual in-game impact was a prerequisite.  {{User:Criminally Insane/supastampbiatch}}


===[[PTT]]===
===[[PTT]]===
Line 60: Line 61:
#Was going to not vote because I had some idea that they were before my time, but I specifically remember seeing these guys with about 200 members before I [[User_talk:Linkthewidow/Archive/6#PTT|found]] their wiki page for the firs time. This is a vote towards the fact they they've been huge for years and yet I'd never seen or heard of them in-game at all, not once. Yeah, they're cute and it's great that this established UD as an international game that transgressed language barriers, yada yada, and I won't mind if they do become historical for that reason. But I still can't find myself supporting it. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 11:00, 4 September 2010 (BST)
#Was going to not vote because I had some idea that they were before my time, but I specifically remember seeing these guys with about 200 members before I [[User_talk:Linkthewidow/Archive/6#PTT|found]] their wiki page for the firs time. This is a vote towards the fact they they've been huge for years and yet I'd never seen or heard of them in-game at all, not once. Yeah, they're cute and it's great that this established UD as an international game that transgressed language barriers, yada yada, and I won't mind if they do become historical for that reason. But I still can't find myself supporting it. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 11:00, 4 September 2010 (BST)
#:{{s|1=I don't wanna vote either side, so don't consider this when tallying up the votes, but I echo DDR's sentiment that a group that big should have had a greater in-game relevance than they did. Their impact wasn't small, but it was 99.9% based on what they ''were'', not what they ''did''. I'm decidedly undecided about this one but I feel that my reasoning is worth pointing out. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 13:46, 4 September 2010 (BST)}} <small> this was originally an abstain but historical voting policy states there may only be yes or no, so I removed the header and placed it up to the rest of voting. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 14:52, 4 September 2010 (BST)</small>
#:{{s|1=I don't wanna vote either side, so don't consider this when tallying up the votes, but I echo DDR's sentiment that a group that big should have had a greater in-game relevance than they did. Their impact wasn't small, but it was 99.9% based on what they ''were'', not what they ''did''. I'm decidedly undecided about this one but I feel that my reasoning is worth pointing out. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 13:46, 4 September 2010 (BST)}} <small> this was originally an abstain but historical voting policy states there may only be yes or no, so I removed the header and placed it up to the rest of voting. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 14:52, 4 September 2010 (BST)</small>
#Murdered these guys over and over and over again.  Most of their members were just standing logins.  Did I mention the LoD wiped the floor with them when we only had 12 members? Oh, and I forgot the zerging thing.  It's great and all they had 200 something profiles at their peak, but again, merely profiles.  Where did the real gamers get to? {{User:Criminally Insane/supastampbiatch}}


==Recent Nominations==
==Recent Nominations==

Revision as of 02:49, 5 September 2010

Obtaining Historical Status

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

  1. Groups must no longer actively contribute to the game.
  2. A nomination should be made on Category talk:Historical Groups.
  3. 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.
  4. Groups that pass will be added to the category as described below.
  5. Groups must allow a week to pass between nominations.
  6. Groups must allow 4 months in between when the group disbands and when they can be nominated for Historical Status. (Note: Only for Malton-based groups)


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. Also, please add {{HistoricalVotingRules}} under the group's application for historical status.

New Nominations

Ackland Abattoir

way back in the day, actually right near the beginning of the game, the Ackland Abattoir ravaged havercroft, and Ackland Mall Security with its attacks and tricks. being such a plight to the suburb itself way back when, countless scores of survivors, newbies, and now veteran players fell victim to their tactics. As of right now, this group has been disbanded for quite some time, and only has one remaining member who does not recruit, yet proudly keeps his group status on his profile the same. i remember seeing them shortly before/after the Battle of the Bear Pit. i commune with this remaining member quite often actually, as it is nice to reminisce about the good old days. they terrorized our suburb for a long while, and i believe they deserve the due credit Nuerotoxic2213 19:30, 4 September 2010 (BST)

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
    or
  • # ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a moderator.

The only valid voting sections are Yes and No. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

Yes

No

  1. Who? Never heard of you. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 19:57, 4 September 2010 (BST)
  2. See Thad's reason. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 20:16, 4 September 2010 (BST)
  3. I'm gonna have to go with Thad on this one. -- Emot-argh.gif 20:21, 4 September 2010 (BST)
  4. Their news have been regularly updated for, what, 2.5 months from May to July 2006? They better should have made a hell of an impact during that quarter year they've been actually active. -- Spiderzed 20:23, 4 September 2010 (BST)
  5. Thad nailed it.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 20:25, 4 September 2010 (BST)
  6. bad -- LEMON #1 22:52, 4 September 2010 (BST)
  7. Fixed your link in case in helps your bid, but I've followed the goings on of most of the important PKer groups in Malton and have heard of these guys only in the briefest of asides. The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new 22:56, 4 September 2010 (BST)
  8. Thad nailed it. Also, if their leader is still around and hasn't disbanded it, I don't know that this meets rule #6 of the policy. Aichon 23:51, 4 September 2010 (BST)
  9. As Yonnua. --VVV RPMBG 00:06, 5 September 2010 (BST)
  10. This might be the worst nomination ever. --Papa Moloch 01:07, 5 September 2010 (BST)
  11. I browse the wiki quite a lot to read about Malton history and I've never heard of these guys.-- Rolfe Steiner Talk | Creedy Guerrilla Raiders 02:18, 5 September 2010 (BST)
  12. Fail. I thought actual in-game impact was a prerequisite. Criminally Insane Talk | LoD

PTT

It's been ages since I've seen any of the members active, and it's also been ages since I've seen them on the stats page. The group was made up of a bunch of members on a Taiwanese bulletin board system under the same name of the group. They came into existence in late 2006, and held strong until early 2007 (from what I know, at least). Their base of operations was situated around Shearbank. They've reached over 200 in weeks, took a small part in Battle of Blackmore, and were a major force in defending Shearbank from Shacknews after Shacknews came in and ravaged Blackmore. If anything, they were probably the largest group whose players originated from Taiwan. And believe me, their presence gave Malton a good feel of having a mixed-culture population, especially since the majority of the players in Urban Dead speaks English.

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
    or
  • # ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a moderator.

The only valid voting sections are Yes and No. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

Yes

  1. Yes - Those were good old days, all right, and these guys were a big help in many major sieges back then. If you ask me, Shearbank should have been renamed to China Town due to the large Chinese speaking population stationed there. ;) --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 16:28, 3 September 2010 (BST)
  2. Yes - The name rang a bell, but the wiki page brought it all back. Certainly deserve it.-- Adward  17:02, 3 September 2010 (BST)
    Heh. Remember when the SysOps of old thought the first few users trying to create the group page were adbots? xD --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 17:06, 3 September 2010 (BST)
    My lurker memories of old remember that :3 -- Adward  18:57, 3 September 2010 (BST)
  3. Yes --User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 17:29, 3 September 2010 (BST)
  4. Yes - Their page is even in the top 10 most visited on the wiki, and for good reason. Aichon 18:52, 3 September 2010 (BST)
  5. Yep --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:54, 3 September 2010 (BST)
  6. Yes - A great group. Redoubt 19:40, 3 September 2010 (BST)
  7. Yes - They did their part. -- Rolfe Steiner Talk | Creedy Guerrilla Raiders 03:40, 4 September 2010 (BST)
  8. Yeah - As a long time resident of Shearbank, I have seen them often in the past. Left a good impression. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 10:12, 4 September 2010 (BST)

No

  1. No - I always assumed they got their page views via bots, I never thought they were actually a group. --VVV RPMBG 23:27, 3 September 2010 (BST)
  2. No - Too much zerging and not enough actually doing stuff for my taste. --Papa Moloch 00:22, 4 September 2010 (BST)
    I'll have you know PTT handled their cheating members personally. I've witnessed their executions of their cheaters first-hand. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 00:36, 4 September 2010 (BST
    Then they'll have 'executed' enough people for it to qualify as genocide. Further, a far as the actual game goes, they were big but irrelevant. The latter damns the former. --Papa Moloch 14:28, 4 September 2010 (BST)
  3. NO cheating zerging fucks heads. that did nothing at all in game. zero.!----sexualharrisonStarofdavid2.png ¯\(Boobs.gif)/¯ 04:27, 4 September 2010 (BST)
    Is there any actual proof that they were zerging? --Shatari 12:25, 4 September 2010 (BST)
  4. Was going to not vote because I had some idea that they were before my time, but I specifically remember seeing these guys with about 200 members before I found their wiki page for the firs time. This is a vote towards the fact they they've been huge for years and yet I'd never seen or heard of them in-game at all, not once. Yeah, they're cute and it's great that this established UD as an international game that transgressed language barriers, yada yada, and I won't mind if they do become historical for that reason. But I still can't find myself supporting it. -- LEMON #1 11:00, 4 September 2010 (BST)
    I don't wanna vote either side, so don't consider this when tallying up the votes, but I echo DDR's sentiment that a group that big should have had a greater in-game relevance than they did. Their impact wasn't small, but it was 99.9% based on what they were, not what they did. I'm decidedly undecided about this one but I feel that my reasoning is worth pointing out. The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new 13:46, 4 September 2010 (BST) this was originally an abstain but historical voting policy states there may only be yes or no, so I removed the header and placed it up to the rest of voting. -- LEMON #1 14:52, 4 September 2010 (BST)
  5. Murdered these guys over and over and over again. Most of their members were just standing logins. Did I mention the LoD wiped the floor with them when we only had 12 members? Oh, and I forgot the zerging thing. It's great and all they had 200 something profiles at their peak, but again, merely profiles. Where did the real gamers get to? Criminally Insane Talk | LoD

Recent Nominations

Previous Discussions

There are 3 archives for this page.

General Discussion

Books.jpg Things Best Forgotten
This Category talk page has an archive.

Voting Succeeded

Books.jpg Things Best Forgotten
This Category talk page has an archive.

Voting Failed

Books.jpg Things Best Forgotten
This Category talk page has an archive.

Historical Groups Use Discussion