Forum:Legacy section for reworked topics: Difference between revisions
IceCastles (talk | contribs) m →Support |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
# 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 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) | # 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== | ==Oppose== | ||