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, and have a minimum of 15 voters for a nomination to pass. The only allowable votes are Yes and No.
  4. Groups that pass will be added to the category as described below.
  5. Groups must allow a week to pass between nominations.
  6. 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

Umbrella Corporation

Traditionally those nominating groups write a short paragraph explaining why they have nominated said groups. --Ross Less Ness Enter Stranger... 23:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

that usually applies to groups that have some accomplishments in game tho.--User:Sexualharrison23:28, 14 November 2012
Should I remove them? Since they were absorbed into our group I thought the these pages should be represented as well.--Umbrella-White.pngPresident JacksonUmbrella-White.png 23:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Aren't these separate groups? Some of us chose not to pay attention to the drama-bomb that exploded with them, so I have no clue which groups are sub-groups are separate. —Aichon— 23:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Can I start this over or something? I misunderstood the voting. I thought people would be voting for each unique page. I'm simply representing Umbrella Corporation, I'm not here to represent the other subgroups that were absorbed into us. Just thought it was part of the measure of voting to include those groups with us.--Umbrella-White.pngPresident JacksonUmbrella-White.png 00:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You can try again a week after the voting ends if you really want, but I seriously doubt you'll get a friendlier welcome next time. Anything with the name "Umbrella" in it (with a handful of exceptions) tends to get a rather visceral reaction from most folks, based on what I've seen over the years. Since I missed most of the original drama, I don't entirely understand it all, but I wouldn't bet on making it into Historical Groups unless you can cite something that's actually historical. I.e. Something that changed the way the game was played. You may have accomplished more than some groups, but most of those groups came earlier and came up with ideas that altered the course of the game in some way. Without being able to show that you did so, it's hard to succeed in getting through these days. —Aichon— 04:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your sympathetic response. I guess I'm not the man to do this. Surprisingly (or not) I did most of the coding for anything Umbrella related on the wiki with the exception of templates. It was a lot of time spent that I hoped to be preserved. When the second Era ended our history was deleted from the internets by those who seized control in the Third Era. It's really the stigma of Umbrella Corporation. It's a lot of fun to role play it out but didn't translate well with ends not justifying means. The incident in which the majority are basing their decisions off of was with a character player named Haliman111. I'll spare details that lead to the "drama", but he was a fine addition to our group at the time and a great adversary at the end of it all. Same cannot be said for those who destroyed our forum or erased our history. Around six years our groups involvement in-game. I'd like to think that we did something, but perhaps I will simply be left to thoughts.--Umbrella-White.pngPresident JacksonUmbrella-White.png 20:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You should have contacted me Jackson, even though I could have told you in advance this attempt would have stood no chance at all, and while Umbrella is something of a long closed book to me, I wouldn't have minded writing a decent overview of the group's shaded past that I knew of. Even though even I personally lean on "No", right now this bid doesn't do the group justice. Perhaps I'll try to write something better, if only to serve as a counterweight to some of the more predictable criticism. -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 10:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

This proposal wasn't authorized by the current leadership of Umbrella Corporation. Although I have great doubts that this'll go through (Yes, I understand our shady history); I would like to say that Jackson no longer represents UC as a whole, he hasn't for quite some time. Although we are largely inactive, we still continue on as unnoticeable mist... I, as the current legitimate Chairman of the Board, CEO; in no shape way or form condone our Umbrella Corporation (Or it's sub-groups) being nominated for historical status. That being said, I shall vote as such below. --Chairman Fanglord, 16:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes

  1. Yes As stated above.You want to belittle us? I can pull at least five names of other groups we've accomplished more than those in the historical groups section.--Umbrella-White.pngPresident JacksonUmbrella-White.png 23:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    I'm calling. Name 'em.--RadicalWhig 01:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    The grammar is not strong with you. I second the call. Show your hand. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    I'd like to see this too! --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 11:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    ditto! in fact i demand it!--User:Sexualharrison13:06, 15 November 2012
    Five demands, call five groups and motivate those calls. PB&J 13:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    Make that six. In fact, toss in a sixth group as an added bonus if you want! You said you can name at least five, so that should mean you can name a little more than five as well! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 14:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    I, too, wish to know which groups have slipped in on a poorer recommendation than any of the Umbrella groups. --DTPraise KnowledgePK 15:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    ...Aaaaand the bluff is officially empty. Pack it home, folks.--RadicalWhig 22:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    Personally I don't think "these guys are worse than us" should be a reason to merit inclusion  CrunchyCake  T  Breakfast Club 15:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    If such documented history (Umbrella Corporation Recent Events [3]) is not enough to impress then I willfully concede our faults and apologize for wasting each of your valuable time. Much of our personal history was lost after the end of our Second Era.--Umbrella-White.pngPresident JacksonUmbrella-White.png 20:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    It is not. --Open the Box Org XIII Alts 20:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    i'm still waiting for thad to chime in.--User:Sexualharrison05:05, 16 November 2012

No

  1. NO WAY what has this group ever done except be a target for pkers and drama? there is nothing original at all here. yet anther fail survivor group based on a shity zombie movie and a so so video game. get bent.--User:Sexualharrison23:19, 14 November 2012
  2. Spam Seriously Ross Jackson, stop trolling. --Open the Box Org XIII Alts 23:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. No 1) You're too lazy to even write up reasons why these groups should be included, (Didn't know, not going to hold it against them) 2) I know little about these groups and what I do know isn't good  CrunchyCake  T  Breakfast Club 23:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    I've read what you've put and even looked into some of these links. It's not particularly impressive trying to show off what you've done with broken links and I'm really struggling to see what sort of achievements you've actually acomplished. The history page is rather scant filled with what I can only call fluff (2 operations? and even then not particularly well documented - the 2nd in particular is highly confusing as to what you actually did). I remain unconvinced.  CrunchyCake  T  Breakfast Club 07:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    I "fixed" the links. Would you mind removing the comment about being lazy? I didn't know I was allowed to post a brief paragraph and my wiki skills are lacking.--Umbrella-White.pngPresident JacksonUmbrella-White.png 20:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  4. I think in its heyday, I saw some graffiti around about UBCS, but unfortunately that was about it. Yeah, I'm sure you guys were around, but I really can't say with confidence that I ever had any experience with your group besides on the wiki (bad things). A ZOMBIE ANT 00:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  5. Famous for zerging and other miscellaneous douchebaggery. Nothing else. --Papa Moloch 00:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    Whoa whoa whoa whoa. "...zerging and other miscellaneous douchebaggery..." Can you site any of that? Sounds like you are all basing your biased decisions on something that happened back in early 2009. Not reflecting on anything prior or post as if that is what defined this group. Are you freakin kidding me?--Umbrella-White.pngPresident JacksonUmbrella-White.png 01:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    No one said that was all you did. It's just the only thing you did well enough to be noticed. So for almost everyone outside of the group(s), all they know is zerging and crying. --Open the Box Org XIII Alts 15:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    This is called, "Historical Groups". As such, any history, even the ones from early 2009, is vital history about the groups. As such, we're making our opinions based on the groups' history, and what parts of it stands out. Sadly, the bad history stands out a lot more than the good. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 15:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  6. Moloch nailed it. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 00:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  7. Nope. Your given reasons can be summed up thus- "We played the game, had some drama and made a few wiki edits." Great, now how about something the rest of us didn't do too? Also, your only legacy is as a drama magnet, and what little contact I've had with Umbrella only supported that. Pretty sure trollbait doesn't count as historical.--RadicalWhig 01:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  8. No - As Harrison and Moloch. I will say however, you did end up contributing to my UserPage, so thank you for that. --DTPraise KnowledgePK 02:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    Much understated with such humor but that really made me laugh.--Umbrella-White.pngPresident JacksonUmbrella-White.png 20:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  9. No - Insert belittling comment here. --Paddy DignamIS DEAD 05:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  10. Nope - I'm amazed by their high opinion of themselves though! --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 11:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  11. HA HA HA OH WOW -- Spiderzed█ 19:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  12. K, well, I held off for awhile, but I still haven't seen or heard anything particularly historical, so nope. —Aichon— 19:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  13. Got its chance, no way. PB&J 22:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  14. No references to stupid video games should ever be historical zerg, I guess? I dunno, I just blanket accuse people--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 23:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  15. Absolutely no, see my reasons above. --Chairman Fanglord, 16:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

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

I have nominated the Regulators Alliance group for historical Status, however I couldn't figure out the category talk page. I added a note under the wikki news, and the historical group consideration on the group page itself. If someone could help me with this it would be much appreciated as I would like to add some info as to why they should be considered such. Thanks --John Blast

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

here's the vote. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 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

Pker Bias?

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. ~Vsig.png 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". --Karekmaps 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 DignamIS 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. Wink 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)
MJPopcorn.gif ~ 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)
no in fact you voted yes and missed the first vote.
Goribus said:
Fuck yes. The Columbine Kids are one of the most infamous groups just based on name and reputation alone. If you played the game on a regular basis before they disbanded, you most likely heard of them. The group also polarized people you either got it and loved them, got it and hated them, or didn't get it and hated them. The only thing about them that sucks is that they won't be around anymore and I never got around to leveling the character I wanted to join with before I left the game. -- Goribus Talk 600px-Cobra.svg.png Cobra•RDD RDDInsignia copy.png 12:50, 3 April 2011 (BST)

Lucky we have archives to catch people in their bullshit --User:Sexualharrison02:47, 13 July 2012

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. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 20:56, 8 July 2012 (BST)
What a perplexing anaylisis of the votes. I've been everything at one point or another but a PKer the least, hold no biases about CK or anyone but to be honest these guys were nobodies to me. Know Josh Clarke but TX... What is that, Texas? DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:15, 11 July 2012 (BST)

Additional Moved Comments from Summary

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. Christ, half you duffs don't even play the game anymore. I'm about done with it. Hence my rant. -Hibernaculum 03:55, 9 July 2012 (BST)

There are plenty of groups that are recent-ish that deserve inclusion, this just isn't one of them. Here's a short list of a few of the more notable ones; The Dribbling Beavers, THEM, (To_The)_Four_Winds, 404:_Barhah_not_found, COMBAT REVIVE(ever wonder where DIRT:NAP came from?), and MOB. Their achievements? DB => Battle of Santlerville2, THEM => the modern NT Defense, Four Winds and 404 => C4NTness along with having a significant impact anywhere they went against groups many times their size, COMBAT REVIVE => This group is why DIRT:NAP exists along with the offensive revive strategies numerous popular UD extensions and are the documented source of the modern mobile group strategy, MOB => Pick a reason they all apply to MOB. All of these groups(except MOB who are 07) came around during or after yours, a few by years. I could throw the Dead in there too actually since they also came later. I'd actually rank even The Malton Globetrotters, the Dulston Alliance, and Extinction as more notable groups though I wouldn't include them on an historical list, particularly not that last one. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 14:11, 10 July 2012 (BST)

I have to go with Hib on this. Now a days all the groups still active can't change the game. The historical votes should be closed if that is the case. The Pathetic Bill votes just goes to show the biased PKer base the wiki has. A Pker group can get the okay, but a BHer group does not stand a chance? And from a bunch of people who do not even play the game anymore? How can that be fair if they aren't even involved in the game? Put it this way those who don't even play the game probably do not remember Samhain Slaughter 3 Team Xtreme was the force behind getting as many of the Bounty Hunters together to attack the PKers before their strike on a Mall. This action made it so the PKers had to try to create a decoy Mall to throw the BHers hunting them off the trail. (This did not happen in the previous Samhain Slaughters) We did find the true target and did strikes on the PKers. We even warned the occupants in the Mall of the upcoming attack (Although they chose to ignore our warnings) The Mall of course was destroyed do to the fact that PKers have always out numbered the Bounty Hunters. But there is no denying that we were a challenge and Samhain 3 would not have been as fun with out the cat and mouse game. For those who do remember Samhain 3, tell me this how was the other Samhains after that? When the BHers did not bother to interfere? I also would like to point out that Team Xtreme always took pride in the fact that we were the first and biggest thorn in the PKer group Heathers side. To my knowledge no other Bounty Hunter or group have targeted the Heather's them selves as well as their "Man Slaves" The battles TX had against the Heather group are things of legend. I also would like to point out our battle with the LUEshi's Rangers on their Journal here http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/LUEshi%27s_Rangers/Campaign_Journal if you would read the entry for their The Penny Heights Campaign November 05th, 2010 - November 23rd, 2010 The rangers words speaks volumes. From our works in both Text Rapists hunting and Zerg Hunting as well as all the other things mentioned from numerous people who knew Team Xtreme both as allies and adversaries Team Xtreme should be listed as Historical. But the way things are run on the wiki it is clear that this proves to be impossible until things are changed. --Josh Clark 17:05, 9 July 2012 (BST)

josh I'm sorry but you can't compare your group to the bills you aren't even in the same league. bills famous. TX again as ddr what is that texas? --User:Sexualharrison13:13, 12 July 2012
For one, Samhain Slaughter 3 is a non-historical event for the same reason this group is having trouble passing the bar, a lack of significant impact on the game or the meta-culture thereof. It was also the most prominent thing on the Columbine Kids' bid which is part of why they also failed, if you want important PKer related events you'll be hard pressed to find any mostly because they just don't happen. Neither of the other two groups you mention having involvement against have similarly had a significant impact on the game. The few pker groups that have been listed had high membership and/or(inclusive, as the 2nd applies to all) a massive psychological impact on the meta-psyche of the game, Red Rum, Malton DEA, the ALF, the Disciples of Zeko, etc. These are all PKer groups that were notable terrors at the time in the game. People as a survivor you always worried about showing up and who represented the absolute best of what made the PKer threat mentality that led to the formation of BHer groups and lists in the first place. People changed how they played because of them, Urban Dead was changed because of those groups presence in the game. Team Xtreme or Colombine Kids are simply not on that level, and two of those groups had less than 20 people. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 13:45, 10 July 2012 (BST)


"Columbine Kids = offensive + famous + didn't change game = 100% absolutely fucking Historical!"
"Team Xtreme = famous + participated in events more than CK + didn't change game = Not Historical at all."

Go fuck yourselves. --Penguinpyro 23:36, 9 July 2012 (BST)

Columbine Kids are not an historical group. Matter of fact they failed on vote Twice. Many of the same people were also against them. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 13:19, 10 July 2012 (BST)

Historical Characters

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 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 DignamIS 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. ~Vsig.png 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. --Karekmaps 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. --Karekmaps 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. --DTPraise KnowledgePK 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 . --Rosslessness 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)

ditto--User:Sexualharrison00:30, 10 July 2012

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 Albert Schwan  Monday, 9 July 2012
It'd be characters for sure. Case in point; Huey Long was a super famous personality in zombie culture, Keith Moon/Petrojsko level famous. Most people don't know that he's actually an alt because the player in question intentionally separated their personal reputation from the characters. Notability in the game should reflect notoriety in the gamespace, things people can be curious about without needing external knowledge or forum participation. That at least should be the basic starting barometer of if a character is truly noteworthy. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 09:30, 10 July 2012 (BST)

Hay guys what about uncle zeddie lul DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:11, 11 July 2012 (BST)

Ha!--Rosslessness 18:49, 11 July 2012 (BST)


User:Rosslessness/Persons Of Note is now up and running. --Rosslessness 18:49, 11 July 2012 (BST)

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? --Open the Box Org XIII Alts 15:02, 8 July 2012 (BST)

Yes and no, historical groups was intentionally established as certain groups got grandfathered in. There's a list along with reasons in the archives. In addition to that certain groups in this case don't quite make sense years after the fact. Most players have no idea who The Shining Ones or ALF were these days but back in the day they were the equivalents of RRF and RedRum. There's more than a few like that in the current list and the ones that likely deserve removal and seem to have passed voting by popularity(and most of these are actually more recent, like FoD) aren't likely to be nominated for this status or effected by it. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 14:18, 10 July 2012 (BST)
How long will a group's page stay up if they fail a historical bid? --Paddy DignamIS DEAD 17:53, 10 July 2012 (BST)
I'd imagine it will stay up permanently, or until one of the group in question requests deletion. The status category was originally created to prevent the pages in question being deleted under an old criterion which I believe has since been done away with. Removing the page from the category will simply see it struck from the list and unlocked for editing. I may be wrong though, as I'm not really up on all this bureaucratic cack. --Papa Moloch 18:20, 10 July 2012 (BST)
Groups are no longer deleted. We got rid of the horrendous Crit 12(deletion of defunct groups) in 2007. Only groups that clearly never were or request it get deleted these days. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 02:57, 11 July 2012 (BST)
Gotcha. So, when a group achieves historical status, we see this at the top of the page: "This historical group is no longer active. However, its wiki page is preserved to reflect the group's significance in Urban Dead history." I guess this was written before Crit 12 was nixed. --Paddy DignamIS DEAD 16:34, 11 July 2012 (BST)
Yup, there's also a template for otherwise inactive groups. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 21:07, 11 July 2012 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Category_talk:Historical_Groups&oldid=2041272"