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

Escape

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.

I was told I had to do this through here, but I'll keep it short. Escape is over - it was always designed to end on June 1, something that was heavily advertised throughout the duration of the movement. If you could pass me on this so I can go ahead and start writing my memoirs, I'd be most appreciative. -Captain Video 05:56, 3 June 2010 (BST)

Yes (Escape)

1. Yes - Definitely one of the most interesting and highly publicised events in a looooooooong time. --
    
    
    
    
   06:10, 3 June 2010 (BST)
2. Hell yes - Absolutely. --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 06:22, 3 June 2010 (BST)
3. Oh, hell yes - Lots of publicity, huge turnout, unfortunate results. --TheBardofAwesome 06:41, 3 June 2010 (BST)
4. Yes - Same reasons as DDR. μ_nholy®_eign 06:52, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   Yes - It was interesting and even though I did not participate, the numbers were large enough that it deserves a mention. --Travis Wells not signed properly --

    

    

    

    

   08:42, 3 June 2010 (BST)

5. Yes - Most certainly. --Thadeous Oakley 08:31, 3 June 2010 (BST)
6. Yes, yes and thrice yes - twas verily bloody good fun, m'lud. Chief Seagull squawk 09:04, 3 June 2010 (BST)
7. Yes Events do not need to be successful to be historical and anything that gathers that many brains into one big buffet most certainly counts as significant! --Honestmistake 10:09, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   Incredibly Weak Yes - I'd prefer it to be a historical event, in all honesty, but I don't see why it can't be both (assuming someone makes a page for the event).--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:51, 3 June 2010 (BST) Changin' mah vote.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:27, 3 June 2010 (BST)

8. Yes - Largest group on the stats page by far in a good while, lots of publicity, and clearly significant by the numbers that turned up on both sides --ORakoon 11:49, 3 June 2010 (BST)
9. Yes - Utter failure but a good try--Arthur Dent BIN LADEN IS DEAD!!!!! 12:44, 3 June 2010 (BST)

No (Escape)

1. Why? - I'm leaning towards a yes for the reasons DDR mentioned, but aside from being highly publicised I'm not really seeing any effects from the event. You know, aside from a whole lot of zombies in one place, which was funny as hell. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:39, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   I understand your point, but events this big are few and far between nowadays. In fact, that's an understatement, since as far as I know, this is the largest gathering of people I've heard of in two years, since March of The Dead and the apparent Battle of Barhapolis. In a game where numbers are declining and group actions en masse aren't as spectacular (particular in roleplaying value), I found this thrilling and exciting. --

    

    

    

    

   07:30, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   Your word: event. This group was less than impressive and failed to change anything about the way the game was played. The event they were at was much bigger than just their group, which is what makes the event historical, even though the group is not. —Aichon— 11:33, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   Personally I think the exact opposite. As an event it was shit, I just sat there and listened to spam and then got PK'd and died. The group is what was original. Now we are just butting heads about opinions though so let's agree to disagree since we've both made points for and against yeah? --

    

    

    

    

   11:36, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   I can agree to that. I think I viewed the event differently since I was on the outside looking in, rather than the inside looking out, as you were. For us zombies, this was the best eating we've had in awhile, and the most fun too, since almost all of the big groups showed up in force. Lots of joint strike operations and the like make for lots of fun. :) —Aichon— 11:41, 3 June 2010 (BST)

2. No/Abstain - It's absolutely a historical group/event, but I'd like to see something on the page which details what happened. Now that the 1st and 2nd have come and gone, perhaps some of the people who participated can write up a little "post-event analysis". Then I'll happily vote yes.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 09:03, 3 June 2010 (BST)
3. No - I feel that the event was HUGELY significant and should definitely be considered historical (see here), but the group itself failed to change the game at all and didn't do anything of significance aside from get together in one place and get themselves (along with everyone and everything else in a 10 block radius) killed by hungry zombies. Had they actually succeeded at their objectives, possibly even their secondary one of committing mass suicide by jumping, I might change my mind, but they didn't. Also, with 414 members still active in the group, that makes it far and away the largest in the game right now, so I think it's still too early to consider the group beyond the point of actively contributing (as the rules at the top of this page require). I know that's a bit of a technicality, but it's just one reason for my vote amongst several. —Aichon— 11:25, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   Typically groups made for a one-time purpose go into historical groups not events. Eg. BBB, and more likening to Escape itself, On strike. Just like Big Bash (which didn't really "change the game" besides be a horde but is still with my former examples in Historical Groups category), it's just the thing we do, I guess. --

    

    

    

    

   11:32, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   But if it's an event, then we avoid No Escape requesting the same thing. They'd both be pinned down under the same name.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:33, 3 June 2010 (BST)

   On Strike actually succeeded though, and as I said, had Escape succeeded, I may have changed my vote (likely would have). As for likening it to other events, why not the famous sieges and the like that are mentioned over here? This was essentially the biggest and shortest siege in recent history, after all. Yonnua also makes a good point about it covering all of the groups if it's an event. —Aichon— 11:36, 3 June 2010 (BST)

4. No - Like my vote up there in the yes column says, it was very weak, and Aichon's changed my mind. As Aichon, and as I said before, but with much more frowny-face. >:( --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:28, 3 June 2010 (BST)

Recent Nominations

• Guardians of the YRC - Failed
• Assylum - Ineligible and therefore Failed
• The Church Of The Beyonder - 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.