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)

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)

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)

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.