Talk:Battle of Pitneybank: Difference between revisions
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→Christ) |
(→Christ) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
this article needs pictures and a sidebox {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 01:38, 8 August 2012 (BST) | this article needs pictures and a sidebox {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 01:38, 8 August 2012 (BST) | ||
:There its been prettified. Any other content or style additions? ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>06:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)</sub> | |||
==Redirects== | |||
Currently, [[Battle of pitneybank]], [[Battle of Giddings]], and [[The Second Siege of Giddings Mall]] redirect to [[Bashing Back: The Battle of Pitneybank]]. Anyone going to mind if I change the redirects over to this article? ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>06:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)</sub> | |||
Revision as of 05:48, 8 August 2012
Christ
This is so dull. We need some images, a map at the minimum. Also, we've just spent so much time on a timeline for the game, rather than listing the dates, can we not use a modified version of that? --RossWHO????ness 08:52, 7 August 2012 (BST)
- Yeah, well that was kind of the point. Not to make it dull but to keep everything about the article nuetral, because that's what people wanted. I wouldn't mind dressing it up some. One of those nifty graphs based on game stats would be cool. A map isn't a bad idea. I'll try doing a modified timeline. Any content you'd add or take away? ~
23:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- Group names would be luvley.--RossWHO????ness 00:16, 8 August 2012 (BST)
- Oh,and why lose the box? --RossWHO????ness 00:22, 8 August 2012 (BST)
- The idea was to write an alternative article, not to rewrite the original (though a rewrite was my original intent). Call it a stub if you want. It is esentially dry, unassuming and nuetral to the point of drudgery because a) while most people agree on the significance of the event, few agree on any existing account of it and b) people should vote on its historical status for the event's significance, not the article's content. By presenting only the facts (or as close to the facts as can be found) and offering a See Also section, the reader can make their own conclusions. If someone wants to rewrite the original article and put it up for historical voting, that's fine as well. If we want to add to this article, that's also fine but I'd rather not see if become just a different POV of "Bashing Back". ~ 00:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- The idea was to write an alternative article, not to rewrite the original (though a rewrite was my original intent). Call it a stub if you want. It is esentially dry, unassuming and nuetral to the point of drudgery because a) while most people agree on the significance of the event, few agree on any existing account of it and b) people should vote on its historical status for the event's significance, not the article's content. By presenting only the facts (or as close to the facts as can be found) and offering a See Also section, the reader can make their own conclusions. If someone wants to rewrite the original article and put it up for historical voting, that's fine as well. If we want to add to this article, that's also fine but I'd rather not see if become just a different POV of "Bashing Back". ~
- Oh,and why lose the box? --RossWHO????ness 00:22, 8 August 2012 (BST)
- Group names would be luvley.--RossWHO????ness 00:16, 8 August 2012 (BST)
this article needs pictures and a sidebox DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:38, 8 August 2012 (BST)
- There its been prettified. Any other content or style additions? ~ 06:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Redirects
Currently, Battle of pitneybank, Battle of Giddings, and The Second Siege of Giddings Mall redirect to Bashing Back: The Battle of Pitneybank. Anyone going to mind if I change the redirects over to this article? ~ 06:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
