Talk:Battle of Pitneybank

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? --Ross^WHO????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.--Ross^WHO????ness 00:16, 8 August 2012 (BST)

Oh,and why lose the box? --Ross^WHO????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)}

this article needs pictures and a sidebox D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:38, 8 August 2012 (BST)

There its been prettified. Any other content or style additions? ~ _{06:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)}

I will go through and have a look at it word for word whenever you've finished tweaking. Give me a shout when youve finished. --Ross^WHO????ness 09:32, 8 August 2012 (BST)

I edited a few sections so that the word "battle" doesn't appear every sentence. -MHSstaff 22:15, 8 August 2012 (BST)

Thanks. ~ _{23:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)}

I personally find the sidebar at the top right of the page looks nicer, IMO it looks a bit retarded now. But like I matter, I'm only doing what the general zombie populace did in the first page which was winge on the talk page and not do anything D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:51, 9 August 2012 (BST)

^^^^^This.-MHSstaff 22:11, 9 August 2012 (BST)

I tried moving it but it does weird things to the sections above the timeline. If its imperative that its changed, I can redesign those two top sections. I kind of like the way it looks personally. Page author bias, perhaps. ~ _{22:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)}

It seems to me the problem is with the two Giddings Mall images. Can those be moved out of the box they're in? Or am I misinterpreting the issue? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Bob, theres another copy of this in my namespace, that I eventually intend to replace this one with, Don't bother fixing this one. --Rosslessness 22:44, 5 January 2013 (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)}

nop D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:51, 9 August 2012 (BST)

what no pink bunnies?

i remember there being bunnies and other cute fluffy things to shoot. MORE FLUFFY BUNNIES!--User:Sexualharrison00:27, 6 January 2013