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

Guardians of the YRC

I am nominating Guardians of the YRC for historical group status for the following reasons: it was mostly due to their contribution that Yagoton was one of the safest suburbs in Malton at that time. Also, they were the first group to publicly protest against the RG. Lastly, the group founder, Gasbanit brought Urbandead notoriety in the blogosphere.Axel27 13:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Against - Zergers get no recognition here. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes - For the reasons mentioned above.Axel27 13:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Against - Never heard of them, but a look over the page shows me I'm glad I haven't. 14:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
They were active in 2006 and early 2007. Axel27 15:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Against. having read the article linked from the groups talk page I don't know why we should be rewarding them for what they did. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 15:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Against - Zergers. --Private Mark 15:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Against - Oh, I say. Who were these fellows again? -- Adward 16:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Against - After a very interesting read, it has to be said, I can't find much that makes the group noteworthy other than it is built off Zerging. Which is bad. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}16:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Against – Zergs Not Welcome. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 17:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Strongly Against - Who? And WTF? Everyone should read ~~this~~ the link here. Immature, selfish, clueless, not historical, not even a group.--_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 17:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, because giving it more links for Google to add to its rating is a good idea... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I didn't consider google. I just thought it important for anyone voting to know the score.--_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 17:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
It's linked on their page, the guy's page and talk page and everywhere else he can. He's trying to push the rating up, might want to 'unlink' that bit of your post. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
This? --Thadeous Oakley 18:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC

Done.--_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 18:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Fuck Google. Get a life. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 18:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Fuck Off --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 17:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Nay - Even when ignoring the self-admitted zerging, this group hasn't really made an impact or sufficiently contributed to Malton history.--Thadeous Oakley 18:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
No - GTFO. --Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
No --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 18:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
No - I never heard of them other then what i saw on the zerg list ;) --
- Timmah!
- Talk
18:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
No - To quote C. Montgomery Burns, "Who the Hell are you?" --Papa Moloch 19:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Nay - You shall not pass. —Aich on— 19:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
On ne passe pas!--Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}21:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
No Is for Niggers--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 21:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
No - <insert witty and mildly condescending remark here> --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 21:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
No - The only thing that I can recall about this group is zerg-related. --Zs L 00:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
No - Zergs. --Haliman - Talk 00:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes - I can't find any good zerg players in StarCraft anymore-- SA 00:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
00:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

SA, we've talked about this before. Despite the fact that they both have a hive mind, the Zerg in StarCraft are not the same as the ones in Urban Dead. You really should know better by now. —Aich on— 00:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
But, but.... ;_;-- SA 00:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Against - Frankly I'm surprised anybody remembered this, much less considered it worthy of historical status. The GoYRC, in the end, was nothing but smoke, mirrors and zerglings, propped up by multiple network connections and an overzealous wiki presence. As I said in the post so graciously linked above, I never came back to UD, and I still take full (unapologetic) responsibility for my actions. Nice to see the game is still suffering from the same brokeassedness it was when I turned down the dark path, though. Reaffirms, in my mind, I did the right thing, have no regrets, and was also right not to "go straight" and keep playing with a new character. Honestly, you guys can just delete the GoYRC page for all I care, but hey, Axel, thanks for the gesture. If any of you are playing Warhammer Online on Gorfang, look me up. I run a guild there, and I promise I'm not playing multiple accounts ;) --Gasbandit^{(Talk | GoYRC)} Invalid sig -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:57 5 December 2009 (BST)
You're welcome, bro. You played an important part in UD history and I think everyone should acknowledge that.Axel27 08:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
No too much suck.----Sexualharrison 02:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
No Who the hell are they? --Kelly_U^{RR talk} 05:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
No - Only PK zergs get historical. Congrat's Yagoton, one more zerg group -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:57 5 December 2009 (BST)
Category talk:Historical Groupsmoved to talk -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:04 5 December 2009 (BST)