Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Patches"

From NetHackWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(any patch is wikifodder)
m (Text replace - "bilious.homelinux.org" to "bilious.alt.org")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
Should we only include particularly notable patches here, or any and everything? I suppose the [http://bilious.homelinux.org/ bilious] link is good enough to cover the masses. [[User:GreyKnight|GreyKnight]] 02:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
+
Should we only include particularly notable patches here, or any and everything? I suppose the [http://bilious.alt.org/ bilious] link is good enough to cover the masses. [[User:GreyKnight|GreyKnight]] 02:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 
:I think any legitimate patch could have an article, providing you have something interesting to say about it. Hundreds of substub articles giving only the title and a link would be unnavigable and better served by a list or table on [[Patch]]. --[[User:Jayt|Jayt]] 14:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 
:I think any legitimate patch could have an article, providing you have something interesting to say about it. Hundreds of substub articles giving only the title and a link would be unnavigable and better served by a list or table on [[Patch]]. --[[User:Jayt|Jayt]] 14:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:30, 30 September 2011

Should we only include particularly notable patches here, or any and everything? I suppose the bilious link is good enough to cover the masses. GreyKnight 02:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think any legitimate patch could have an article, providing you have something interesting to say about it. Hundreds of substub articles giving only the title and a link would be unnavigable and better served by a list or table on Patch. --Jayt 14:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)