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. 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

The Penny Heights OGs

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

they were loud on the old Proboards Forums way back in 2005. Several historical pages link to them. Zombeater

No timestamp vote struck. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 20:13, 6 October 2010 (BST)

1. Not quite the level of impact of a group like DARIS but unique enough in my mind during the early stages of UD that they shouldn't be left to rot in the dust. Strike this. -MHSstaff 20:26, 6 October 2010 (BST)
2. Fine, here we go again, timestaped: they were loud on the old Proboards Forums way back in 2005. Several historical pages link to them. Zombeater 20:28, 6 October 2010 (BST)

   I fixed your entry so it doesn't mess up the counting. Not that the "Yes" section will need a lot of counting.-MHSstaff 20:29, 6 October 2010 (BST)

   Two links out of the fifteen links are historical, but regardless, having links on the pages of historical groups/coalitions does not make a group historical. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 06:30, 7 October 2010 (BST)

No

1. Never heard of 'em, and they have no real achievements. Moving on... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 20:04, 6 October 2010 (BST)
2. What a joke. --Thadeous Oakley 20:04, 6 October 2010 (BST)
3. I've never heard of them, and If AH hasn't either, they probably weren't that notable.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:11, 6 October 2010 (BST)
4. It's enough that the United Territories Federation is historical. Plus Who? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:18, 6 October 2010 (BST)
5. No thanks. 20:33, 6 October 2010 (BST)
6. Not heard if them, + they are small--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 20:46, 6 October 2010 (BST)
7. Who. The. Fuck? --Papa Moloch 21:38, 6 October 2010 (BST)
8. To quote the Bard, "Who?" —Aichon— 22:12, 6 October 2010 (BST)
9. I've had characters in PH for years, and I've never once heard a mention of this group. Asheets 22:35, 6 October 2010 (BST)
10. -- LEMON #1 22:46, 6 October 2010 (BST)
11. It appears that during their time in UD a mere 5 wiki users ever had cause to comment on their talk page, and then it was only to remark that the group didn't appear to exist. This, and comments from others asking "who?" would indicate they haven't made the kind of impact on the game that is generally deemed necessary for historical status consideration.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 23:23, 6 October 2010 (BST)
12. Spam - We need a better system of trashing these idiotic claims for fame. --VVV ^RPMBG 01:09, 7 October 2010 (BST)
13. Who? What? Why? There's not anything remarkable in any of those categories. No. --keepster33 03:16, 7 October 2010 (BST)
14. poop as everybody else.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 04:16, 7 October 2010 (BST)
15. I've never heard of them either... --Colette Hart 06:27, 7 October 2010 (BST)
16. Sorry, the historical significance of this group cannot be found at the moment. Please leave a NARP after the beep. Beep. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 13:30, 7 October 2010 (BST)
17. You know, most groups vying for historical status at least include a summary of what they've accomplished here. Was there nothing to say? --Shatari 18:15, 7 October 2010 (BST)
18. Can't say that they were that important, or at least important enough to be historical. They were pretty obnoxious as I recall, on a specific forum I lost the link to.--Mead 23:46, 7 October 2010 (BST)
19. Oh Glorious Blob, give me guidance as I vote on...on...ermmm...pssst, Marinus, who are these guys again? Ahh yes, the Penny Heights something or other. *The Blob simply Stares and blinks once or twice.*...I take that as a No then? Very well. NO. --Dr summeroff 00:22, 8 October 2010 (BST)
20. I would never vote for an Olive Grove, no matter where its located! --Justin 01:50, 8 October 2010 (BST)
21. Who?--VinnyMendoza 02:16, 8 October 2010 (BST)

Recent Nominations

• Ackland Abattoir - Failed
• PTT - 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.