Talk:Combat Update

Merge this page with the far more detailed 1.9 page.

--DigiDuncan (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

We've been keeping two types of pages: version pages, where very detailed changelogs are kept, and the named update pages like Combat Update, Bountiful Update, etc which give a general overview of the update with much shallower details, but with a broader perspective, e.g. including official videos, some details about how the name was arrived at, some historically relevant trivia maybe, some development details, etc.

The idea is that the version really is a distinct thing from the update.

– Sealbudsman (Aaron) 👁 Image
^T/_C 17:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strongly oppose per Sealbudsman. -BDJP ^(t|c) 17:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Comment You're most likely right. Sorry! I was just confused by two articles that I thought meant the same thing. 👁 Image
DigiDuncan! (talk) 16 px 17:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem, it never hurts to take it to the talk page! – Sealbudsman (Aaron) 👁 Image
^T/_C 17:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose per Sealbudsman, although this is not a vote, right? — Agent NickTheRed37 (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably not a vote, no. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) 👁 Image
^T/_C 19:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose I highly oppose. I feel this doesn't make a lot of sense, and they should be merged. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 100.2.216.239 (talk) at 1:17, 03 July 2016 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Wait a sec. You oppose the merge, yet you feel like they need to be merged?! -BDJP ^(t|c) 02:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you elaborate what doesn't make sense to you? It seems to have made sense to people so far. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 02:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

its been 8 years, I don't think he is going to elaborate. 2600:6C5D:4000:7067:27A5:CAFA:C303:E5EF 18:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)