Category talk:Historical Groups

Obtaining Historical Status

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

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

Nominations for Historical Status

Eastonwood Ferals

What do you want? An essay? If you don't know who they are or why they deserve historical status then you've only been playing a week or never left your fort.

1. Yes - I nominated them... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:23, 25 September 2008 (BST)
2. Yes - Unlike most groups who have this honour conveyed upon them, these guys deserve it in a major way. One of the greatest groups in the history of Malton. --Papa Moloch 20:40, 25 September 2008 (BST)
3. Yes - One the deadliest, most effective and most respected zombie groups out there. EF kept Easton' red and completely uninhabitable for breathers for about 2 years. They were active in the entire NW sector, and were an integral part of the Mall Tours and many other events and "happenings". EF are one of the most historical and accomplished UD groups. EVER. And they will be very sorely missed in UD. Rest in pieces, EF. --WanYao 20:41, 25 September 2008 (BST)

   I'd like to add that, as far as I'm concerned, EF mastered and perfected several tactics that are commonplace now -- e.g., using pinatas as a strategy rather than just a random tactic, and organised zombie-squatting (aka Salt the Land). For many months they also kept the only record, in their "almanac", dealing with levels of ruin/decay -- a resource used by everybody. The list could go on. EF are not "Historical," nor even just "pioneering": they are Legendary. --WanYao 20:56, 25 September 2008 (BST)

4. Yes - You're kidding right? Few groups are as deserving, or have had as fearsome a reputation. Just do it, k? Thanks! -- Bisfan 20:51, 25 September 2008 (BST)
5. Yes - Being one of the first major hordes I fought against as a survivor, these guys will always have a soft spot in my heart. May their memory unlive on forever. -- Cheese 20:58, 25 September 2008 (BST)
6. TOTALLY YES -Such a great group and one of the older zombie groups. Their dedication to keeping Eastenwood totally ruined (most of the buildings there scored some insanely high ruins), involvement in both bashes and mall tours, their ability to get along with everyone, and their great projects like the 10K club have given the game much flavor it otherwise wouldn't have. If anyone deserves historical status its them. They will be very much missed. --Zoey Zarg 20:59, 25 September 2008 (BST)
7. Yes - I am back on the wiki for this edit only. Yes, they were such a great group, its very sad they're gone.--KOOKY 21:16, 25 September 2008 (BST)
8. Absolutely - This is terrible news, but at least they can be remembered. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 21:20, 25 September 2008 (BST)
9. Yes -- This is a well duh sort of thing. Pound for pound the most effective zombie horde in UD (and I include LUE and Shacknews on that count). -- Murray Jay Suskind 21:23, 25 September 2008 (BST)
10. Yes -- many A time have they eaten my brains. may they be remembered for it.--'BP^Tmz 21:26, 25 September 2008 (BST)
11. Yes - No doubt about it in my mind. On behalf of my former horde (who had the pleasure of working with them last year), I saLUEte the EF.--DJ Deadbeat 21:28, 25 September 2008 (BST)
12. Yes - Without question one of the most [if not the most] effective horde in UD, heroes to the zombie cause and harbingers of death for the survivors. Well deserved, and the nomation says it all, if you don't think so then you should leave your fort more often. --TouchingVirus 21:44, 25 September 2008 (BST)
13. Yes - They were as good as it gets.--Panthera 22:10, 25 September 2008 (BST)
14. Yep - The most unanimous historical-group-vote evar? --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 22:12, 25 September 2008 (BST)
15. Yes - I've rarely even gone near Eastonwood and word of their accomplishments has still reached my ears. They've earned a reputation as one of the most fearsome and effective zombie groups in the game. --Lejes 22:22, 25 September 2008 (BST)
16. Yes - Fuck yes, one of the most legendary zombie groups ever.--Drawde ^{Talk To Me! DORIS Red Rum Defend Ridleybonk! I know Nothing!} 22:40, 25 September 2008 (BST)
17. Yes - Farewell, Eastonwood Ferals. You were a force to be reckoned with and the hordes (or the harmanz) won't forget you.Petite Fille 23:16, 25 September 2008 (BST)
18. ZOMG YES! - Bobs Aturd 00:04, 26 September 2008 (BST)
19. Yes - Go with Barhah. --Insomniac By Choice 00:50, 26 September 2008 (BST)

Previous Discussions

There are 3 archives for this page.

General Discussion

	Things Best Forgotten
	This Category talk page has an archive.

Voting Succeeded

	Things Best Forgotten
	This Category talk page has an archive.

Voting Failed

	Things Best Forgotten
	This Category talk page has an archive.

Historical Groups Use Discussion

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

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 Loken^{No Pity! No Remorse! No Fear! Talk}22:09, 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 Loken^{No Pity! No Remorse! No Fear! Talk}00:03, 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.--Karek^maps?! 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.--Karek^maps?! 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.--Karek^maps?! 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)

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 •T} 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)