Talk:Designing a Level (Alternative Tutorial): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
Angry Beaver (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:Me and BJ talked about it, I already intergrated a lot of the stuff form his into mine and have plans to intergrate the rest elsewhere to preserve the good content he created. --[[User:Angry Beaver|Angry Beaver]] 17:08, 16 Dec 2006 (PST) | :Me and BJ talked about it, I already intergrated a lot of the stuff form his into mine and have plans to intergrate the rest elsewhere to preserve the good content he created. --[[User:Angry Beaver|Angry Beaver]] 17:08, 16 Dec 2006 (PST) | ||
::Yeah, I saw that discussion. I'm not really convinced that one monolithic article is the right way to approach this subject. This version seems to have a different stance from yours, and I think it's more appropriate that there be some separation. --[[User:Giles|Giles]] 17:17, 16 Dec 2006 (PST) | ::Yeah, I saw that discussion. I'm not really convinced that one monolithic article is the right way to approach this subject. This version seems to have a different stance from yours, and I think it's more appropriate that there be some separation. --[[User:Giles|Giles]] 17:17, 16 Dec 2006 (PST) | ||
:::Well its a wiki, if an article needs to exsist in someones opinion let it exsist. lets hope no-one goes round spamming "merge these artiicle" tags everywhere. --[[User:Angry Beaver|Angry Beaver]] 17:30, 16 Dec 2006 (PST) | |||
Revision as of 18:30, 16 December 2006
This topic is so incredibly intricate and varied, not to mention subjective, that I think it's silly to suggest that a single authoritative article can be created. So I see no reason why BJ's article can't exist alongside Angry Beaver's. --Giles 17:06, 16 Dec 2006 (PST)
- Me and BJ talked about it, I already intergrated a lot of the stuff form his into mine and have plans to intergrate the rest elsewhere to preserve the good content he created. --Angry Beaver 17:08, 16 Dec 2006 (PST)
- Yeah, I saw that discussion. I'm not really convinced that one monolithic article is the right way to approach this subject. This version seems to have a different stance from yours, and I think it's more appropriate that there be some separation. --Giles 17:17, 16 Dec 2006 (PST)
- Well its a wiki, if an article needs to exsist in someones opinion let it exsist. lets hope no-one goes round spamming "merge these artiicle" tags everywhere. --Angry Beaver 17:30, 16 Dec 2006 (PST)
- Yeah, I saw that discussion. I'm not really convinced that one monolithic article is the right way to approach this subject. This version seems to have a different stance from yours, and I think it's more appropriate that there be some separation. --Giles 17:17, 16 Dec 2006 (PST)