Talk:Patch 5.1.0 (undocumented changes)

Spell and nameplates
Weakened Blows has a new icon. Also, what do you call mobs with those special portraits (not of rare/elite type)? Minions, weaker mobs...? I'm asking because the nameplates for them are now ultra-small and this was not a change documented in the official patch notes.

(As a sidenote, I'm not sure where to stick the change to the reputation achievements. 60 Exalted was reassigned to 55 Exalted, and 70 Exalted was reassigned to 60. This also resulted in the "the Beloved" title being moved to 60 [down from 70].) Alayea (talk / contrib) 23:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Cyclonic Inspiration
Additionally, I'm not sure where to stick the change to Cyclonic Inspiration (movement buff in the faction shrines). It now is applied automatically and is no longer removed by fall damage. Alayea (talk / contrib) 19:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say World Environment. 22:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Blizz added some changes into the patch notes
I just noticed that Blizz has updated the patch notes, thus some of 'undocumented' changes are now documented. Any volunteer to help move these changes from here to Patch 5.1.0? Thanks.--Fireattack (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * [Comment transplanted to its own topic below for sake of clarity] -- Taohinton (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your meaning, but I was not talking about the changes introduced by hotfixes. Most of the red lines (mean new added) in this blizz's patch notes, are indeed in the initial patch, not came from any hotfixes; these changes were JUST not in document before and now blizz added them. One example is monk's "Zen Pilgrimage, Zen Flight and Enveloping Mist now have new icons." It added into 5.1 initially, not by any hotfixes later, but blizz just forgot to add it into patch notes and now they do. So I think we should move this change from here to documented changes. --Fireattack (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And i found somebody has began to transfer these changes. problem solved i belive :) --Fireattack (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I understood what you were talking about :) However, two of the changes highlighted in that article are NOT from the patch itself, but rather were added in a hotfix, but have now been copied into our 5.1 list. This came to my attention after reading your comment, and the act itself prompts this discussion. Plus, the official 5.1.0 list itself includes numerous changes made in hotfixes after the patch itself had been released and downloaded. The result is just that we now have changes on our 5.1 list that actually came a day or two later, and may get mislabeled on pages. It's not exactly a huge problem, just one of those things ;) But, in the hopes that this issue will get properly considered, I've moved it to its own topic. -- Taohinton (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Patches, Hotfixes and Blizzard
This raises the point of the exact separation between patches and hotfixes. Generally I assume that the 5.1.0 pages (for example) are only to list the changes made in the actual initial patch itself; and that changes made in subsequent hotfixes are not to be included in this list. We do have Hotfixes (which is currently a few weeks behind) but this isn't linked to from the main 5.1 page. Patch changes and hotfixes are listed on relevant pages differently.
 * [Transplanted from above discussion for sake of clarity]

However, Blizzard doesn't seem to be keeping these changes so neatly separated. Let's leave aside the issue that Blizzard posts slightly different information on the US and EU sites, and take the US pages as our example. Blizzard has chosen to incorporate some of the changes (and I mean some, only a few) made in subsequent hotfixes, into their main 5.1 patch notes article. These changes are now listed in both articles, and there is no longer any indication in the main article that these were not in fact part of the patch itself, but were added at a later date. The majority of hotfix changes also remain un-included in the main 5.1 article, meaning even that list is not comprehensive, but instead apparently rather random in which of the hotfix additions it lists. This all means that without double-checking, we may end up double-listing changes in both lists, and/or mis-listing the date of these changes.

Case in point are 2 of the above 'newly documented' changes; these were already documented in their hotfixes article, but now have been included in their main 5.1 article as well.

The question really is how we handle these changes. Editors have already included some hotfix changes in our 5.1 article, due to Blizzard's reposting of them (as described above), meaning we have contradictory data regarding dates, and may end up with those being listed in both articles. Should Blizzard continue to copy hotfix changes retroactively, the article could end up substantially confused. I would assume that despite their introduction into the main 5.1 article, we continue to regard these changes as hotfix changes; in which case presumably they shouldn't really be included in our 5.1 list. In this case, editors would have to check any 'new' changes listed by Blizzard against the hotfix article before including them in this article. -- Taohinton (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Which hotfixes, specifically, were rolled into the patch notes? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't the energy or volition to exhaustively check every single change; however it appears every class change (not bug fixes, and not other changes) for the Nov 27 and 28 hotfixes have been added to the 5.1 list, specifically:


 * Hunter
 * Aspect of the Hawk and Aspect of the Iron Hawk now increase ranged attack power by 15% (was 10%). (Nov 27)
 * Monk
 * Desperate Measures now also resets the cooldown on Expel Harm when the Monk is below 35% health. (Nov 27)
 * Paladin
 * Light of Dawn's healing has been increased by 5%. (Nov 27)
 * Holy Prism will now always heal the 5 closest allies with the lowest health. (Nov 27)
 * Rogue
 * The cooldown of Vanish has been reduced to 2 minutes (was 3 minutes). (Nov 27)
 * Shaman
 * Stormlash Totem now has a radius of 40 yards (was 30). (Nov 28)
 * Warrior
 * Skull Banner now has a radius of 40 yards (was 30). (Nov 28)
 * Warlock
 * Curse of Enfeeblement and Aura of Enfeeblement now reduce the physical damage dealt by all targets by 10% (was 20%). (Nov 27)
 * Aura of Enfeeblement and Aura of the Elements now cost 150 Demonic Fury (was 50), and have a 10 second cooldown. (Nov 27)


 * You can check for others in the hotfix article (currently http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/7922045/Patch_51_Hotfixes_-_November_29-11_29_2012), although from what checks I've made it seems like only the class changes have been copied. -- Taohinton (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to add my 2¢ to the subject - I go by the patch notes as it/they were originally published (US version being the standard). Any editing on Blizzard's part to the documented changes should not be reflected on this website, if for nothing else to maintain consistency. (That is my personal opinion, of course.)

On a separate note... has anyone ever bothered with saving the original list immediately after it is posted by Blizzard, so that it can be used for reference to differentiate between what was an oversight on the part of Blizzard (with regards to documentation) and what came from a hotfix? It does greatly depend on Blizzard keeping the changes sorted out and on others to keep a sharp eye out, though. Any better ideas out there? Alayea (talk / contrib) 21:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems clear enough to me. Blizzard has retroactively added those changes into their 5.1 list, probably to make it simpler for players to see what's changed. That's great, but since Wowpedia is in the business of separating patches and hotfixes and listing each separately, it's a little confusing. It's also factually incorrect, in stating that certain changes were applied on a certain date, when they actually weren't for another day or two. Regardless, these changes are definitely hotfixes, having been published as such before being retro-added to the patch changes list.

I can see how it's handy (and simpler) just to combine patches and hotfixes, especially when the latter come soon after the former. But in terms of the pedantic, technicalities of the matter, it seems clear; these changes were made in hotfixes, not the 5.1 patch itself, and should be listed as such, and only as such. Having them erroneously listed in both articles, one listing an incorrect date of application, doesn't seem the way to go. Unless anyone has a better suggestion, I'll therefore remove them from the 5.1 list. -- Taohinton (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)