Forum:Listing update histories on articles
It would provide an "official" place to list changes and get rid of bad writing like "Players used to be able to transmog into Araxxor in Soul Wars. This was fixed on 16 October 2010." in body paragraphs, and would make answering questions like "when was [weapon]'s special attack changed?" a lot easier.
Here's a preview of whatmight look like:
- Update): 21 Dec 2019 (
- update 21 Aug 2017 (Update): Anima rates from Shattered Worlds have been increased significantly. Worlds 71 and above now reward 29m-37m+ an hour anima depending on your own personal combat ability (and the other random factors).
- patch 24 Jul 2017 (Update): Multiple typos have been fixed throughout Shattered Worlds.
- patch 22 May 2017 (Update): Some missing point lights in the Shattered Worlds staging area have been put back in.
- hotfix 4 May 2017 (Update): Shattered Worlds' NPCs are now weak to everything, rather than having no particular weakness.
Some issues to consider:
- Should we copy changes verbatim from update pages and Patch Notes, or should we alter and/or elaborate on official wording? Do we include links?
- Should we ask Jagex for help with this, as Shauny has said he might be able to contribute (granted, this was over a year ago)?
- Do we want to limit the scope of articles we put this on (for example, not on broad articles like game world)?
- Should we include "added/removed from RuneScape" entries in the list? Some pages already contain that information in an infobox or messagebox.
- Where should the section go on the page?
- Do we want to limit the height of the section with a scrollable box? It can get pretty long, as seen at User:JaydenKieran/Sandbox.
This will take a huge amount of work to complete since we'd have to go through 16 years' worth of updates, but once we're caught up it should be easy enough to maintain. --07:19, September 3, 2017 (UTC)
Support - It'd take a lot of work but would look pretty good. We should probably copy changes verbatim to avoid any editors misinterpreting an update (and it just makes more sense). Contacting Jagex about getting help with this might be extremely useful.
I think we should limit the articles this is used on to items, NPCs, quests, minigames, D&Ds and interactive scenery. Locations and other kinds of scenery seems overkill, and if we added it for locations then it'd be subjective as to what we include - if an NPC in the location gets graphically updated, do we add it to the history of that location?
I think the "Added/removed from RuneScape" entries are kind of important and without them, I don't think it will be a "definitive" list of updates. It would just make sense to include them, even if they are already in the infobox on the page.
For the order, I think it should be above the "Trivia" section of the page. This makes the most sense. And yeah, I created a list on my sandbox of legitimate updates to Shattered Worlds and even that was getting long, considering the minigame hasn't been out for that long. So I think we do need to limit the height of the section and make it scrollable. This looks good, would be cool to see it implemented. jayden 11:20, September 3, 2017 (UTC)
Support - Took us long enough. I've been wanting to suggest this for a few years (without avail obviously) and imo this is a very useful part of almost every game based wiki.
Copy verbatim and alter/elaborate if the verbatim itself can be unclear/confusing for newbies/noobs. Albeit very rarely, some patch notes are really, really vague, to the point that copying those would be almost as good as nothing. Hence; Copy verbatim and elaborate/alter if needed.
Not every article needs patch history. I don't have opinion what articles don't need 'em but I'm certain that; Items, minigames, D&Ds, NPCs and quests definitely do.
Place patch history under or on top of Trivia.
Scroll-able box yes ty, just make sure it's not too short by default. Would hate to see only 1-2 patch entries at a time.
Include "added/removed from RuneScape" entries in the list. But keep infoboxes and/or messageboxes that already state such things. It's way easier to see if things have been removed when corresponding page has a huge box on top of the page stating that it doesn't exist anymore.
Your mockup/suggestion/we looks good.14:19, September 3, 2017 (UTC)
Support - Sounds like an excellent idea. For starters, I think we should only do this for quests, minigames (including activities like Livid Farm and Herblore Habitat), achievement diaries and D&Ds and maybe skills, but they're huge. With an optional parameter for the developer if we know that. For the rest I concur with Jayden and Metal.16:29, September 3, 2017 (UTC)
Great idea, concerned about effort - This is clearly something that we should do, given enough manpower -- it looks great in other places and appeals to my release date fetish). I'm worried, however, that certain aspects of the wiki that are currently being neglected (new updates, maintenance, achievements) would become even more neglected if we diverted people to work on this instead. I'm also concerned that highly incomplete update history coverage might be worse than none at all. If there are people that are super committed to working on this (and have a plan), go for it. ʞooɔ 01:05, September 4, 2017 (UTC)
Support - History's very important, and the mockup looks great! Look at the Vorago and Araxxor articles: they already have an Updates section, albeit very wordy (That's why we summarize changes as concisely as possible.) I realize that writing update histories for almost every article will take a long time, but it's worth it, interesting, and I'm willing to help out. NeutralinoTalk? 05:29, September 5, 2017 (UTC)
Support - I agree with the general consensus that not every single page needs it, but rather only pages that feature major parts of the game. (Quests, NPC's, minigames etc.)
Copying patch notes verbatim with possible elaboration if needed seems appropriate.
Placement should definitely be near the bottom of the page. For a lot of articles, the Trivia section already contains statements of past changes and updates, so placing this in the same area would be logical.11:51, September 5, 2017 (UTC)
Support Sound defenetively helpful when searching for a specific update. But one question still stand though, when eoc happened the player hands got updated but the some npc got their too due to sharing the same model, do we shall include these type of chanfe as an update? I personally don't think so unless the npc really have major chanfe (plus it wasn't fully graphically updated).12:09, September 5, 2017 (UTC)
Support: +1 for:
- Trying to get help from the Jagex team, in case their changelogs/records are more substantial.
- Putting the section at the bottom of the page.
- Limiting the height of the section in case of larger histories (examples over at LoLWiki and Warframe; having the scrollbox is also part of the reason why the section should ideally be at the bottom to avoid locking the scroll within the box).