Talk:Tile compression: Difference between revisions
From NESdev Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→cdr ru qo: new section) |
m (Reverted edits by 199.15.233.162 (talk) to last revision by Rainwarrior) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:I think it was me, and I believe my confusion was that comprehending the stuff on the wiki page depended on information behind the link (which already fully described it), which I felt made the wiki material either useless or redundant (depending on whether you'd read the linked page). I believe I was in favour of just linking it with a brief summary instead, but revising it to have fully formed ideas was an acceptable alternative. - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] ([[User talk:Rainwarrior|talk]]) 12:21, 4 May 2016 (MDT) | :I think it was me, and I believe my confusion was that comprehending the stuff on the wiki page depended on information behind the link (which already fully described it), which I felt made the wiki material either useless or redundant (depending on whether you'd read the linked page). I believe I was in favour of just linking it with a brief summary instead, but revising it to have fully formed ideas was an acceptable alternative. - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] ([[User talk:Rainwarrior|talk]]) 12:21, 4 May 2016 (MDT) | ||
Revision as of 19:51, 3 June 2016
Citing external sources for format details
On 2016-05-02, Bisqwit made this edit to "Spell out the format. Depending on external links for textual content is bad wiki practice." But I seem to remember about a year earlier, when I was making these edits about LZSS as used in GBA/DS BIOS, that someone was confused about the scope of this page, whether I was making a complete format reference or not, especially for formats not used on NES. This "someone" may have been on forums.nesdev.org or in #nesdev on EFnet; I don't remember exactly. --Tepples (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2016 (MDT)
- I think it was me, and I believe my confusion was that comprehending the stuff on the wiki page depended on information behind the link (which already fully described it), which I felt made the wiki material either useless or redundant (depending on whether you'd read the linked page). I believe I was in favour of just linking it with a brief summary instead, but revising it to have fully formed ideas was an acceptable alternative. - Rainwarrior (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2016 (MDT)
