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, and have a minimum of 15 voters for a nomination to pass. The only allowable votes are Yes and No.
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

Columbine Kids

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.

10 months have passed since the last nomination, which furthermore failed by just one vote. I see it thus as justified to re-approach them and see how well their reputation has kept up.

It has now been much more than a year that any Columbine Kids have been active, let alone orchestrated anything together.

From their very founding day on, they have polarized the UD metagame, going even as far as getting the group put up for deletion vote due to bad taste, or because no one thinks of the children, or whatever the reasoning was for those who voted for deletion. And it wasn't just at the beginning that they shocked and polarized the UD crowd, it even continued throughout their career.

They have not just made impact by their concept, though. They were also effective PKers, racking up massive bounties, performing highly coordinated timed strikes and getting involved in events like the 2008 Wedding Crash or Samhain Slaughter 1 to 3. You also mustn't forget their various school shooting tours they have organized and pulled off on their own.

They were recognized in the Malton Murder Awards 2010 as nominee for Best PKer Group.

Seriously, if you are involved in the PKer metagame at all, you have heard of them and their exploits. -- Spiderzed █ 15:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes

See above. -- Spiderzed █ 15:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
-- ▧ ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 15:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
--•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 16:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
They was robbed last time. You all is just e-cock blockin'. ~ _{19:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)}
--User:Sexualharrison20:27, 4 February 2012 (bst)
They're well known, have maintained mindshare over the last year, participated in a number of major events, and were effective in doing what they set out to do. They may not have pioneered new tactics or methods for PKing, but they did make a name for themselves, and it wasn't all just bluster. —Aich on— 20:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Yus! Petite Fille 05:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
for what it's worth. I think they are a lot more valid for this than many/most of the groups that are already in the category --Honestmistake 15:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
--ZombieDalkorian 19:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that many people never payed attention to the in-game contributions of the CK, focusing mainly on the loldrama on their talk page and on their attitude out of game. My group may have been opposed to most of their antics, but they certainly had an impact on many major events, including getting several off the ground. --DT ^PK 20:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think they had a decent impact on PKing in general, and they made good use of the concept. --Shatari 22:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, everyone knows who they were, they had a sense of humor, and they killed a lot of people. Good enough for me.--Akbar 02:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Manson made me vote yes. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
If they were historic for the PKer community, I think it would marginalize PKers to think that that isn't sufficient for them to be historic. --Moctezuma ^{The Streltsy} 05:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
It's possible that I may be biased... --Papa Moloch 11:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Likewise with the biased, but frankly we kicked ass in an incredibly tasteless manner. :D --CyanEyed ^C-Kids 21:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, sure, why not? - Zombiegeorge 13:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No

As the previous bid's against votes. Too much of their value has been put into their apparent offensiveness, and otherwise they seem only successful, and neither of these points are enough to be entitled historical, or what should be called historical. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 17:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
No, Same as last time wiki drama does not make you Historical. They were just your average PKers who only PKed nothing more. This does not make you Historical.--Josh Clark 18:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
They did nothing of note besides "participated" and "had a cool name." They just floated around like typical flotsam. Hardly standout. Frankly, these guys have done zilch to be considered anywhere near the same notability as groups like Channel Four or the old FOD.--RadicalWhig 01:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
No, as Josh Clark. (There, I agreed with Josh for once!) They weren't historical last time this came up, and they've not become any more historical in the meantime.--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 02:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
No, while CK was a skilled collection of PKers and good fun to boot, I have to agree with AHLG. Skilled? Yes. Historical? Me thinks not. --Ciscokitty 03:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
No,--Carrie Cutter 03:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
As one of the yes votes even indicates, they brought nothing new to the table other than wiki drama. Being coordinated and successful when other groups are out there doing the same thing does not put you on a timeline. The event participation just goes to say "and this group was also there" The school shooting tours would not seem enough to me to warrant the nod. Al be rt Sc hw an _{Sunday, 5 February 2012}
Nope. They were notable, but not exceptional - not on a level with the other groups who are historical, and I'd prefer not to see the concept deleted by just including larger groups that hung around a while. --Rambo Ninja Spiderman 04:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Nah, either your historical, or your not... repeatedly putting something up for historical seems a bit desperate. The consensus was no last time, so I'm gonna vote no this time.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 09:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
No - Very few pker groups do enough to be considered notable or historic. The only reason anyone knows who the Columbine Kids are is pretty much some very minor wiki drama. They're no Amish, Red Rum, or DEA. They didn't help make a huge event and the most you can even note them for in their nomination is as being a tag along? An Historic Group these things do not make. —myself last time around

Nothing has changed except now even less people care about them. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
No - emphatically as Karek. —myself last time around

D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
No, their only notoriety is having a shock name and like ten year olds, they want attention for it. Their whining makes me even less inclined to vote for them. Herr Gerdongerdorf 20:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
No, I have no interest in seeing a group made historical for their impact on the metagame. -- 19:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
No. As Anime and Karek. You're holding on to MMORPG accomplishments a little too tightly, brother. Let it go. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 18:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
No. This group was not notable enough to warrant any further comment. Billy Club Thorton T! RR 06:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
No. Attention grabbing name, but not much substance. Jesus Sante ^CFT 18:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
No. As Anime. Asheets 16:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
No. The group wasn't notable enough to be considered historic. Standard Zombie 22:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
No. Barely ever heard of them in-game. Also, per AHLG.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
No. Who? →Son of Sin← 11:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)