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, 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

Pathetic Bill

In Malton, once players go inactive, few people remember their names other than some close friends and their obscure wiki userpages.
...Unless their names were Pathetic Bill.
Pathetic Bill was a group of 7 players (give or take a few) all named Pathetic Bill. They were PKers. But you already knew that (or you're very new).
Though they got their start in Eastonwood, killing the local groups there, they soon began to travel, terrorizing Huntley Heights, Richmond Hills, and promoting PK-Day, on 6/6/6. It was the success of PK Day that inspired D4rkness to create the PKA. At the PKA, their closely coordinated strikes caused them to be considered the best shock troops available by other groups, and the Bills were employed as such during the Rolt Heights War, various events against Fort Creedy and the CDF, and other long-term attacks like the Philosophe Knights' clearing of Richmond Hills.
The Bills were never a big group, or a particularly social group in the Metagame, but they live on in the memories of Malton's people because of their impact on the game population. They inspired successive generations of PKers (including Yours Truly) to take up PKing, at least two tribute groups, and dozens of similarly-named copy-cat killers. There was a time when seeing a Bill nearby would send survivors into a panic, and when having the Bills agree to show up to your PK event practically guaranteed success.
Pathetic Bill has won the MMA Most Notorious PKer Award Twice and the Biggest Pillaging Murderer Award once through the years of 2007, 2008, and 2009. Even now, without Historical status, Pathetic Bill is listed next to the Eastonwood Ferals as part of why Eastonwood is considered a Suburb of note.
So before you write something about how infamy alone does not lead to Historical status, or how they never brought the city to its knees, answer this: How many people will be eagerly emulating you and wearing your name when you've stopped playing this game?
(I wrote this quickly after realizing that the Bills were never nominated for Historical. I may have missed some important events in their timeline.) -DT^PK 00:27, 8 July 2012 (BST)

YES (Pathetic Bill)

1. Nominator Vote --DT^PK 00:33, 8 July 2012 (BST)
2. Definitely qualifies in my mind for PKing innovation even though it does so for many of the same reasons that I thought TX should get it for BHing innovation. I am curious to see how this pans out relative to the other active vote. -- Albert Schwan  _{Sunday, 8 July 2012}
3. Prediction: This passes with flying colors. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:51, 8 July 2012 (BST)
4. Yes, and this isn't just a bandwagon vote. They honestly deserve it for numerous reasons that should be obvious to anyone that's even mildly aware of them. —Aichon— 00:59, 8 July 2012 (BST)
5. Yes. so fun to play with. i miss those guys. --User:Sexualharrison01:08, 8 July 2012
6. Yes - I wasn't around for the original incarnation, but their impact was still felt when I started out. For all of the reasons that have already been listed. But I'll also cite another that was only hinted at; the Pathetic Bills were so iconic that when they quit the game a void was created that was so big that another group formed in tribute to them. Name any other group that faded from Malton that was reborn in the form of a group run and crewed by entirely different players. Any other group that came back was run by and crewed by former members, no other group has ever inspired a tribute group. Especially one that was almost single handedly responsible for the PKer meta-game that we know today. -- Goribus 01:47, 8 July 2012 (BST)

   There was Sons of DARIS but as I understand it they were pitiful (see deleted wiki page). And then there was DORIS which I guess was more satire then tribute. I still see SLP to this day and in fact knew about SLP before I knew about Pathetic Bill (because I was PK'd by SLP not long after I started playing). Don't know if you can judge a group by their tributes, but for what its worth you could say that Pathetic Bill did inspire the longest running tribute group in UD history. ~ _{03:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)}

   The Silly Lilly Pillies never disbanded though. As far as I know it kept going and had a continual influx of new members. I know two or three of them, but only speak to one on a regular basis any more. If those girls ever disbanded I'd consider them a definite historical group as well. -- Goribus 21:18, 8 July 2012 (BST)

7. Textbook historical group. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:49, 8 July 2012 (BST)
8. One of the true classics in the game. Innovative, original and influential. --Papa Moloch 05:12, 8 July 2012 (BST)
9. Legendary. (On a side note, is there an official UD definition of "historical group"?)--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 08:32, 8 July 2012 (BST)

   nice reading comprehension it's only at the top of page.--User:Sexualharrison15:15, 8 July 2012

10. As per Papa Moloch. --WanYao 15:41, 8 July 2012 (BST)
11. A classic application of misrepresentation to inspire terror. I thought they were one person for the longest time. I don't care much about the PKing events, but everything else Tom says plays. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 16:34, 8 July 2012 (BST)
12. Most definitely! --Akbar 19:04, 8 July 2012 (BST)
13. This and SLP would be pretty straight forward votes. Pathetic Bill had RRF level name recognition, and for good reason. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:14, 8 July 2012 (BST)

Team Xtreme

Team Xtreme - Having been a Pker for a long time and seen a lot of things in this game, I will say that as far as Bhers go, and I've seen a lot, these guys were one of the best I've encountered. They were an early adversary and served as a bit of measuring stick for ones that followed. I still remember these guys putting up a tougher challenge with less than half the players 'The Saints' had. A rare Bher group that you, as a Pker, didn't want to see much of but you respected them. A small but very effective group who often took on challenges rather than cower from them. Well organized, well lead and well known to those who stuck with the game for more than a month. --Hibernaculum 01:29, 4 July 2012 (BST)

ADD - Alright. You people who keep using the "What have you done to change the game?"...you people are fucking morons. Take a good look then at the whole category and throw it the fuck out. Aside from 2, maybe 3 groups, NO ONE has changed the game. It's too big. So if that's only criteria, We might as well shut the whole thing down now? K? Good. Bye bye. -Hibernaculum 03:55, 9 July 2012 (BST)

Yes (Team Xtreme)

1. Nominator Vote - Hibernaculum 01:39, 4 July 2012 (BST)
2. At least I can say I got the final shot against Josh Clark. He was a good man. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 02:12, 4 July 2012 (BST)
3. Happy birthday! :D --Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 02:14, 4 July 2012 (BST)
4. Yes.. lol --Carrie Cutter 02:17, 4 July 2012 (BST)
5. Yes and not just because it's you-know-who's birthday ;) Grogh 02:23, 4 July 2012 (BST)
6. RAWR. Joshy's awesome  CrunchyCake  T  ^{Breakfast Club} 02:29, 4 July 2012 (BST)
7. As the former leader I ask that all voters look at the History part of our page. We worked with Survivor groups such as the Cannonball Crew and Skynet Defense Network. Even though we were indeed Bounty Hunters we did a lot of pro survivor operations such as this one Alliance 45 In 2 operations we fought the Zombies in Gulsonside with Operation Damage Control (July 21, 2010 - Sept 12, 2010) and Operation: Beaten to Death (July 28, 2011 - September 5, 2011) Also with Operation Uplift (October 1, 2010 - October 22, 2010) Wyke Hills goes from Red to Green with Team Xtreme, the Wulves and D.S. R&D. Operation Blindside (January 19, 2011 - January 28, 2011) Team Xtreme with Skynet Defense Network, FPDF, AZS, KT, MR, C4NT, WULVES, MCDU, The Fortress, DSR&D, and Z.A.L.P. worked together in Whittenside against the Feral Undead just to name a few things (Not typical BHer stuff) Operation: Rock The Dead (April 11, 2011 - July 2, 2011) Was when Team Xtreme helped defend Malton against the return of the dead. Operation: Black List (September 9, 2011 - October 3, 2011) Was when Team Xtreme fought against Text Rapists and Zergs. This event won a 2011 Malton Murder Award for Best Bounty Hunting Moment, Team Xtreme is proud to have participated in the event. Team Xtreme was also Winner of the 2011 Malton Murder Awards for Best Bounty Hunter Group. And lastly October 28, 2010 is when I officially launched my blog web show The Xtreme Zone to entertain the people of Malton. The show lasted a year. And there was 4 years worth of Bounty Hunting in between all that. So my vote is yes. We have a History Page for a reason. --Josh Clark 02:32, 4 July 2012 (BST)

   Historical by association isn't historical. Just because you have history doesn't mean that you're historical. Particularly when that history has almost no overlap with documented notable game events. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:23, 7 July 2012 (BST)

8. Hell yeah!--Bad Attitude Barbie^SDN 02:50, 4 July 2012 (BST)
9. I says yep! :D --Lucy Daniels 03:05, 4 July 2012 (BST)
10. Absolutely, Yes! When The Cannonball Crew was fighting in Gulsonside against CTD, Josh and his crew were Indispensable! [User:Midge Owner] 03:15, 4 July 2012 (BST)
11. Definitely!! TX will always be the best BHer group, in my opinion --Solodog 03:20, 4 July 2012 (BST)
12. Because I was told to. —Aichon— 03:42, 4 July 2012 (BST)
13. Because I'm scared of Carrie. *hides* --Rambo ninja spidrman 04:12, 4 July 2012 (BST)
14. Xtremest group EVER. --Penguinpyro 04:15, 4 July 2012 (BST)
15. Easily one of the finest BHer groups Malton has seen. Their impact on several areas of the Pking/BHing industry may still be felt. -- Albert Schwan  _{Wednesday, 4 July 2012}
16. Yup......nuff said --Raven Corvus 15:30, 4 July 2012 (BST)
17. Josh's patter is hopeless and Hermann Munster always enjoyed ripping him and his Cheeto-stained buddies a new one, but TX's concerted efforts with Skynet were the only survivor push that ever threatened to shift Clubbed to Death from Blesley Mall for any length of time. The Cheeto Wars with you guys rank among the Club's most enjoyable nights out. And if that doesn't warrant a footnote in history, what does?--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 18:33, 4 July 2012 (BST)
18. Yes. It was always an event for the BAR when Team Xtreme came to town. Jesus Sante ^CFT 04:27, 5 July 2012 (BST)
19. As a general thing, the niche of PKers matters very little in the big picture of UD given the default conflict (survivors vs zombies) and basic game mechanics (cost of killing vs cost of revival, significance of draining AP with meatshielding and ruining which PKers don't do). BHers, being essentially a niche within the niche, matter even less as a general thing. That being said, within its narrow niche, Team Xtreme has been highly significant. When we will look back in a few years and wonder about who has mattered within the field of bounty-hunting, TX must definitively be mentioned. For that reason, I think they should be included. -- Spiderzed█ 19:26, 5 July 2012 (BST)

    To specially lower the bar to "Well known presence in a subgroup community" would be to devalue what Historical Groups purpose as a category. It's purpose is to help newer users to understand how the community and culture has grown and particularly the groups which will come up in discussion time and again as being why things are done. Team Xtreme doesn't even make that list for BHers, nor PKers, much less Survivors, Zombies, or Players. And its particularly egregious when most(including these) BHers by nature play poorly(ineffectively) and are not innovative strategically(Beyond RG and some of what DARIS did) in even the limited anti-pker realm, COMBAT REVIVE was a more effective anti-pker group by the numbers than this, 404 and THEM are/were a functionally better example of anti-pker strategy that actually had demonstrable lasting effects on both specific conflicts and the game itself. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:20, 7 July 2012 (BST)

    Sorry, Karek, but I've got to disagree with your assessment of Historical category as a tool. If you've ever actually tried to learn about UD history based on groups in this category, you'd be pretty damn confused/frustrated. That's why projects like Zombie Renaissance, Project Timeline, UDThisMonth and others exist. These days Historical Group is nothing more than a badge. I'd argue that TX are probably more deserving of the badge than other groups wearing it, but I don't think they necessarily NEED it to be recognized as a group that contributed to UD's history.~ _{18:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)}

    Just want to note that both Project Timeline and UDThisMonth use Historical Group status as a criterion for inclusion, so this vote has bearing on those pages. See here and here. Bob Moncrief 21:33, 7 July 2012 (BST)

    Historical Group status is specifically not a criteria for inclusion on PT. That's why you don't see groups like ASS, Brain Central, Mockers or other questionably historic groups but you do see RRF, Fortress, ACC and others. ~ _{22:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)}

    In this case your disagreement note actually reinforces why this nonsense is nonsense. My statement is based on why this category exists, which was initially to preserve pages of noteworthy groups from deletion during the Crit 12 days so that valuable reference material wouldn't be lost. Since then we've preserved it as a navigational reserve for those groups who we accept as being information-ally important to the mission statement of the wiki(i.e. Providing imporatnt game relevant information). Team Xtreme is an example of a group that will never meet that purpose and shouldn't even be up for a vote. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:04, 8 July 2012 (BST)

20. As Spiderzed above. --Belisarius17 03:30, 6 July 2012 (BST)
21. Worked with TX...agree with Spiderzed. --Met Fan ^F 06:13, 6 July 2012 (BST)
22. What Josh said, what Albert said, what Mallrat said. Leon Silverblood 17:46, 6 July 2012 (BST)
23. As Albert, as Spiderzed --CptFastbreak 18:39, 7 July 2012 (BST)
24. At some point you have to look at a groups contributions as a whole, not just if they changed the game or were one of the first organized groups six years ago. Otherwise you can pretty much stop adding groups to this category altogether. A lot of groups have had a huge impact on the game and its players without having changed how its played or bringing about new rules or mechanics. A good group that does well, contributes positively in its particular field, and has maintained reasonable longevity in the community should be recognized. TX has done all of that.--Roddy Winters 19:51, 8 July 2012 (BST)

No (Team Xtreme)

1. meh and meh. they did nothing that other BH groups didn't do before. --User:Sexualharrison01:50, 4 July 2012
2. Convince me. --Ross^lessness 18:22, 4 July 2012 (BST)

   Since you asked let me give it a shot. Admittedly, what follows is information that predates me. It is my understanding of events and if its accuracy needs to be called into question, please feel free. How did TX change the game? Undoubtedly, there were BHers before TX. My understanding is that most of them were lone hunters or small groups of 2 to 3. They would come together at places like the RG but not in a permanent strategic way. Was there Pack BHing, yes. Organizations like the DEM were organized and engaged in BHing along with their many other functions. My understanding is that if there were purely BHer groups before the time that TX, Malton Marshals, and the Saints formed in 2008, they were transitory. They specialized and they organized for the sole purpose of hunting bounties and they were good at it, providing a counterpoint to PKing groups which had been around for some time. Helping to create organized opposition lead to BHer events like All saints day in 2008 and the organized opposition to Samhain Slaughter. BHer groups are a feature of the game today. Now, while I might well be unaware of a notable group or two that would damage this argument, one thing I am fairly sure of is that TX was instrumental in introducing BHer arms into super groups. There were super groups before TX, but since their inception from Alliance 45 to Cannonball Crew to SDN, TX was there making their specialized services a part of how groups like this would operate. Regardless of how one feels about BHing groups or supergroups, they are a part of Malton life and TX helped make them what they are today. Long winded but I hope it helps. -- Albert Schwan  _{Friday, 6 July 2012}

   there is nothing "super" about any of the groups you just mentioned.--User:Sexualharrison03:08, 6 July 2012

   Funny then that you are listed as leadership on a group that evidently thinks otherwise. Might want to see to setting that straight :P -- Albert Schwan  _{Friday, 6 July 2012}

   i can still think they are D-bags can't i? and the NMC is a collective with no real leadership. cat herding comes to mind.--User:Sexualharrison05:05, 6 July 2012

   Shearbank Liberation Army, Dulston Defense Death Squad, to name a few old BHer groups (or semi-BHer groups) of the old days that has Historical status, Al. Sure, they were limited to a single location and didn't use Rogue's Gallery as heavily as today's BHer groups, but they were still BHer groups. Just...correcting your facts a little there, Al. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 15:36, 6 July 2012 (BST)

   They didn't use RG at all because it didn't exist yet. The concept of bounties didn't even exist. Back then it was just a PK List hosted on Desensitized with screenshots of last known locations. Ironicly, though, it was former members of DARIS, whom the SLA were were at war with that were partially responsible for the modern bounty system. That new group was called The Council of Leaders (new), led by Katthew (and others). They were the real pioneers in Bounty Hunting as are those members of DEM who founded the Rogues Gallery. Just correcting some of your facts, Axe. ~ _{17:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)}

   Thanks Axe, I figured I missed a few, but the fact remains, these groups were institutional or regionally strategic. I still maintain that the 08 groups brought something new to the table that was not there before and still is there today. TX to me was the most successful and recognized of the newer batch. Their influence was formative and therefore historically significant.-- Albert Schwan  _{Friday, 6 July 2012}

   That can be seen both ways. For one, I honestly believed RG was a lot better back then before it moved to it's current home. TX deserves a spot in historical, but not for the reasons you've stated here. It's the same with CK. CK deserves to be historical too, but not for the reasons stated in both CK votes. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 01:05, 7 July 2012 (BST)

   Where are you getting your information regarding dates? I assume it's the wiki, and you don't realise that the history gets wiped every so often, making the History tab inherently unreliable. The Malton Marshals date back to 2006 or so. Fascist Pig Hunters adopted that name and their PKer hunting ways at the beginning of 2006. Pretty sure the CDF's PKer Response Unit (PKRU) dates back to '06 as well, but you'd have to check with them because they don't make much information publicly available. Either way, while TX were certainly notable the last few years, you can in no way call them a founding bounty hunting group. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:07, 8 July 2012 (BST)

   My guess is the earliest possible entry in the History tab, although had Al checked their talk page... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 02:45, 8 July 2012 (BST)

   Yes, that was my guess too. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:09, 8 July 2012 (BST)

   Yes that is where it came from. I was unaware of the history wipes. I mentioned that this all predates me right? I might still argue though that being the principle torch-bearer of a tradition is a historically significant role, as is advancing the work of a predecessor into a more public arena. Without treating this as notable, there are gaps in your timeline. -- Albert Schwan  _{Sunday, 8 July 2012}

   Aye. The formation of the groups I mentioned predate me, too; I just read a lot. (And had to set the record straight.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:48, 8 July 2012 (BST)

   It's also probably worth mention here that the RG list was predated by CDF and DHPD's lists in addition to whatever was running on ressenz/dessenz at the time. There was a point in time where the go to list recommendation was those two groups wiki based PKer bounty lists(which I believe are still somewhat maintained?).--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:10, 8 July 2012 (BST)

   Ya, the wiki history is periodically wiped as to not slow down and strain the servers. We were suppose to get another history wipe a few months ago (as stated by Kevan himself), but it seems that wipe never occured. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 03:53, 8 July 2012 (BST)

3. Why are they historical? Because they were effective? Did they change the game? Is this another popularity contest? --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 20:08, 4 July 2012 (BST)
4. As above. This vote is largely irrelevant, as there is clearly a bandwagon rolling. However, I'm really not seeing this at all. They were... alright and that's about it. If a CV features only events that the applicant actually has to explain then there is not much there. If there were a category for Historical Characters (and I have long believed that there should be), then Josh Clark would make it. Team Xtreme though? Not for me. --Papa Moloch 20:32, 4 July 2012 (BST)

   I'm a lot better looking than you. No hard feelings. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 06:44, 6 July 2012 (BST)

5. never heard of you and frankly the number of votes such a none group are getting makes it obvious how much of a joke this category has become. Seriously... what did you do that made an impact, let alone changed the game? --Honestmistake 22:29, 4 July 2012 (BST)
6. Good at what they did, I guess. Outstandingly so? Nope. Uniquely so? Nope. 23:37, 4 July 2012 (BST)
7. No real game significance--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 23:43, 4 July 2012 (BST)
8. As Paddy and Moloch. --VVV ^RPMBG 01:47, 5 July 2012 (BST)
9. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:55, 5 July 2012 (BST)
10. I liked Team Xtreme. They were good at what they did and weren't obnoxious about it, either. Other groups have gotten Historical due to being so good that they forced other groups to change their tactics to deal with them, but I don't think TX did that. And I really don't think TX had the sort of presence that impacted the suburbs they went through. I'm rather sad to find that they've disbanded though. Until I saw this, I thought they were still active. --DT^PK 05:30, 5 July 2012 (BST)

    Hey, where the hell have you been? Imma stalk u now. ~ _{23:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)}

11. This group has never been important or notable. Nor have they had any real impact on the game or 90% of the meta at any point in their history. If Team Xtreme had never existed not only would no one here have noticed, no one here would have cared. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:31, 5 July 2012 (BST)
12. No.--Akbar 18:21, 6 July 2012 (BST)
13. No. A highly visible and fairly well coordinated bounty hunting fixture for many years, but didn't change the game nor challenge the perimeters, nor do anything singularly more spectacular, sophisticated or successful than any other group. --BOSCH 01:06, 7 July 2012 (BST)
14. Meh. Even if they were "highly significant" within bounty hunting (and I've seen little indication that they were, they were just very good at it, they didn't change the way people bounty hunt) it's kind of silly to say that that makes you historical. If you say being very good or even the best at a given subsection of the game is noteworthy, you get in to a weird line of argumentation. If there's a really specialised section of the game e.g. people who hunt people who hunt people who hunt zergs, if the people who do that are very good at it, are they historical? No. Because what they do represents a very small aspect of the game which is largely insignificant. If we look at the history of the game, these guys didn't change it in any way; they aren't a landmark on it. They were just very good at playing the game as it was. Not Historical. --Shortround }.{ My Contributions 01:19, 7 July 2012 (BST)
15. No. There is absolutely nothing that stands out about them, historically or otherwise. -- CyanEyed ^C-Kids 14:12, 7 July 2012 (BST)
16. How did this group change the way UD is played or have a significant impact on the community at large, i.e. on the whole, not just in one or two suburbs. It didn't. And I don't have to have been around a lot lately to tell from the application that this group is NOT qualfiied. --WanYao 14:28, 7 July 2012 (BST)
17. Team Xtreme was a good group filled with players who had class. No one who was ever bountied by one of their members can say that the person who killed them was a dick about it. But they didn't really impact the game enough to justify a historical group. -- Goribus 02:11, 8 July 2012 (BST)
18. After considering all the arguments on both sides and my own thoughts, I'm going to have to come down on the not historical side. While I always enjoyed playing against Team Xtreme, I don't consider them to have changed the way I or any of my groups played – which, I might remind you ,included the largest PKer groups in the game. Albert Schwan's argument, that they were the first BH group to be part of a "supergroup", can be disproved singlehandedly by CDF in the old days (they were HUGE) and their PKRU, or by the DEM's Malton Marshals branch, both of which were extant several years prior to Team Xtreme's founding.
    In my opinion, your strongest argument for Historical Status is the movies and videos put out by Josh Clark. That man is a star! (N.B. I may be biased by having appeared in his first animated movie. ) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ

Recent Nominations

• Red Rum - Successful

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.

Historical Groups Use Discussion

just a question why and how did the roftwood assault force become historical?--User:Sexualharrison04:16, 23 June 2011 (bst)

here's the vote. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:45, 23 June 2011 (BST)

man did it squeak by. must have been when i was inactive for a few months.--User:Sexualharrison06:06, 23 June 2011 (bst)

TX

Place your bets here. As much I think TX does deserve a spot in historical, I don't think they will make it. From what I'm seeing, this is basically half the PKer meta striking back at the BHer meta for making CK fail. Twice. This is what happens when you're biased in these things. We have ourselves a silent subconscious meta war...Who wants to bet something will blow out of proportion soon? -_-" --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 05:20, 5 July 2012 (BST)

Nope. I don't see how this vote is going any different than any other recent vote. You're either in the purist camp (those that cling to the vague voting criteria) or the popularity camp (voteing based on how well you personally like/dislike the group) or you're a meatpuppet. Don't see any evidence of a so-called "meta-war" or "payback" voting. ~ _{22:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)}

Never part of the PK scene, nor did I ever BH. I have no stake in voting against your group other than a proper understanding of what it means to be Historical. Have a nice day. --WanYao 14:33, 7 July 2012 (BST)

It's what Vapor said. With a little side of the standard "let's get our friends out to upvote us". --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:56, 8 July 2012 (BST)

Get a grip, son. Look at all the PKers who voted for (To The) Four Winds and C4NT, among many other deserving groups. You're the one blowing this out of proportion. Just because you think your group should be historical doesn't mean your group is historical. And let's not forget that without those nasty, biased PKers you would never have had a group in the first place, yes? --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 16:06, 7 July 2012 (BST)

You're talking to someone who plays PKer alts exclusively, mate. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 17:11, 7 July 2012 (BST)

badly i might add. --User:Sexualharrison01:09, 8 July 2012

It's only badly 'cause I was the one who began the "Axe Hack is a horrible PKer" joke. And let's face it. That joke accomplished what I expected it to accomplish. Now mostly everyone sees me as a bad and incompetent PKer. 'Cause I wanted them to. The actual truth is, "I'm just lazy and don't really give a crap enough to be a serious PKer." --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 01:49, 8 July 2012 (BST)

~ Kempy “YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD |

 

17:20, 7 July 2012 (BST)

I'm a Player Killer and I voted no for the CK almost everytime they pop up. And it has nothing to do with not liking them. To be honest before they retired I had a character I was leveling to join them with, but never got around to applying before they retired. They're a great group, but other than their reputation and roleplay style they weren't really noteworthy as a PKer group. They're a great group with great players and a really good theme, but they're not historical to me. I'm about to no vote Team Xtreme for the same reason with roughly the same sentiment. - Goribus 02:08, 8 July 2012 (BST)

I've never had any issues with CK in any way and I vote the same. Although, I have a reputation as an almost but not really notable zombie player it can be argued I've contributed far more to survivor strategy over the years. Either way, CK failed because they didn't add anything to the game beyond in their direct meta-circle. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:56, 8 July 2012 (BST)

The Hierophant said:

If there were a category for Historical Characters (and I have long believed that there should be)...

Good point. Why is there not one and who do we see about getting there to be one? Admittedly the voting on such a category could get ugly from time to time, but it would seem to be a useful thing to have a who's who of the zombie apocalypse past and present divided into reasonable subsections (survivors, zombies, Pkers, BHers etc) with explanatory text or profile links. If in game personalities were only considered if they had contributed to UD for a long enough period (say 3 or 4 years) outlined in a guidelines section, the ranks of such a category should not get too overcrowded-- Albert Schwan  _{Sunday, 8 July 2012}

I'd imagine the introduction of such a category would require a vote and the usual wiki bureaucracy. As far as potential ugliness goes, I can see a couple of possible flashpoints: The first is voting, as you mentioned; the other is write-ups: Just who would write them and what/how much could they say? On the length of contribution, I agree that we don't want it to get too crowded, but three or four years of contribution for a character (as opposed to player, which is a matter of further discussion, as some players are more influential than their characters) is, in my opinion, rather too long. There are people who have done a lot in no time at all and others (the majority) who have done nothing in a very long time. There also also the matter of whether we'd accept entries for active players. All points for discussion. Considering those who could be included, here's a starter list just from the top of my head (if anyone truly viable has been excluded it's down to a lapse in memory or my own lack of insight into their playing 'faction', not because I'd necessarily vote against them):

Zombies

• Petrosjko (Founding Papa of the RRF).
• Sonny (Second Papa of the RRF, leader of the Big Bash, controversial character, Papa during the Battle of Blackmore).
• Murray Jay Suskind (Fourth Papa of the RRF, rebuilt the War Council, the man who conceded defeat at the Battle of Santlerville).
• Lord Moloch (I hate putting my own character forward, but the case is there. Not wanting to go ego-pumping, I won't denote the reasons unless asked to).
• Goolina (Founder of the Gore Corps, hugely famous and controversial character).
• Grim (Former Warmaster of the RRF. Notorious, hugely influential in the formation of the horde).
• Jorm (Leader of the RRF's Barhah Brigade, founder of the MOB... We all know he would have to be in).
• Bisfan (Second leader of the MOB. Famous and very well-known).
• Keith Moon (Leader of Minions of the Apocalypse).
• Bullgod (Leader of Feral Undead).
• Katthew (The Dead and others. Also, just... Katthew).
• We'd also need reps from Eastonwood Ferals, LUE and Shacknews, though it's a matter of debate which ones.

Survivors (Others will need to pad this out, as there are gaps in my knowledge, especially on individual CVs. I'm a killer, not a breather...).

• Kristi of the Dead.
• Alex DeWitt.
• Sir Fred of Etruria.
• Ron Burgundy.
• Sexy Rexy Grossman.
• Jensonson.
• Someone from CDF.
• ... Yeah, help me out here!

PKers

• Sirens.
• Karloth Vois.
• Headless Gunner.
• Kyle the Feared.
• Alf Landon.
• Pathetic Bill.
• There are more, obviously. I don't know much about the foundations and histories of the Philosophe Knights and DARIS, for example. Also, if high bounty characters are to be considered then we should rule out all self-reporters. The isn't a single truly significant PKer who self-reports, as far as I'm aware.

Bounty Hunters

• AidenFury.
• Strayla.
• Nicholas Risto.
• Josh Clark.
• Ciskokitty.

Others

• The top Zerg hunters such as Prudence and Caesar Augustus (the latter is me again, full disclosure FYI) are worth considering.
• Someone come up with more, as I'm done with thinking for now.

So yeah, there's a start based upon characters alone. Obviously if it was extended to players then there are more to be considered (Anime Sucks, for example), as that would have to encompass the metagame. --Papa Moloch 07:35, 8 July 2012 (BST)

PKers: Bob Hammero and Jimbo Bob. Others: Me (for reviving the Malton Manhunt and making those events such a blast during the Manhunt's golden era). BHers: minus Ciscokitty, plus Lois Millard, Raven Corvus, Erica Rackham, and Katie Burns. Survivors: Dickholeguy (best fucking leader the Malton Rangers ever had), Lachyrma. Zombies: The organizers of Big Bash 1, 2, and 3, and whoever founded Shacknews. Just my two cents. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 13:56, 8 July 2012 (BST)

Make it too complicated and the wiki may experience some slight turbulence and then explode. Call it historical characters and give it the exact same criteria as historical groups, and you might see the category debut in early 2015. Or hold a discussion on how to improve the groups category so that's it's not such a preening popularity contest (assuming there's a way for it not to be), and then institute the characters category. That would take us to 2017. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 16:54, 8 July 2012 (BST)

^This. Honestly, no need to put such a list through the typical wiki beuracracy. Not only would it breed contention, I'm sure you'd run into some issues with userpage edits should someone want to add a Historic Characters template. I believe Ross started something in his userspace already. As for some of my contributions: Kevan (duh) and Akule (contributions to zerg hunting). I'd include more but I don't think this is really the place for nominations. ~ _{18:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)}

we could honestly make it a consensus driven article like Notable Suburbs voting. That actually historically works better for filtering out the *Really* notable ones as opposed to the popular can win an at the time vote ones. I would be against any vote type system for this and since we're discussing it here's my take on Moloch's list. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:56, 8 July 2012 (BST)

RE:Moloch

Zombies Petrosjko (Founding Papa of the RRF). This is a given Sonny (Second Papa of the RRF, leader of the Big Bash, controversial character, Papa during the Battle of Blackmore). He was more notable as a survivor actually. Murray Jay Suskind (Fourth Papa of the RRF, rebuilt the War Council, the man who conceded defeat at the Battle of Santlerville).</stike> An argument might be possible for him but, this is more an RRF notable not an actual notable Lord Moloch (I hate putting my own character forward, but the case is there. Not wanting to go ego-pumping, I won't denote the reasons unless asked to). Some fame, some infamy, all mostly only in group though, like Murray Goolina (Founder of the Gore Corps, hugely famous and controversial character).</srike>As a PKer, sure. She reinvented a significant part of PKing. Not really notable though outside of her groups Grim (Former Warmaster of the RRF. Notorious, hugely influential in the formation of the horde). Although there may be an argument for some of his TDD contributions. If we're listing for Notworthy contributions him and Beauxdeigh would be an auto-in though Jorm (Leader of the RRF's Barhah Brigade, founder of the MOB... We all know he would have to be in). Yes yes yes, a million times yes Bisfan (Second leader of the MOB. Famous and very well-known). Not known outside of his circles. He's not a name you'll hear whispered in terror across Malton Keith Moon (Leader of Minions of the Apocalypse). Pretty Much Bullgod (Leader of Feral Undead). People still get amazed when he pops up however rarely Katthew (The Dead and others. Also, just... Katthew). The Many would also seal this one We'd also need reps from Eastonwood Ferals, LUE and Shacknews, though it's a matter of debate which ones. Mentions for mentions sake. However there is a name I know I'm blanking on right now that was someone's alt Identity and that alt was uniquely famous Sweet Zombie Jesus Warlord Xyu Survivors (Others will need to pad this out, as there are gaps in my knowledge, especially on individual CVs. I'm a killer, not a breather...). Kristi of the Dead. Alex DeWitt. Sir Fred of Etruria. Ron Burgundy. Sexy Rexy Grossman. Jensonson. Someone from CDF. PKers Sirens. Karloth Vois. Headless Gunner. in-group meta Kyle the Feared. More for meta contributions not actual playing Alf Landon. If I haven't heard of him there's a problem Pathetic Bill. There are more, obviously. I don't know much about the foundations and histories of the Philosophe Knights and DARIS, for example. Also, if high bounty characters are to be considered then we should rule out all self-reporters. The isn't a single truly significant PKer who self-reports, as far as I'm aware. This would be a horrible measurement Bounty Hunters This is all only in a specific small meta groupset of players, not relevant to the game said:

{{{2}}}

Honestly the list can possibly be even more shrunk down to Petro, Keith Moon, Burgandy, Karloth, Xyu, Rexy, KotD, and Jorm for the super short list. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:56, 8 July 2012 (BST)

I agree with Karek on a lot of these, although I don't know if excluding someone for making a big impact on the metagame is entirely fair. There's only so much a single player can do without it being classed as 'metagame'. Headless Gunner, for example, organized and led the PKA during its heyday for a LONG time, besides which he gained notoriety for leading the CGR to victory for years.

TBH, I don't think there's a single Philosophe Knight who would be eligible for the page either way, though, Moloch. I've been one since January 2007 and I couldn't name a single one besides maybe Flogging Molly whose name was recognized outside of our forums. We go out of our way to not make a name for ourselves, and frankly, I don't think the group itself qualifies as Historical (longevity isn't enough). You can pretty much exclude any of us from this page.

I DO like the idea, though, and would very much like to see it become a reality. --DT^PK 21:10, 8 July 2012 (BST)

I totally am thinking about this, it's in my usespace at the minute, but a small template thing would be good. (About the size of Bub would be ideal. Plus that way I can definitely put Dermot O'Leary in . --Ross^lessness 18:31, 8 July 2012 (BST)

With all due respect it is a good idea in theory, but there's already a potential circle jerk going on due to the fact that the requirements for a Historical Character would be even more vague than a historical group. I mean no offense to Axe, but if he seriously thinks that he belongs on a list with the players Moloch listed then he's fucking insane. But given his number of friends he'd be a shoe in. People complain about meat puppetry and popularity contests as it is with Historical groups. What do you think's going to happen when it's individual players? For example, I could probably get myself on this list if I called in enough favors and asked enough people to vote for me despite the fact that I clearly don't belong on that list either. Food for thought. -- Goribus 21:30, 8 July 2012 (BST)

I think people are getting confused as to whether we are basing this on characters or players.  CrunchyCake  T  ^{Breakfast Club} 21:54, 8 July 2012 (BST)

I was thinking that considering only players would weed out some of the meta-game that people find offensive. Some of it is unavoidable; let's face it here, we are dealing with 9 colored squares and a couple dozen boxes. Also, there are fewer players active consistently and contributing to the state of Malton for long stretches of time than there are users who stick around and run different players. The more stringent the application requirements, the fewer will be eligible and the easier such a thing would be to manage. As to it becoming a popularity contest, voting always is. Why fight it when you can work with it? The only control you can exercise regarding the quality of the applicants is in eligibility requirements. If those are more black and white (A certain active duration, no self-nomination, etc.) you insure that anyone who has managed to meet them and still is able to win a popularity contest, belongs in the category. To a certain extent, being important makes you popular most of the time if not necessarily liked in all cases. Founders of historic groups would be a good bet to win a vote like this as would milestone characters like Bud, but it would also open up the category to influential individuals. As to whether the players need be retired, if you think about it, knowing the heroes and villains of the past is handy from an academic standpoint but knowing the living legends who are still hanging around Malton is a lot more useful from day to day. I would argue that, as long as they meet the requirements, active/inactive status should not be an issue. While this would be best in a more public space, if it must be confined to Ross's userspace for the time then so be it. Just let me know if there is anything I can do to help. For the record, I would not vote for Axehack either but that is because he stopped using his namesake alt in manhunts some time ago. Given another year or so of continued advancement of the institution of manhunting in game, I might be inclined to vote for his mudkip. -- Albert Schwan  _{Monday, 9 July 2012}

Removing Historical Status

In Historical Events there is this to remove events. Does the same option exist for historical groups? If I understand correctly once upon a time, being historical just meant important enough to not be deleted? -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 15:02, 8 July 2012 (BST)