Forum:Patch section

Hey, I was wondering if we could do something with the Patch section of each article for zone, npc, mob, item, etc... Here's the layout I'm suggesting it should look like:

==Patches and articles== *

but the thing is, I find articles that look something similar or has something from this:

==Patches & articles==


 * Use 'and' instead of '&' ; Some people may not understand that symbol, I wouldn't know why.
 * For the Note, Cap the first letter and add a period, come on its a wiki :D
 * Use * on the patch line to have it aligned great ;D

I'm just saying what my suggestion that looks nice and neat should do and hopefully other wowpedian's will exactly start doing this so i wouldn't have to edit them all and make it perfect ;). If you have a suggestion, feel free to to explain below or you like my idea then awesome! 07:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Regardless whether the change was a formal patch or a hotfix, and whether it was documented in formal patch notes or a forum post, the title of the section should be == Patch changes ==, simply because it is in fact a patch to the software either way. The use of and/& is irrelevant then (though and is preferred in general).
 * Your changes are good suggestions otherwise! --Sky (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, so regardless if its just a patch change or hotfix, at least make the patch template look something like this:




 * It'll surely help out a lot. :D 16:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * For every patch section that does not have a hotfix should at least be ==Patch changes== but if a hotfix is included it should be ==Patches and hotfixes== . That looks better. :D 12:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Your suggestions are decent, but they are in fact already pretty widely found as the standard style on the site. There are certainly plenty of errors (I fix them all the time) but there is already an established style, and any deviations are really just a matter of inexperienced or inattentive editors (or very old pages). Your first example reflects the current style, except that it's ==Patch changes==, rather than ==Patches and articles== . ==Patches and hotfixes== is generally used when hotfixes are listed, although I understand Sky's position that it shouldn't be necessary.


 * Feel free to make correcting patch change sections your personal mission though ;) -- Taohinton (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I can do that on my own side thanks :D 23:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally I dislike using the bullet points for one line patch changes. I find that the icon we have next to the patch number serves that purpose, especially for articles which will likely only have the note of when it was added. Though I'm fine with articles with several notes having the bullets. 02:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've always been on the fence about the single-change asterisks. -- Taohinton (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've reverted changes to the boilerplates calling for a distinction between Patch changes and Patches and hotfixes sections - changing section titles when adding a hotfix seems like unnecessary work with no objective benefit; it seems to me that "Patch changes" sufficiently covers the general idea of what the section is about, while the presence of hotfix entries is merely a detail. In general, my approach to the contents of those sections is more akin to live and let live -- there are always more worthwhile things you could be improving on the wiki, so adding additional manual labour editing tasks seems counterproductive. — foxlit (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Why would some articles have ? Instead of that should I use my own time by any chance and change them to   since that's the general idea, was what my my idea in the first place until I changed it up a bit. What I am saying is to keep the section named   since that provides the purpose of the article and its much smaller in byte.  16:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Patches are not the same as hotfixes. If there's been a hotfix to the subject of the article, it should be .   is fine as long as there are no hotfixes done. -- 16:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sometimes when I edit and I submit it gets reverted but I changed it from  to   because there was no hotfixes provided.  17:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That is completely fine. -- 18:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I see we still have a healthy debate on the subject ;) As with most style points, as long as no-one's being expected to conform to the other's POV, I think either heading will suffice quite well. I would say that the boilerplate might want some mention of ==Patch changes== though, else we're telling people to add ==Patches and hotfixes== to all pages even when there are no hotfixes. -- Taohinton (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ...unless of course that's the intended instruction. -- Taohinton (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

A year later, and we never did achieve a consensus on the matter. I don't really mind that, but I am in favour of avoiding wasted work. As mentioned above, Zdroid has been busy for a long time now changing sections without any hotfixes from  to , and has also asked some other editors to do the same. In terms of simplifying the format (as proposed by Foxlit above), I don't have any big problem with this. However, now that recent hotfixes are being added, the sections are now being re-edited to once again read.
 * One year on

The net benefit of this is at best an incredibly small improvement to the wiki, if we intend Gourra's model for the section headers; and no improvement at all if we accept Foxlit's. The net cost of this is thousands of minor edits, with no purpose whatsoever except to change the section headings. As well as consuming the time of editors which could be spent on a lot of far more deserving causes, it clogs up watchlists, giving everyone else myriad superfluous edits to read through.

It seems to me if we want to have the two separate types of headings, we could just leave those sections that already read  as a catchall for if and when hotfixes get added. We already have  sections which include tips, or tactics, or a mix of both. Alternatively we could edit the headers down to  and just leave them when hotfixes get added, as Foxlit suggests. But making thousands of specific edits to pages just to change their headers down, then a few months later making dozens if not hundreds more specific edits to revert those very same edits, just seems like a lot of wasted work, and wasted time for editors browsing their watchlists, too. At present we have dozens if not hundreds of important pages still out of date from 6.0.2; these section headers are really not worth the trouble, in my opinion. -- Taohinton (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I'm not meaning to tell anyone what to edit; just that since both headings are actually perfectly valid (and preferences vary), systemically changing them across the site is merely a personal preference, not actually any improvement to the wiki. -- Taohinton (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Appearances
A perfect place for my question. So, sometimes, new appearances involve a change of level. Good examples are Nazgrim and Taylor. As they got new appearances throughout the expansions (and patches) their level went up. I believe that they are not alone in this. What about that kind of appearances?--Mordecay (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe Coobra can answer about this, I'm not sure about it. 23:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe, since Blizz likes to keep game characters going through several locations instead of making new ones all the time, has lead many to include this into the patch changes. This was allowed, but it has for a time now gotten out of hand with the patch changes being nothing but "this character appears in this place now". Characters will continue to appear in multiple places, and relevant sections are created and noted in the above sections of history/background or others and really isn't necessary to be in the changes as well.


 * Currently as I see it only changes to the model being used, the main location on the character changes (ie Vol'jin moved from Orgrimmar to Echo Isles), level/status changes, or features preformed by the character should be noted. I'm sure there might be other reasons to note in the patch changes, but those are the main ones to note. 02:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, understood this. But that not answers my question; I did not asked for just lore appearance but - when a new appearance make a NPC to get higher levels - should this be noted? If yes, as a new appearance or a level-up change? --Mordecay (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Would using |comment other than |note for the new appearances be okay? |comment is used for Un-official notes, undocumented changes or additional info. 11:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think that would help, since the issue is mostly (I believe) the sheer number of patch changes we end up with if we list each appearance. And Mordecay, it sounds like Coobra is saying that new appearances are not changes in themselves (unless something big has happened such as the NPC moving from their previous location) but that actual changes such as going up levels would be worth noting. -- Taohinton (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In general, the wiki describes the current state of the game (excluding a few historical sections/out-of-date articles). The patch changes sections supply some history information, but we cannot possibly list every single possible change on every single article -- so think about whether what you're listing in there is really interesting, and whether it's already covered by a different section of the article. Some examples: it's probably unnecessary to list the patches in which city guards were updated to the next expansion's level ranges, or the addition of additional appearances of a character that already has an entire section describing their role in new content. — foxlit (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Manual of Style
I was going to make a separate post for this, but it seems like I might as well just throw it into this discussion. It seems to me that the basic format for the patch changes section is something it would be good to lay out in the Manual of Style. Just a basic template, like Zdroid was trying to establish at the top of the page. The same goes for the video and external links sections; for both it would be handy to have the preferred form stated where editors can find it. Some of the text that currently exists on the subject in the manual is also out of date: editors are advised to use the patched template for patch changes, and to add undocumented changes using |comment rather than |note (something which is almost never done these days).

So firstly, it seems to me that the manual should actually reflect the current standards of style for the wiki. Secondly, it seems like we might as well put a brief illustration of the preferred style (as at the top of this page) to help editors who are happy to be consistent, but aren't sure how. -- Taohinton (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Is the second point covered by the various article boilerplates, which we just need to publicize more, or did you have something else in mind? — foxlit (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The boilerplate pretty much covers it, actually. I'd agree that it needs to be better publicised; there doesn't seem to be any mention or link to it in the manual, and the purpose is kind of overlapping, from my perspective at least. I think it's good to have a single reference, or at least starting-point, for when people are looking for the right way to do these things, especially when consistency is desired; adding some links pointing to the boilerplate would be good. -- Taohinton (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The conclusions of the above discussion regarding appearances would also be something worth adding to the manual. -- Taohinton (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Achievements
This is a question for achievements relation. Since achievements was introduced during patch 3.0.2; Would it be necessarily to add the patch change section for all the achievements that was added on patch 3.0.2? If yes, I'll be glad to do so. If no, I'll just ignore or question with suspicion. ;) 23:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It should already be in there, but if you find any that are missing it, please add it. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll do that. :) 23:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)