Category talk:Historical Groups

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Revision as of 23:22, 15 June 2010 by TripleU (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigationJump to search

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.


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

101st Airborne Unit

101st Airborne Unit

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.

Apperentlly I have to do this because I was checking up on old memories and the 101st Airborne Unit is only listed at Inactive. The 101st was very historic. Considering in 06' and 07' we took back nummerous malls and even played a main role in taking back creedy once. I, And about 3 other people are the only surviviors of when we disbanded. We have now formed the 82nd Airborne Division and most people don't even remember The Subtle little 101st Airborne Unit. Well I'm going to change that, I nominate the 101st for historical status!-- Jerrel tlk (82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!). 20:27, 15 June 2010 (BST)

Yes (101st)

  1. Yea Of course I'm going to vote yes. Let's just hope everyone else feels the same way.-- Jerrel tlk (82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!). 20:42, 15 June 2010 (BST)
  2. --Dunstan 20:44, 15 June 2010 (BST)

No (101st)

  1. Nay. The 101st what? -- Spiderzed▋ 21:42, 15 June 2010 (BST)
    Airborne Unit. ;P -- Rahrah is not too happy about another dead lexicon. 22:00, 15 June 2010 (BST)
  2. Maybe if they were the 1st, but if there were 100 others before them they can't really be that special. We're coming to get you, Barbara 21:43, 15 June 2010 (BST)
  3. Nay - I would've never heard of them if I didn't make a point of maintaining the formatting of the suburb group listings. I'm afraid I've never seen any effects that they've caused or have heard of anyone working alongside them or commending them for their efforts. Really, this is the very first time I've ever heard anyone talk about them at all. —Aichon— 22:17, 15 June 2010 (BST)
  4. As Above --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:18, 15 June 2010 (BST)
  5. No -THE 101ST HAS OFFICIALLY DISBANDED FOR SECURITY REASONS! It is now called 82nd Airborne Division.--Michalesonbadge.pngTCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 22:23, 15 June 2010 (BST)
  6. No -as Michaleson --Raddox MurTangle 22:28, 15 June 2010 (BST)
  7. Spam - But thanks for helping make the point as to why "The groups leader wants it to be historical, then why shouldn't we let him." --VVV RPMBG 00:22, 16 June 2010 (BST)

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. μnholy®eign Dual nature player 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. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 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--Weed.jpgArthur DentWeed.jpg BIN LADEN IS DEAD!!!!! 12:44, 3 June 2010 (BST)
    Weak Yes - Has been definitively the most significant event this year so far. (Of course, the opposition consists of the umpteenth Battle of Krinks and St. Aiden's zerg army trying to reclaim Ridleybank, so this isn't really a badge to be proud of.) -- Spiderzed▋ 12:54, 3 June 2010 (BST) Screw that, others are right. We need a NPoV page on the event and cover that as historic, not that group. -- Spiderzed▋ 18:55, 10 June 2010 (BST)
  10. Yes - A historic fail, but historic none-the-less. Asheets 13:13, 3 June 2010 (BST)
  11. Yes - There's a blurred line between an event and a group that sets itself a time-limited objective/reason to exist/whatever, but this doesn't count against it as a historical group IMO. Escape had good flavour (lol), a new idea, a large following and a large zombie response. Historical. Yes. Garum 13:17, 3 June 2010 (BST)
  12. Without a bloody doubt, Yes - The sheer momentum it picked up in such a short space of time, and given that it came from absolutely nothing in the first place, people are gonna remember this. Anyone who was there saw the numbers present, both inside and out after the zeds came. PK'ers came, BH'ers came... it was the place to be. And for a while, there was an atmosphere of excited hope buzzing around the place, something the game had been lacking for too long. F'kin yes man. GG Escape, GG. Clap.gif ~ Kempy “YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD | 14:30, 3 June 2010 (BST)
  13. Yes As Kempy. Oidar 15:09, 3 June 2010 (BST)
  14. Yes I don't see why not. As a group, the largest I have ever seen, by the way, it was one of the more bizarre moments of Urban Dead. It certainly deserves to be remembered, though perhaps under events as opposed to groups? --The Prophet of Life 19:01, 3 June 2010 (BST)
  15. Yes - It deserves it. Mesousa 19:39, 3 June 2010 (BST)
  16. Yes - Obviously. --AORDMOPRI ! T 21:02, 3 June 2010 (BST)
  17. Yes - Hell, I knew, without a doubt, that this would end in nothing but a complete and total zombie massacre, and yet there were enough people involved and enough interest raised that I lemminged right along. InvincibleZombie 21:32, 3 June 2010 (BST)
  18. Yes - Fo shizzle homey. --Q. JuliusTBH 23:12, 3 June 2010 (BST)
  19. I am Captain Video, and I was torn limb from limb for my cause. And I suppose I'm allowed one vote; I just didn't want to be first. That would have been tacky. -Captain Video 05:03, 4 June 2010 (BST)
  20. Yes - Got an old fart's attention :P --Haliman - Talk 05:48, 4 June 2010 (BST)
  21. Yes - Of course, not putting that event on Historical Page would be just insane. GoLookAndKill CFT 10:28, 4 June 2010 (BST)
  22. Yes - I see the point with event rather than group, but On_Strike is a historical group, thus Escape fits in this category as well. --Cruzz 12:05, 4 June 2010 (BST)
  23. Yes - Cruzz makes a good point--Michalesonbadge.pngTCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 12:09, 4 June 2010 (BST)
  24. Yes - It made me play again, however shortly. I've been getting a lot of game news through a friend in my hangout channel over the years, this was the first that made me want to return and be part of something, even if it failed miserably. → So pretty much what DDR said. pinkgothic 13:40, 4 June 2010 (BST)
  25. Yes - I had fun attempting to escape from Malton, it got me more interested in this game. It also got me eaten. It should definetly be a historical group. --Umbrella Corp.gif Drunk Link2500 Umbrella Corp.gif 14:37, 4 June 2010 (BST)
  26. Yes - It should remind us that bad ideas have bad endings. --Colette Hart 18:58, 4 June 2010 (BST)
  27. Yes - pretty epic stuff--CorndogheroT-S-Z 03:35, 5 June 2010 (BST)
  28. Yes - It was a ton of fun and quite memorable. They came, we saw, we conquered. ^_^ --Shatari 03:38, 5 June 2010 (BST)
  29. yes please! it actually gave me a reason for playing this game. Even if it ended in a massive bloodshed with dead bodies piled up to the ceiling, it still rocked :) --Jack Kolt Talk|Chars 05:34, 5 June 2010 (BST)
  30. YES - A great group with potential to perhaps one day change the game? --JohnGGeo 05:42, 5 June 2010 (BST)
  31. Yes - Great event, really shows how fun it can be when heaps of people are together. --Dorsalus 08:39, 5 June 2010 (BST)
  32. Yes - We finally did something different! We tried to Escape the game. Even though it didn't work and our dreams were crushed. --FallUpStairs 13:07, 5 June 2010 (BST)
  33. Yes - -- User:Jordan Salafack » JS talk contribs » 15:31, 5 June 2010 (BST)
  34. Yes - It might not have been successful, but the effort, the fun idea and the number of people involved reminded me of the good old mass events we had when last I played, back in '06. Furniture 17:27, 5 June 2010 (BST)
  35. Yes - Of course this was one of the biggest things that I have seen in my whole time playing.--Sybertronic 20:22, 5 June 2010 (BST)
  36. Yes - Epic Fail, but was worth it.Noxaarmi 20:43, 5 June 2010 (BST)
  37. Yes - Yes, it was a imaginative effort to do something new and fun in the game, and in that it was a big success. Marcel Swann 22:54, 5 June 2010 (BST)
  38. Yes - It put some life back into the game and it was fun, I am for making it a historical event just for that reason.--Truezombieboy 05:02, 6 June 2010 (BST)
  39. Yes - Although the coordination was pathetic, and many were slaughtered, it was an excellent group and event. In little over a month, this group was able to gain 400+ members. It's double the size of RRF, but only ran up until June 1st. Even though nothing was accomplished, either because the zombies had overtaken Ellicott or because Kevan didn't care, its a historic group nonetheless.--SykoKiller666 14:50, 6 June 2010 (BST)
  40. Hell Yeah - I pked 3 Escapists and destroyed the generator in The Woodborne Building, and I must say, they've gained my respect, sitting ducks as they were. --Sam 2334 14:54, 6 June 2010 (BST)
  41. Yes - Easily the most interesting thing I've done on UD (Admittedly it's the first major thing I've done, but meh) --Remnant Matt 15:07, 6 June 2010 (BST)
  42. Yes yes yes yes --  ▧  : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 01:48, 7 June 2010 (BST)
  43. Yes Yes, the first attempt by humans to try to change the game with lots of people that showed up. --User:Robkiller 7:19 7 June 2010 (BST)
  44. Yes It was an interesting idea, and attracted the attention of many players. Plus, it's a nice tragic tale. Toffey 03:22, 7 June 2010 (BST)
  45. Yes Other "crusades" in history did not achieve their goals but were even more "historical" for all that, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Crusade --Belisarius17 04:37, 7 June 2010 (BST)
  46. Yes They kinda had an effect even if it wasn't the desired one.--ZIPO/Talk/◆◆◆/CAPD 06:49, 7 June 2010 (BST)
  47. Yes It was treated as a group, albeit a loosely associated one, and something did happen, even if it was a far cry from the intended result. --Austin hunt 15:45, 7 June 2010 (BST)
  48. Yes I died, like many others, but it was the first time I've felt involved in something big in the game in a while. Would've preferred it if the zombie hordes hadn't arrived and eaten everything, but oh well. Since then I've been infected, and returned to zombie form twice!--Hynzytheweirdo 23:28 7 June 2010 (BST)
  49. Yes I, accidental creator of Escape, would love it if it become a historical group. The group created a large movement that has in fact caused a few changes. Also, it would be really cool if something I started was forever remembered in internet history.--Superathen 01:18, 8 June 2010 (BST)
    Am I the only one who missed these few changes Escape caused? -- Papa Jadkor (RRF) (MotA) (MT11) 05:57, 8 June 2010 (BST)
  50. Oh Yes yes yes Definetly. If it's not mafde historical, then George Washington shouldn't be. --Justinbronze 03:07, 8 June 2010 (BST)
    Unless I'm missing something, George Washington was more person than event... Which, now that I think about it, makes him more suited as a group, wouldn't you say?  ;-) --Liche 21:00, 8 June 2010 (BST)
  51. 14 Yeses On behalf of the entire 82nd Airborne division we all say yes to the historical satus of Escape. That's 14 yeses.-- Jerrel tlk (82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!). 20:18, 8 June 2010 (BST)
    If you could have the other 13 sign, I'd really appreciate it. -Captain Video 02:29, 9 June 2010 (BST)
  52. Yes Even though it failed, it still sent reverberations throughout the game. It unified 500+ people, and is one of the largest groups/ events in Urbandead history. Just because something doesn't succeed or change things doesn't mean it shouldn't be historical - like a German land war in Russia during the winter. We all learn about that in history class, don't we?--alevins 04:49, 9 June 2010 (BST)
  53. Yes The fail is irrelevant. It was an eye catching event and impacted the game. --Jesus Sante 12:56, 9 June 2010 (BST)
  54. Yes - Shit was so cash--Orange Talk 03:42, 10 June 2010 (BST)
  55. Yea - Definitely historical, even if only as a "Hey, remember when all stood in a railway station praying for Kevan to rapture us away?" kind of thing. Wil Truman 18:09, 10 June 2010 (BST)
  56. Yes - The groups leader wants it to be historical, then why shouldn't we let him. --♥MSMD (Talk) (Glitch) 16:01, 12 June 2010 (BST)
    My fictional group has two people in it and once repaired a building. I'm the group leader. Can we be historical too? —Aichon— 21:22, 12 June 2010 (BST)
    Pfffft, your group smells like feet. My group, however, had a massive effect on the game, and should already be remembered by all. We should be historical. --VVV RPMBG 21:47, 12 June 2010 (BST)
  57. Of Course It had effect, even though it failed, it managed to unify +400 people, so yes. --LaZaH 18:13, 13 June 2010 (BST)
  58. "Definitely, yes. It failed but at least it was interesting. Actually got me back to the game. I'm still lying dead there. Waiting for the end... " Kylac 20:25, 13 June 2010 (BST)
  59. Yes. it was very good. Matias Gray 18:16, 14 June 2010 (BST)
  60. Yea There was so much talk about the great Escape that people from all over Malton came to the event. It may have failed, but the participants gave it their best shot, so they should be remembered. Canis Caeli 6:44, 15 June 2010 (BST)
  61. Yea - the group cause the event. Which was a significant note in the timeline. Therefore, the group is historical. Much like Adolf Hitler is historical, for being someone involved in one of the protagonists in the second world war. Flawless logic, right there. :3 -- Rahrah is not too happy about another dead lexicon. 21:55, 15 June 2010 (BST)
    Your mum is flawless logic. We're coming to get you, Barbara 21:58, 15 June 2010 (BST)
    You mean his face! Oh yeah, flawless comeback! --VVV RPMBG 00:22, 16 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 Praise Knowledge! 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)
  5. No - This seems more like an event to me, and didn't actually change anything within the game. I supported the effort, but I don't think it deserves enshrinement like this given its eventual lack of any impact. We're coming to get you, Barbara 15:24, 3 June 2010 (BST)
  6. Hahahahahahahaha! Oh, wait. You're serious? Let me laugh harder. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! - They didn't do shit other than get trolled to death. And they certainly didn't accomplish anything. And like Aichon said, the event might be historical, but the group isn't. The group is just a footnote on the event's historical page in my opinion. - Goribus 21:23, 3 June 2010 (BST)
  7. No - Event, yes. Group, no. --Papa Moloch 00:28, 4 June 2010 (BST)
  8. Event - I worry that No Escape will be left out otherwise, and they played a big role. Besides, I infected DDR, one of the most eventful attacks of my career. --VVV RPMBG 00:29, 4 June 2010 (BST)
  9. Fuck no - As a group, their only virtue was numbers. They did everything that a group could do wrong and that's including them not achieving their stated goals. The amount of fail in Escape as a group is immeasurable with currently manufactured equipment. As a historical event? I'd give it a second thought before voting "no" again. I'm not knocking it as something fun, just on every other possible level. --Papa Johnny 05:51, 4 June 2010 (BST)
    A whole mess of people died? That doesn't count? I mean yes, it was a failure, but it was pretty spectacular. Like watching a rocket blow up on the launchpad. -Captain Video 02:37, 9 June 2010 (BST)
  10. Fuck No – As JB, Aich', Moloch. (See also: Bandwagon? :P) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:07, 4 June 2010 (BST)
  11. triple massive fuck no as above. since when do we reward massive fail? maybe as an event. this needs to be forgotten.----sexualharrisonStarofdavid2.png ¯\(Boobs.gif)/¯ 17:51, 4 June 2010 (BST)
  12. No - Escape as a group failed as already mentioned, all they had were numbers and an idea. A huge part of what made the event fun was the zombies and PKers who showed up, and they are given little mention on the Escape group page. You're glorifying the failing element of a much larger thing. Make an event page, tell of all who were there and all that happened. -- Papa Jadkor (RRF) (MotA) (MT11) 18:06, 4 June 2010 (BST)
  13. No - As Moloch! --Akbar 18:23, 4 June 2010 (BST)
  14. No - If you actually went by the original intent of the Escape page, you should have walked away from the game as of June 2nd. Since you are here requesting that the page be put up for a historical group, it's obvious that you didn't quit the game. As such, we shouldn't reward a tantrum with Historical status. I did make a template for the occasion. Enjoy. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 19:40, 4 June 2010 (BST)
    No, I concede failure with no clauses. I simply believe this deserves to be remembered. As Goethe put it, "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it." -Captain Video 02:37, 9 June 2010 (BST)
    Which would make it a Historical Event and not a Historical Group. Even then, I will still vote against, as the members who participated as a protesting survivor were not actually going to quit the game, thus making the whole exercise a giant circle-jerk of futility. If you and the others had actually gone through with it and someone else put up the event, I would have considered voting for, as it actually did stir people to do things. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 22:26, 11 June 2010 (BST)
  15. No for being one of the whiniest and zergiest "groups" since the Children of the Darque? Bugger off--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 19:43, 4 June 2010 (BST)
    Prove whininess. Prove zerging. -Captain Video 02:37, 9 June 2010 (BST)
    Wish Granted! As for zerging, consider it Proved. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 22:35, 11 June 2010 (BST)
  16. No Massive incompetence and stupidity does not qualify a group for historical status. Even the event itself was ill conceived and not really all that significant. --Grogh 22:41, 4 June 2010 (BST)
    Actually.. - User:Whitehouse 11:48, 5 June 2010 (BST)
    Haha yeah, no reason to make another mistake! --Grogh 02:35, 6 June 2010 (BST)
  17. No It's all been said. The value was in the event, not the group. If we're going to recognise anything, we should recognise the correct thing. -- Bisfan 00:23, 5 June 2010 (BST)
    But there isn't a separate category for that. -Captain Video 02:37, 9 June 2010 (BST)
    Category:Historical Events much? —Aichon— 02:51, 9 June 2010 (BST)
  18. No As Aichon ♥ Moonie Talk | Testimonials 08:53, 5 June 2010 (BST)
  19. No - It's more of an event. The poor coordination showed by survivors lessened the feel of a "group". The arrival of Zombies and PKers from practically every big group in the game was what made it an event. Suggestion - Let's get a decent event page sorted.-- Adward  11:23, 5 June 2010 (BST)
  20. I'm pretty sure that it was stated on the Escape page that they weren't really a group. - User:Whitehouse 11:48, 5 June 2010 (BST)
  21. No Akule is right on the spot. I say no, it's a historical event. -- I'm just adding on here because I don't know where else to say this :3 Something you guys should think about was this was just a big fail bandwagon (Escape, I mean), everyone just went "baaa" and sheeped over to Ellicott Place Railway Station. It's no historic group --S e n e r g y T 17:42, 5 June 2010 (BST)
  22. No It was a pretty large event but as a group Escape failed to accomplish anything whatsoever, unless you count being delicious. --Globule13 02:33, 6 June 2010 (BST)
  23. No No Escape ruined the group and prevented them reaching the stated goal. If No Escape didn't be ignorant dicks, they probably would of reach their goal. therefore, yes. No Escape should be "honored" for being the group that ruined it for everyone.--Lonercs 06:05, 6 June 2010 (BST)
    Could you be any more bitter? The break in that resulted in your downfall was 13 zombies, at first. 380 survivors failed to dump them. Any "ruining" is down to the failure of the survivors concerned. Not all of them, but the vast majority of them. And ignorant dicks? We just happen to go where the food is. :) -- Adward  12:54, 6 June 2010 (BST)
  24. No Was less of a group and more of a hangout for people. Doesn't fit criteria. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 09:09, 6 June 2010 (BST)
  25. No - Like others, more of an event than a group. --Dr summeroff 17:35, 6 June 2010 (BST)
  26. No : 'Twas an event, 'tweren't a group. --Liche 18:47, 6 June 2010 (BST)
  27. No As whoever linked me to this page. --Shank Case 18:59, 6 June 2010 (BST)
  28. No Same reasons as Aichon and Yonnua. --Justin 19:25, 6 June 2010 (BST)
  29. No Same reasons as Aichon --Sazzacomae 8:09, 6 June 2010 (BST)
  30. No Unless this nom is for most epic failure....--Agent Sandman 03:07, 7 June 2010 (BST)
  31. No I would love to say yes, but I'm afraid despite all the fun, energy and attention, it simply wasn't a group until the tinychat started. Even then only one in ten of the people supposedly 'in' Escape got involved. If more people gotten involved, and helped achieve of the aim of reclaiming Ellicott Place on June 1st, I would have said yes. As it is, this was a fun movement, a massive event, a great laugh, but not an Historical Group. BOSCH 03:32, 7 June 2010 (BST)
  32. No - As Snowball II --Amber Waves of Pain 01:13, 8 June 2010 (BST)
  33. No - As Snowball II --Jorm 01:16, 8 June 2010 (BST)
  34. No - No it was interesting thats all --mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ MCM MOB DB 01:23, 8 June 2010 (BST)
  35. No - And I even sent my Sheana alt along for the fun and had her join up. But nothing... happened, and besides the few folks who stayed around for the hell of it and didn't, you know, stand up... it was a massive failboat. Sheana T / TMZ 08:13, 8 June 2010 (BST)
  36. No - Add another mark to the "Event" tally. Nominate it where it belongs, and you'll get a begrudging yes vote from me. --ZiPbeep boopMH+LUE 20:44, 8 June 2010 (BST)
  37. No - Why should failure be met with reward? --Skoll 06:53, 9 June 2010 (BST)
    I'm going to throw in a quick counterargument here:
    1. Events and groups are treated the same in the system (see, On Strike, The Big Bash, etc.). I think everyone who argues Escape's elimination from the historical record on the grounds of semantics is therefore a bit off.
    2. I sort of get why people didn't like Escape (even though it would have tipped the game's balance in the favor of the zombies and allowed the living to 'win,' thus satisfying both sides) but does the fact that you disliked the group really disqualify i?
    3. Escape is still the largest group in Malton, meaning that member characters, while forgetful, were and still are active in Malton. Inactive characters idle out after five days. This was real. Botched, but real.
    4: Does the fact that the group failed truly eliminate its significance? I mean yes, a win would have been nice, but there's a difference between losing and not mattering. Escape was big enough that in drew a huge horde to a railway station and turned a green suburb red. I'd say that was entirely significant.
    5: "They didn't do shit other than get trolled to death" isn't really an argument. And don't think I'm saying that because I'm a whiny survivor. I'm actually dead and loving it right now. I just think anybody who wants to give me flack for being lame should put as much work into telling me so as I put into one of those radio broadcasts. It's only fair.
    -Captain Video 02:28, 9 June 2010 (BST)
    Gotta say I concur. 1. BBB failed too, so what? 2. It's a shame that people from no escape are so quick to vote no because they want some recognition. Escape thought of the idea. Escape was original, you just added no at the front and griefed them. Well done, but too bad, Escape was the catalyst. This is the biggest and most talked about event in 2 years, 2 fucking years guys, the fact that the zombie players vote against en masse just because it was on the other side, and the zeds won, is a joke. And voting against it because it "should" be event just because they want to be included yet there's no event page as much from them as from the organisers of Escape, and it should be entered as a group anyway. Sigh. Having said that, I'm only disappointed that it won't be historical when IMO it should. Shit happens I guess. -- 02:38, 9 June 2010 (BST)
    I think it's about time we nullify the policy that created Historical Groups. The whole purpose of this category was to preserve groups of worth while Crit 12 was around on A/SD, but now that Crit 12 has been nullified for some time, the only purpose the category serves is to create excess drama and waste everyone's time with these e-peen contests every few months. Historical Groups shouldn't even exist any longer. In fact... —Aichon— 02:55, 9 June 2010 (BST)
    I don't think we should eliminate them completely, but removing the entry criteria is not a bad idea since they don't really mean what they used to. -- 03:24, 9 June 2010 (BST)
    Sorry to burst your bubble DDR, but the zombies were what made it such a good time (albeit a failure, but still a Historical Event). Kevan was most likely not going to do anything to the "Escapees", and if damn near every big zombie group int he game hadn't turned up, it would have just been a huge circle jerk for a couple of weeks. As it happens, a fun time was had. Also: It's rather shitty to assume that zombie players are all voting no for some recognition, or because we were on the other side. We came to Owsleybank because brains were there. We are voting against it because the group itself was a failure. Unless your name is FedCom, failure isn't criteria.-- Adward  17:44, 9 June 2010 (BST)
    It still sounds like you're just voting against this because you're a zombie. "If the other side hadn't showed up" isn't a valid argument in Malton. The other side always shows up. There were plans, other than getting eaten, for what would happen if we weren't spirited away. They're right on the Escape page. -Captain Video 23:28, 9 June 2010 (BST)
    Dont' forget Ron Burgundy? -- 03:01, 10 June 2010 (BST)
    Hey, don't blame all of us No Escapers. I'm quite happy to vote Yes, since the event itself revolved around Escape. As long as Escape is remembered, we'll be too. And more importantly, the group really does deserve recognition for getting 500 delicious brains all in one place for us to eat. ^_^ --Shatari 19:02, 9 June 2010 (BST)
    I did enjoy you guys. -Captain Video 23:28, 9 June 2010 (BST)
    DDR please explain how BBB was a fail? it crushed every criteria for an event.----sexualharrisonStarofdavid2.png ¯\(Boobs.gif)/¯ 09:05, 11 June 2010 (BST)
    It's been a while since I read it, but I seem to remember the BBB failing in their conquest of Blackmore... -- 10:06, 11 June 2010 (BST)
    umm we held it for over 3 months when most died in a few days sleeping in ridleybonk. and it passed voting into historical events. but you weren't there.. so right it's a fail.----sexualharrisonStarofdavid2.png ¯\(Boobs.gif)/¯ 22:19, 11 June 2010 (BST)
  38. No Others are right, it's the overall event that matters, not that group. What we need is an NPoV page about the event. And if only to motivate others to write and contribute to one when Escape fails to be regarded as historical group. -- Spiderzed▋ 18:57, 10 June 2010 (BST)
  39. No Escape itself failed to complete its goal, and then failed to stay as dead bodies after June 1st. and don't say that's not a valid reason, that was the point of escape --4Zio'TJ! 19:04, 12 June 2010 (BST)
    You do realize that the 'staying dead' part was completely optional, right? Quite a few people chose to do so, but it was only one of several options for them. --Shatari 23:59, 13 June 2010 (BST)
  40. No The event was historical at best, the group weren't. --TouchingVirus 18:17, 14 June 2010 (BST)
  41. No It would’ve been a historical event, but the event never happened. It was a historical meal, nothing more. --Marinus 19:06, 14 June 2010 (BST)
  42. No All already been said. --Karekmaps?! 01:23, 15 June 2010 (BST)

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

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Category_talk:Historical_Groups&oldid=1727933"