Category talk:Historical Events

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Revision as of 19:20, 16 September 2010 by Rolfe Steiner (talk | contribs) (→‎No)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Obtaining Historical Status

A policy is in place which outlines the method to attain historical status.

  1. Events must have been declared over.
  2. The event must have affected either multiple suburbs or how the game was played for a group, such as triggering a change.
  3. A nomination should be made on Category_talk:Historical Events.
  4. An announcement should be made on Wiki News, and {{HistoricalEventVoting}} should be put on the event's wiki page.
  5. Within two weeks of a nomination, the Event must be approved by 2/3 of the voters, with a minimum of 15 voters (or 10 YES votes) for a nomination to pass. The only allowable votes are Yes and No
  6. Events that pass will be added to the category as described below.
  7. Events must allow a week to pass between nominations.


Nominations for Historical Status

Blackmore 4(04)

(Vote started Sept 8, 2010 03:38; Closes Sept 22, 2010 03:38)

On August 19th, 2010, 404: Barhah not found repaired The Blackmore Building in what the group's leaders called a "failed pinata attempt." This so-called "Failed Pinata" stood for 13 days in the heart of Ridleybank and weathered innumerable attacks from the RRF Constables, ferals, PKers, and elements of the RRF before finally succumbing on August 31 to a joint strike by the Constables and Team America.

Blackmore 4(04) was one of the longest large sieges since the introduction of cade blocking. It included over 300 participants from over thirty groups, several of which seemed to have made a brief return from retirement to celebrate the original Battle of Blackmore's 4th anniversary.

One final point of interest was the introduction of Bellow, which got it's first real demonstration at Blackmore. Surprisingly, the skill appeared to be a dual-edged sword- while it did attract many ferals to the event, it also emptied the surrounding area of it's traditional feral cloud. Several survivor groups were able to take advantage of this drop in zombie numbers to repair larg-ish sections of central Malton- the jury is still out on how long these hideout will hold, of course. :) ~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 03:38, 8 September 2010 (BST)

Yes

  1. It's been quite a while since I've seen something this big. ~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 03:38, 8 September 2010 (BST)
  2. Aye, go for it. Nothing to be done! 03:41, 8 September 2010 (BST)
  3. Both for the accomplishment of lasting as long and drawing as much attention as it did, as well as being a nice showcase for the new skills for survivors and zombies. --Maverick Talk - OBR Praise Knowledge! 404 03:47, 8 September 2010 (BST)
  4. Meatpuppet vote a-go! Erm...I mean...yes, the event was most certainly historically significant. It garnered widespread attention and attendance from a large number of the major groups currently in the game. For an impromptu event, it was unprecedented in recent years. As an event in general, it stands alone in that it proved that it is still possible to stand up against dedicated strike teams over an extended period of time in this post-interference era. It also deserves historical status as a testament to the immense efforts of those involved on all sides, some of which never had a chance to come to fruition. For instance, had it not cracked when it did, we'd be writing about the piñata strategy that the RRF used to finally crack the place a few days later. Either way, it is an event set apart and deserving of the historical status. —Aichon— 03:50, 8 September 2010 (BST)
  5. I disagree with almost everything said in the above summary. There was 10 days of fending off a large, but completely feral horde, 2 days of Zombie River Tactics, and 1 day of siege. However, this plague of ridiculous Pro-Life POV doesn't make the event less than significant. --VVV RPMBG 04:17, 8 September 2010 (BST)
    I disagree with almost all of your numbers for days and your categorization of those excellent and coordinated RRF members as "a completely feral horde" (I saw iWits at that time with RRF numbers listed which disagree with your assertion). —Aichon— 04:51, 8 September 2010 (BST)
  6. I vote yes because of the Naked Twister. --Justin 04:29, 8 September 2010 (BST)
  7. Totally. It should be a historic event, because it was. Sorry I sorta ruined the whole thing with POLNGOAK --Justinbronze 04:31, 8 September 2010 (BST)
    Hey, don't feel too bad. If it weren't for you, this would have never happened in the first place. ~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 04:38, 8 September 2010 (BST)
    Ironically, Project Operation delayed the destruction of Blackmore. Upon hearing of a survivor insurgency, most Ridleys thought it was just foolish Project Operatives, and that random ferals could handle it. It was only when the intelligent survivors started declaring their presence that the RRF decided to smash them personally. --VVV RPMBG 04:40, 8 September 2010 (BST)
    POLNGOAK did a thousand times better than anyone predicted. It failed to the hordes, it was a bit short lived, but you achieved something and should be proud. -- LEMON #1 04:41, 8 September 2010 (BST)
  8. -- LEMON #1 04:35, 8 September 2010 (BST)
  9. A week these days in UD is like a year. Of course I vote, "Yes!' When was the last time this much fun was has by survivors? Naked Twister is, of course, a good enough excuse, too. DianaWarrenUD 04:43, 8 September 2010 (BST)Diana Warren
  10. It ended the day I arrived, but I heard it was a nice event. --Colette Hart 05:26, 8 September 2010 (BST)
  11. If only it lasted longer. Maybe to Christmas. -- Da Ninja Random/AS also 404 Groupie Overlord in another life 08:10, 8 September 2010 (BST)
  12. Looks worthy enough too me. Oidar 08:50, 8 September 2010 (BST)
  13. Yup --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 10:43, 8 September 2010 (BST)
  14. While I, as a participant, might be slightly biased - Yes. Technical Pacifist 11:04, 8 September 2010 (BST)
  15. Yes. -- SDN 11:32, 8 September 2010 (BST)
  16. When exactly was the last time DoHS had to track back to clean the bonk from harmanbargarz? Even if it took only the first actually timed strike to crack Blackmore, that alone in and of itself is historical. -- Spiderzed▋ 15:18, 8 September 2010 (BST)
    iirc (and i'm really not sure and cbf looking back on forums) but the DoHS alone twice and the full horde once during the year preceding this. ♥ Moonie Talk | Testimonials 02:20, 10 September 2010 (BST)
  17. Yes. Nice page, almost like I was there. ~Vsig.png 15:42, 8 September 2010 (BST)
  18. Yes, because I was finally involved in something reasonably important. Asheets 16:35, 8 September 2010 (BST)
  19. Because after the shambles of Escape it was nice to show that well organised survivors and dedicated zombies can get together for a respectable shingdig. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 17:00, 8 September 2010 (BST)
  20. In this current low activity time this is very significant--E Gadus 21:06, 8 September 2010 (BST)
  21. Even to me, an idiot, this siege screams "Historically Important", I vote yes.William Burns 22:10, 8 September 2010 (BST)
  22. Initially, I thought that this was just another tossy attempt to hold a building with no real success. After about a weak, Red posted on the DA forums calling for more men. The fact that survivors lived for a week alone in Blackmore would be pretty damn good, but 13 days with up to 100 zombies knocking wasn't at all bad.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 22:21, 8 September 2010 (BST)
  23. Definatly it was a direct attempt to hold the most crucial building in the middle of zombie homeland and for the fact that everyone had fun even with defenders & gore corps chatting with each other that's why i should become a historical event. --Andy25100 22:41 8 September 2010
  24. --KyleStyle 00:24, 9 September 2010 (BST)
  25. I'm a day late to vote for my own thing. -- Rolfe Steiner Talk | Creedy Guerrilla Raiders 02:13, 9 September 2010 (BST)
  26. Yes, by contemporary standards this was a big event.--Mallrat The Spanish Inquisition TSI The Kilt Store TKS Clubbed to Death CTD 03:48, 9 September 2010 (BST)
  27. Yeah.--ZIPO/Talk/◆◆◆/CAPD 07:58, 9 September 2010 (BST)
  28. I too say hell yeah! FinnishNinja 21:12, 9 September 2010 (BST)
  29. Yes. Shadok T Balance is power 22:05, 9 September 2010 (BST)
  30. YES.--Belisarius17 03:40, 10 September 2010 (BST)
  31. Yes, because it was awesome. --Emerald Green 05:22, 11 September 2010 (BST)
  32. Yes, this was the only recent siege where the survivors stood and fought instead of breaking and running.--Tyl110 19:05, 11 September 2010 (BST)
  33. Yup. J.I 08:35, 12 September 2010 (BST)
  34. yes S.Butler 15:09, 12 September 2010 (BST)
  35. Yes--HiteiKan 23:37, 12 September 2010 (BST)
  36. Yes of course it wasnt as big as the caiger sieges but this battle is one of those that gets remembered and should be told by the veterans in dark bars around malton. Kinvalor75 12 September 2010
  37. Yup. Chris Ortego 20:21, 13 September 2010 (BST)
  38. yes Pvtchristopher, 13 september 2010
  39. Yes Sure, compared to older battles it wasn't as good, but I think Rosslessness mentioned something about ratios: compared to then, numbers in-game and survivor coordination are vastly inferior. Nowadays, 20 ferals can clear a mall, but in the old days, wasn't it supposed to take a whole horde to crack them? I thought that's why there were Mall Tours. As far as I've seen through my relatively short stint in the game, survivor morale is at an all-time low and river tactics are in wide use. The fact that this new Blackmore crew didn't scatter to the four winds after the first major break-in (16 zeds that were CR's within a few minutes) is quite a feat among these darker days, I think. --Wraith 03:08, 15 September 2010 (BST)
  40. Yes, --Mindlessidiots 03:52, 15 September 2010 (BST)
  41. Yes, Aichon detailed it well enough why it satisfies the requirements of Historical Events. -Wulfenbach 06:35, 15 September 2010 (BST)
  42. Yes, Wraith has an excellent point. It doesn't normally take 100+ zeds to cap a lone NT, those Humans involved deserved mad props for going as long as they did. --Damien falcon 04:34, 16 September 2010 (BST)
  43. Yes. Because it rocked! And the surprisingly great diversity of survivor players that came together and took a STAND! :O Sometimes I wish sieges would last longer like they did in the old epic sieges, but IMO true longevity just isn't possible in the era of cade blocking. It's too easy for strike teams, or even a few ferals breaking in just at the right moment, to beachhead long enough for the mob of zombies to come pouring in. I'm really impressed by how long we lasted, though. I wonder how much longer we'd have lasted if it were in the old days before cade blocking? --Fiffy 404 ♥ OBR ♥ RRF 08:29, 16 September 2010 (BST)

No

  1. This is supposed to stand alongside the real Battle of Blackmore, the Caiger sieges, Santlerville and all the others? No. It was fun while it lasted, but it has all the lasting impact of a fart in a wind tunnel. (I do like the boxing picture in the article though. ;o) )--Papa Moloch 05:26, 8 September 2010 (BST)
  2. Fun, well written, i bet this happens again like next week. and can you imagine how many dead hamsters moloch has in his buthole? the stench!----sexualharrisonStarofdavid2.png ¯\(Boobs.gif)/¯ 05:53, 8 September 2010 (BST)
  3. I feel like this just didn't last long enough to really be called historical. It didn't reach a fever pitch, and in general, I feel like this is mostly just going to be forgotten. It won't be talked about with warm pride like the original Blackmore or Caiger.--Hiro Kazama 02:44, 9 September 2010 (BST)
  4. I agree with Red Hawk is was nice to see an event this size going on, but to last as short as it did and center only around this building ...I can't vote yes on it. -- Emot-argh.gif 02:47, 9 September 2010 (BST)
  5. While the article is VERY well written (should be put up for good article nomination or whatever), the event itself definitely was not historical. Blackmore folded almost as soon as the RRF actually arrived on site (bulk of the horde didn't actually get to Blackmore until the day before it was over). Was it a good time? Yes. Was it historical? Fuck no. If they held against the strike teams + gc for a week or two, then I would listen. --Papa Johnny 13:59, 9 September 2010 (BST)
  6. History by vote is a broken concept but whatever. This was fun and the article itself is very well-written. But as events go, this is still largely business as usual for downtown. I'm not sure what separates this from the semi-annual battles/invasions that take place in Ridleybank/Blackmore every year. For this to be added, all the other yearly dances should be added as well. Based on what is already in the category, Escape/No Escape would be a much better example of something that is both unique and historical. This, by comparison, falls just a little short. -MHSstaff 15:54, 9 September 2010 (BST)
  7. No. While they did live for a while, once the entire horde arrived in town, it took only one strike each of AU10 and the Constables before a breach was made which was never pushed out. The arrival of the Team America strike merely cemented the breach, and it was really over before it began. The prevention of the homeland guard from reruining Blackmore was an achievement in itself, but this "battle" pales in comparison to the original.-- Adward  17:35, 9 September 2010 (BST)
    And yet the horrifically POV article fails to credit AU10 at all :( ♥ Moonie Talk | Testimonials 02:26, 10 September 2010 (BST)
    It was announced on the front page about a week ago that suggested changes were actively being solicited, and it is in the public namespace. Feel free to add appropriate credit where it's due or correct the "reek" of POV that you mention elsewhere. After all, the folks writing it didn't have access to all of the details since they were primarily survivors during the event and were simply doing their best to write it up as they saw it. And since it is an event page, not a group page or something of that sort, it should accurately reflect what happened and can be changed in reasonable ways by anyone. I'd add credit to AU10 myself if I knew when and where it was due, but I don't. —Aichon— 02:47, 10 September 2010 (BST)
    Who the fuck is AU10? -- LEMON #1 03:21, 10 September 2010 (BST)
    RRF strike team. I believe I had heard that it was a joint strike between AU10 and TA that cracked Blackmore at the end, but I may be mistaken, and I don't know what other contributions they may have made since I'm not privy to those conversations. —Aichon— 04:17, 10 September 2010 (BST)
    I was kidding. LOL jk I thought he meant 10 australians. -- LEMON #1 04:29, 10 September 2010 (BST)
    AU10 broke in earlier, but we didn't make the beachhead.-- Adward  22:33, 10 September 2010 (BST)
  8. Although it was great fun, and we lasted longer that we thought we would I don't think it was a historical event. Important yes, it was nice to get involved with something that wasn't a complete failtrain. Historical No. Next time Gadget, Next time! Cadwah 19:07, 9 September 2010 (BST)
    Because of you I am now listening to the Inspector Gadget theme on repeat.-- Rolfe Steiner Talk | Creedy Guerrilla Raiders 20:39, 9 September 2010 (BST)
  9. Because Viktor wasn't around--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 22:11, 9 September 2010 (BST)
  10. No. The page is exaggerated in it's significance, includes multiple fallacies, and reeks of survivor POV. Needs to be rewritten or include additional sections from the zombie side. ♥ Moonie Talk | Testimonials 23:22, 9 September 2010 (BST)
  11. Not really long enough for a historical status in my books. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:28, 9 September 2010 (BST)
    Hear ye, hear ye! Events doth be written unto history should be of GREAT length! --Aeon17x 11:43, 12 September 2010 (BST)
  12. Well written (although very POV) article, but historical event? Ehhhh, probably too soon. Lets get a zambah version of the story going and we'll talk. :)--Agent Sandman 03:06, 10 September 2010 (BST)
  13. No because I wasnt there and thats all I have to say on the matter :P --C Whitty 20:18, 10 September 2010 (BST)
  14. No Too soon to be "historical", eh?--Akbar 14:05, 11 September 2010 (BST)
    No The rules for historical status do not require a waiting period, granted, but this was not the Big Bash, or the first Iditarod; it wasn't a HUGE event in short. It was a valiant effort, but compared to the first attempt, or the Gingerbread men Candization of Ridleybank, it's just another attempt to hold a building in Ridleybank. I mean, if a group can SURPASS the original Blackmore Battle in terms of time, or numbers of survivors called in, or slaughter, or something else that is MORE than the original, then yes, it's notable. But lets not dilute the original by comparing it as equal to something less in all respects. In short, nice try, good training, DO IT AGAIN. -Wulfenbach 04:54, 14 September 2010 (BST)
  15. No This is part of what's wrong with battles anymore. The humans hold out a paltry two weeks and still pat themselves on the back in victory. The original Battle of Blackmore lasted 2 months! This was nothing. It was a tiny blip on the radar if anything at all. -Loup Garou 06:00, 14 September 2010 (BST)
    The problem is that the game has changed from one where sieges favored survivors to one where things are more balanced (though I would still argue that further balancing is necessary), yet no one seems willing to acknowledge that a change has happened, and many are unfairly comparing the new against the old. Two month sieges on this sort of scale just can't feasibly happen any longer. Lasting for two weeks against a handful of strikes and a lot of ferals took 24/7 vigilance and real-time coordination to accomplish, whereas in the old days a single survivor could ruin a strike team's day singlehandedly, due to the lack of zombie interference. That it takes a greater level of coordination and skill to accomplish a lesser feat is not the fault of modern survivors, and for their accomplishments to be so readily dismissed without a consideration for the context...well, it's disappointing. —Aichon— 08:16, 14 September 2010 (BST)
    Fuckin' A. The game's radically changed, the numbers have dropped, and organisation and large numbers is scarce. -- LEMON #1 09:15, 14 September 2010 (BST)
    I don't think it's that much of a "ready dismissing", Aichon. Yes, the game has changed, and it is far more balanced now for zombies when besieging a target, but as I said in my vote, the numbers of survivors involved wasn't nearly the number that were in the original Battle, nor apparently (granted, opinion, rather than observable fact) was the coordination of the assembled 404 crowd at the same level to the News Channel 4 group. I am, admittedly, using the original as the minimum standard to compare this event against, but even if it's easier for zombies to hold the breach, how was the action shown any match or even better for the original event? I am certainly not saying that they didn't give it a good try, but (AFAIK) they fell to two zombie strike teams with screwed up coordination between the two, followed by one team that cracked and shelled it. Compare this against the original event where the survivors (reportedly in excess of 200 and dozens of groups) held out for a month at a 3+:1 ratio against the three largest zombie hordes in the game at that time. From the BoB article, Shacknews finally cracked Blackmore with more than 250 zombies in a single coordinated strike, after having devastating the Nichols Mall area and the attached NT facility. Hundreds of survivors fought off hundreds of zombies over multiple TRPs in two different suburbs. To me, THAT'S a notable battle. This, this was comparable to a skirmish in the original battle. -Wulfenbach 10:11, 14 September 2010 (BST)
    That was when any retard with too much spare AP could magically drag desks behind the 20 zombies in front of the door, and then whack the sleeping shamblers at will with little fear of reinforcements. Now even a fraction of the survivors inside is enough to completely fuck the defenders, provided that fraction is large enough to trigger cade blocking. Hell, with the old pre-cade-blocking mechanics, even Escape would have been a success by sheer numerical advantage alone. While I'm not saying that the original Battle of Blackmore was something any retard could have done, the situation today is plainly u-n-c-o-m-p-a-r-a-b-l-e. With today's rules, the original BoB crew with the same amount of effort probably wouldn't hold out for much more than those two weeks that 404 + allies held Blackmore. -- Spiderzed▋ 10:23, 14 September 2010 (BST)
    Using relative numbers isn't really a true reflection. Reading the original blackmore article it seems there were about 200 true bastards. Yes. The 140 survivors assembled is less, but remember that the 200 or so was out of an active playing base of well over 40,000. today its only 18,000 likewise zombie numbers of 150+ isn't the same as 300, but in comparative terms (with a halving of the player base), its entertained a similar percentage of malton's population. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 10:54, 14 September 2010 (BST)
    I wouldn't bother trying to reason with him, he's basically already admitted that he accepts that as a fact but still wants to vote against. -- LEMON #1 10:55, 14 September 2010 (BST)
    No, DDR, I am willing to be reasoned with (shock, yes, but it does happen on this wiki, you know; jaded much? :grin:). Ross, I would think that relative numbers are the only way to compare, given we're comparing the two events directly, heck, I'm using the original as the defining bar to pass. Spiderzed does make a good point about 'cade blocking; I am under the impression that 'cade blocking is relative to the zombie:survivor ratio though. As it approaches 1:1+, 'cade blocking appears to be much harder without organized action by the zeds. At what minimum ratio do the zeds have a clear advantage though? What about my point of relative zombie numbers? Does anyone have reliable figures on their numbers and the numbers needed to crack the siege?
    I hadn't thought about the relative amount of the playerbase showing up, granted, since in terms of percentage, the 404 event apparently had a higher game pop. percentage. That's certainly a mark for inclusion, I'll agree to. Also, what about the multiple suburb requirement of the historical vote? Someone previously mentioned bellow to satisfy this, since it covered multiple suburbs. I'm not entirely satisfied with that, since to me multiple suburbs would be like the Iditarod's crossing of Malton. Perhaps someone from the zombie side wants to explain why this was a game-altering mechanic for them? Did the survivor side try anything new in tactics that changed how the game was played? -Wulfenbach 05:35, 15 September 2010 (BST)
    We are reasoning with you and you are refusing to budge over all the obvious and logical evidence to why this shouldn't be directly compared to the first Blackmore Battle that happened 4 years ago and since then major, major changes have occurred to the game and game numbers have decreased dramatically. You may notice that your vote means shit to the "yes" voters' cause too, so don't think they are coming here to get you to change your vote, I at least am only here just in hope you magically attain the ability to assess things logically and holistically. And for fuck's sake, before you respond with your brick wall post, please learn to format again, it does happen on this wiki. Thanks in advance. -- LEMON #1 06:17, 15 September 2010 (BST)
    Then I invite you to reread my posting. My questions are being answered, and intelligently, and so I am changing my position on those points. That's both discussion and reasoning, DDR. Your snarkiness aside, fine, you state that the comparison should not be versus the original event. Alright, if that's the point of contention, I'll bend on that and say that the event should be included. Aichon summed it up well enough in his Yes vote text as to why it changed the game for multiple survivor groups. And DDR, just to help improve your mood, I'll go one better and actually relearn wiki formatting and functionality, since it's been quite some time since I last contributed. -Wulfenbach 06:32, 15 September 2010 (BST)
    My god. Thank you. -- LEMON #1 06:44, 15 September 2010 (BST)
  16. As a Praetorian I have patrolled the bonk for almost two years apart from the odd venture out, The Kilt Store and other have taken blackmoar numerous times a year and held it for 3-7 days against a small force feral RRF's and larger force of ferals. I dont see how holding it for 2 weeks against a feral force is historical. Yes it was enjoyable but historical no, it folded 2 days after the horde arrived--Zed707 05:31, 16 September 2010 (BST)
    Your horde arrived? -- LEMON #1 05:47, 16 September 2010 (BST)
    Yep, the majority of the RRF horde did arrive in the b0nk about a day or two before Blackmore fell. —Aichon— 06:19, 16 September 2010 (BST)
    I think he was questioning the use of the word the. As in, there was already a horde when RRF got there. Which depends on what you consider a horde. --VVV RPMBG 06:29, 16 September 2010 (BST)
    No my point was that he questions the achievement of holding Blackmore for 2 weeks when they needed to bring the entire horde back to Bonk simply to stop it from going on more than a fortnight. Nah, not even special. -- LEMON #1 06:38, 16 September 2010 (BST)
    I think it is more questioning as to how Blackmore XII: The Search for Curly's Gold is any more historic than Blackmore II-Whatever/5th of November/Candyland/Lets invade Ridleybank...This time, it's for teh win. None of these events have historic status. Perhaps they should, but that is a different argument. If this is added in, many others things should be added in as well. -MHSstaff 17:19, 16 September 2010 (BST)
    Honestly, what really kills things like this is for whatever reason, the bar for historical status in the past has been set somewhat high. Which means if you are going by precedent, the odds of something truly epic or unique (compared to what is already in there) happening during these twilight years is probably somewhat unlikely. That said, if you took away the wiki article and looked back at game events of 2010 that helped shape and define UD-2010, would this make the cut? Maybe but I am not convinced.-MHSstaff 18:04, 16 September 2010 (BST)
  17. If "Bashing Back", the largest battle in recent memory which also occurred during a strategy altering game-change, was not made historical, this pointless raid into Ridleybank is not worthy enough --Blanemcc 18:43, 16 September 2010 (BST)
    Hey, aren't you that PKer?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:44, 16 September 2010 (BST)
    Someone sounds bitter.-- Rolfe Steiner Talk | Creedy Guerrilla Raiders 20:20, 16 September 2010 (BST)

Archives

  • Battle of Blackmore
  • First Siege of Caiger Mall
  • Malton Iditarod
  • Second Siege of Caiger Mall
  • Third Siege of Caiger Mall
  • Battle of the Bear Pit
  • The Siege of Giddings Mall
  • Yahoomas day
  • The Battle of Santlerville
  • Valentine's Day Massacre
  • Mall Tour '07
  • Malton Block Party
  • User:RadioSurvivor

Nominations for Removal of Historical Status

Historical Events Discussion

Secondary list of chronological order?

Any votes against the creation of a timeline below the alphabetically ordered list of historical events? I'd list the events along with the dates they ran. I just think it'd provide for a more reasonable reading of this page, and world lore. Jeffool 10:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

On a Category page nothing can go below the alphabetical list, however, if anyone is interested in making something like this it could be useful, although I think one might already exist somewhere. And I found it Timeline--Karekmaps?! 13:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Although it looks like that needs much reworking.--Karekmaps?! 13:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Category_talk:Historical_Events&oldid=1779820"