Forum:Legacy section for reworked topics: Difference between revisions

(8 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{proposal header|deadline=19 April 2026, 23:59 UTC}}

{{proposal header|deadline=19 April 2026, 23:59 UTC|outcome=3-0 in support}}

Recently Ninja Kiwi introduced or will introduce major changes which completely changed how some things work in BTD6:

Line 14:

# I think a legacy section for major reworks is good to have in the wiki otherwise the information would be lost in the edit history, might not need to be as extensive as the current information [[User:Drgoku282|Drgoku282]] ([[User talk:Drgoku282|talk]]) 18:46, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

# I think this is a good idea but defining what is "significant" is going to be a challenge. BTD6 is almost approaching its 8th anniversary and in those years multiple large scale reworks have happened to all sorts of things. [[User:Overclockbtd|Overclockbtd]] ([[User talk:Overclockbtd|talk]]) 18:53, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

# it's a good idea, but might i suggest a namespace instead of a section for certain topics? e.g. Legacy:Lych ... just throwing that out there. and i agree with the previous comment, we might need to define "significant". jungle's bounty rework wouldn't be significant enough for a namespace, but it would be worth acknowledging, you dig? [[User:IceCastles|IceCastles]] ([[User talk:IceCastles|talk]]) 20:24, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

==Oppose==

Line 19:

Line 21:

==Comments==

In general, my philosophy is that articles should always be written from the perspective of the most up-to-date versions. For things like the reworked Lych and Jungle's Bounty, those still use the old mechanics in the console version, so it makes sense to have a section for the console version's mechanics for those. Not sure about things that aren't in the console version though, like teams. [[User:Polavux|Polavux]] ([[User talk:Polavux|talk]]) 18:57, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

:I've just updated the [[Lych]] page with an example of what I mean. Since the console version is still technically up-to-date, albeit on its own branch, it makes sense to cover both the old and new mechanics. Presumably the console version will eventually match the PC version, so eventually this section won't be necessary and would probably be deleted unless we allow coverage of topics pre-rework... though I don't want to support this proposal unless we can agree on what makes a rework notable enough to warrant a legacy section. [[User:Polavux|Polavux]] ([[User talk:Polavux|talk]]) 02:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Do you count Relentless track glue rework? [[User:Qwertyxp2000|Qwertyxp2000]] ([[User talk:Qwertyxp2000|talk]]) 06:30, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Now that this proposal has passed, how should this be implemented? Should it be one one page that details all reworked topics? Should it be on each subject's individual page? How should a topic be classified as "legacy"? [[User:Overclockbtd|Overclockbtd]] ([[User talk:Overclockbtd|talk]]) 05:37, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

:Yeah, the lack of implementation details and criteria for what counts as a rework is why I didn't support this proposal, and I don't want to enact this proposal until those are settled. Personally I think legacy content should be sections of the pages they relate to. Maybe we could add a level 2 section named "history" and make pre-release, update history, and legacy sections into level 3 sub-sections of those, since they all have to do with the subject prior to the current version. [[User:Polavux|Polavux]] ([[User talk:Polavux|talk]]) 06:35, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

::Just to clarify, the "history" section would only exist if the subject would have at least two sub-sections of it. Like, if a subject only has update history, the update history header would stay at level 2. [[User:Polavux|Polavux]] ([[User talk:Polavux|talk]]) 06:36, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{proposal header|deadline=19 April 2026, 23:59 UTC}}<!-- Add your proposal body below this line. You can change the "support" and "oppose" headings to other options, and have more than two options, as long as it follows the proposal guidelines. -->
+{{proposal header|deadline=19 April 2026, 23:59 UTC|outcome=3-0 in support}}<!-- Add your proposal body below this line. You can change the "support" and "oppose" headings to other options, and have more than two options, as long as it follows the proposal guidelines. -->
 Recently Ninja Kiwi introduced or will introduce major changes which completely changed how some things work in BTD6:
@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 # I think a legacy section for major reworks is good to have in the wiki otherwise the information would be lost in the edit history, might not need to be as extensive as the current information [[User:Drgoku282|Drgoku282]] ([[User talk:Drgoku282|talk]]) 18:46, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
+# I think this is a good idea but defining what is "significant" is going to be a challenge. BTD6 is almost approaching its 8th anniversary and in those years multiple large scale reworks have happened to all sorts of things. [[User:Overclockbtd|Overclockbtd]] ([[User talk:Overclockbtd|talk]]) 18:53, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
+# it's a good idea, but might i suggest a namespace instead of a section for certain topics? e.g. Legacy:Lych ... just throwing that out there. and i agree with the previous comment, we might need to define "significant". jungle's bounty rework wouldn't be significant enough for a namespace, but it would be worth acknowledging, you dig? [[User:IceCastles|IceCastles]] ([[User talk:IceCastles|talk]]) 20:24, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
 ==Oppose==
@@ Line 19: / Line 21: @@
 ==Comments==
 <!-- always sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~ -->
+In general, my philosophy is that articles should always be written from the perspective of the most up-to-date versions. For things like the reworked Lych and Jungle's Bounty, those still use the old mechanics in the console version, so it makes sense to have a section for the console version's mechanics for those. Not sure about things that aren't in the console version though, like teams. [[User:Polavux|Polavux]] ([[User talk:Polavux|talk]]) 18:57, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
+:I've just updated the [[Lych]] page with an example of what I mean. Since the console version is still technically up-to-date, albeit on its own branch, it makes sense to cover both the old and new mechanics. Presumably the console version will eventually match the PC version, so eventually this section won't be necessary and would probably be deleted unless we allow coverage of topics pre-rework... though I don't want to support this proposal unless we can agree on what makes a rework notable enough to warrant a legacy section. [[User:Polavux|Polavux]] ([[User talk:Polavux|talk]]) 02:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
+Do you count Relentless track glue rework? [[User:Qwertyxp2000|Qwertyxp2000]] ([[User talk:Qwertyxp2000|talk]]) 06:30, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
+Now that this proposal has passed, how should this be implemented? Should it be one one page that details all reworked topics? Should it be on each subject's individual page? How should a topic be classified as "legacy"? [[User:Overclockbtd|Overclockbtd]] ([[User talk:Overclockbtd|talk]]) 05:37, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
+:Yeah, the lack of implementation details and criteria for what counts as a rework is why I didn't support this proposal, and I don't want to enact this proposal until those are settled. Personally I think legacy content should be sections of the pages they relate to. Maybe we could add a level 2 section named "history" and make pre-release, update history, and legacy sections into level 3 sub-sections of those, since they all have to do with the subject prior to the current version. [[User:Polavux|Polavux]] ([[User talk:Polavux|talk]]) 06:35, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
+::Just to clarify, the "history" section would only exist if the subject would have at least two sub-sections of it. Like, if a subject only has update history, the update history header would stay at level 2. [[User:Polavux|Polavux]] ([[User talk:Polavux|talk]]) 06:36, 29 April 2026 (UTC)