Category talk:Historical Groups

From The Urban Dead Wiki
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

The Crimson Clan

Yep, you read it - The Crimson Clan no longer operates in Urban Dead. Started in April 4th, 2007, The Clan made its first triumphs defending Dakerstown against zombie hordes - most notably Extinction. After few months of operating (and growing in numbers) The Clan took Havercroft and Ackland Mall as its home.

During the time in Havercroft (which lasted until the beginning of 2010) The Clan reached its peak in numbers (over 100 members working under the group tag) and also were among Top 10 Groups in the game. Clan also worked for keeping up the Mall and various resource buildings around it - mainly NTs - and also participated in the many sieges of Ackland during this time, gaining some reputation among the regular Mall residents. --Waak 20:16, 11 July 2010 (BST)

Yes (Crimson)

Definatly a name I reconise--Michalesonbadge.pngTCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 20:21, 11 July 2010 (BST)
  1. Yarp. Happy days fighting zergers in molebank. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:23, 11 July 2010 (BST)
    I'm not the biggest fan of the group, but I definitely recognize them and knew of their impact in the Ackland Mall area. Think I may have even killed a member or two, now that I think of it some more... —Aichon— 20:26, 11 July 2010 (BST)
  2. Aye --Waak 20:31, 11 July 2010 (BST)
  3. Good times...I think we made a big enough dent to be listed.--ErrorMaker 20:38, 11 July 2010 (BST)
  4. Yes, definitely. --AlexanderRM 23:12, 11 July 2010 (BST)
    I remember you from back in my days KoBB days. You were one of the more noteworthy groups in the Ackland region. --Shatari 01:39, 12 July 2010 (BST)
    Huh, I hadn't heard about the zerging before.--Shatari 05:23, 14 July 2010 (BST)
  5. Sure I remember them. Actually dropped by a couple of times on their forums long ago. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 18:16, 12 July 2010 (BST)
    Even I know who they were. Technical Pacifist 18:27, 12 July 2010 (BST)
  6. Yeah we did a lot in and out of our main area --Vinduska 18:45, 12 July 2010 (BST)
  7. Yes. I've been out of the game for a while, but I have some very good memories of the Crimson Clan, and I think we had a pretty big effect on the areas we worked in. Also, I refute the allegations of zerging below. I have tried to stay up to date with goings-on, and have no knowledge of recent alt abuse within the Clan. I'd suggest that all those below examine their sources, if they have any, rather than use zerging as a cover for in-game rivalries and deny this influential group the recognition they deserve. --LK Oddjob 19:32, 16 July 2010 (BST)
    Did you actually read the resenz thread linked below? It's hardly a matter of opinion. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 19:42, 16 July 2010 (BST)
    I myself was involved in the alt controversy, but if you'd care to note, that was resolved three years ago. We worked over an area of several suburbs, and at the time thought it reasonable to have alternate characters, provided they were kept separate. I acknowledge that at times some members gave in to temptation and used more than one character in the same operation, but that was the exception. I regret my actions then, but they were restricted to a few members of the group. Yes, the clan wasn't infallible, but we learned from our mistakes, and I consider we have more than regained respect in the years since then. --LK Oddjob 20:09, 16 July 2010 (BST)
    I don't know about you, but I consider multiple alts in the same group zerging. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 09:48, 17 July 2010 (BST)

No (Crimson)

  1. Against - Whilst I've heard of you guys, and I've dealt with you as a member of Columbine Kids, I fail to see anything you've done that makes you historical. Noteworthy, perhaps, worth a mention in passing, sure, but not truly historical. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 20:26, 11 July 2010 (BST)
    Jesus God burn that zerg nest with fire. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 15:09, 13 July 2010 (BST)
  2. Against - User:Whitehouse 20:29, 11 July 2010 (BST)
  3. Against - The only reason I've ever heard of you is because the same guy who got me to try UD told me to join you. I have never seen you mentioned anywhere else. --VVV RPMBG 20:47, 11 July 2010 (BST)
    And one more thing. The Clan was home to CyAdora (aka SillyLillyPilly). She happens to be a major rapist, and in Shartak, the most well known by far. This is the worst she's done in UD, but in Shartak, she definitely crossed a line, and ended up spurring one of the largest controversies in the game's history. This is just one bad apple, but following Giles's excellent train of thought, it doesn't exactly encourage us to honor the group with the title of historical. --VVV RPMBG 09:31, 17 July 2010 (BST)
  4. Yeah, I've heard of you. -- 00:42, 13 July 2010 (BST)
  5. Heard of them, but not significant enough to warrent historical. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:22, 13 July 2010 (BST)
    Forgot about the fact that they were massive zergers too. Linkthewindow  Talk  15:01, 13 July 2010 (BST)
  6. Only famous for being mass-zerging cunts. --Papa Moloch 06:26, 13 July 2010 (BST)
  7. No - Moloch's link and this discussion were pretty damning. —Aichon— 07:22, 13 July 2010 (BST)
  8. So this is where the St Aden zerg army took off? That could almost be historical in and of itself. But not really. -- Spiderzed▋ 11:20, 13 July 2010 (BST)
  9. Against - Sorry bud. There is a price to pay when your group gets caught zerging as part of their official policy. One of the sanctions for zerging around here is a loss of respect, and since the historical category is all about respect/e-penis I can't vote for you.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 15:30, 13 July 2010 (BST)
  10. Nope As Giles. Technical Pacifist 15:34, 13 July 2010 (BST)
  11. Negative - The whole zerg thing is the nail in the coffin. --ZiPbeep boopMH+LUE 03:36, 14 July 2010 (BST)
  12. No It is the only rule in the game, no alt abuse. To knowingly break that rule in order to build a group negates any historic value that group should otherwise behold (in my opinion). Also, I don't sit well with their logic to abuse alts because "Pkers are asshats". Havercroft is a blight on all of Malton. I will never go back because of the amount of zerging players in the area. I ran a group in Ackland and quickly found out just how bad it was. --Raddox MurTangle 06:54, 14 July 2010 (BST)
  13. No - Zerging is bad, k?--Michalesonbadge.pngTCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 20:04, 16 July 2010 (BST)
  14. ZERG RUSH KEKEKEKEKE!!! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 09:38, 17 July 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=1743064"