Forum:Listing update histories on articles v2
So the community came to the decision to add update history (Old forum post) but there are still some questions on how to go about it. I went ahead and started doing some of the older patches and then started in on the new ones. Some discussion started up in the discord about some questions people were having and opening a new forum post was recommended.
UPDATE I have cleaned up the thread as suggested in the discord channel, also we have discord channel now.
I copied everyone's responses and split them into the correct sections and copied the same time stamp from your original comment.
Questions form the old post:
- 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.
New questions from me:
- For updates like "The quest log now correctly updates when the player starts the Shilo Village quest." Would this go on Shilo Village, Quest List, both or neither.
- Should the date of each patch note also link to the update, or just the text that shows the type of update it was? For example:
- update 2 May 2017 (Update): Bladed Dive is released along with Shattered Worlds.
- or this:
- update 2 May 2017 (Update): Bladed Dive is released along with Shattered Worlds.
- Personally, I think adding a link to the date makes sense, and it's then impossible to miss the fact there's a link there.
- 1 Questions we need to answer
- 2 General Discussion
Questions we need to answer
Comment * Not verbatim. Nowadays they're riddled with typos and horrible sentence structuring that it wouldn't serve any purpose. Nothing wrong with adding our own style to it as long as it reflects the same thing. We're not documenting the patch notes here, we're documenting the update histories of an item. Haidro 09:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment * We should try to stay verbatim, but "wikifying" whenever appropriate. For example, correcting typos, expanding abbrevations (e.g. "DG" to "Dungeoneering"), etc. ―HalfOfAKebab (talk, contribs) 16:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment * I would go with verbatim but maybe but a sub bullet if a point is needed to be explained. Adding links in it would be fine too just keep the normal text Tombomb (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment * No need to keep the changes verbatim if they could be more informative. And/or less verbose.20:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment * Verbatim if it's appropriate but reword if not - make it similar to the patch note style. "A typo in the Weird Gloop examine has been fixed."23:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose * I oppose verbatim. Must wikify.02:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose * What Haidro said.
Oppose * I don't see the point of quoting it verbatim in this instance. It's badly written half the time and I'd prefer it to be useful rather than blindly quoting09:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment * No strong opinion in this but maybe try to synthesise them the way Jayden got it on his page.09:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment/Oppose - Considering the fact that the recent news posts and patch notes were riddled with typos I don't think we should just copy them. And to add to that, wikifying the notes adds to the readability of the section. Srylius (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Ask Jagex for help
- Comment * What Haidro said.
Comment * Sure, why not. Some changes might not have been documented anywhere official, so it would be nice to get some extra information we otherwise wouldn't be able to get. ―HalfOfAKebab (talk, contribs) 16:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment * No reason not to ask, right? If nothing else, they might know more than we do about when exactly some hidden updates happened.20:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment * Don't see why we can't get some Jmod help. We don't have the luxury of accessing old versions of RS, some insider help would be nice.23:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Support * There's onl;y so far we can go back. It would be amazing if some JMod's helped.02:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment * If they can, sure, even if it ends up being verbatim.09:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment - Do we know what information we're missing? I don't think we need help with anything recent, but it seems like we only have patch notes going back to a certain date. We should put together a list and ask Jagex to fill in the gaps. Gangsterls (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment - I guess. For Gnome Restaurant I searched the update namespace, that usually works. Tedious though, and doesn't yield 'patch notes' for older updates. Fswe1 (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Do we limit the scope
Comment * Use Common Sense. If there's one note that can't be put on one page/a finite amount, then perhaps it probably shouldn't be included anywhere. It's a bit hard since I imagine it would be quite subjective. Haidro 09:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment * What Haidro said.
Comment * I'd say pretty much any article is fair game, but keep the scope as narrow as reasonable - the Falador graphical rework doesn't need to be mentioned on Asgarnia or Gielinor. 20:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support * 02:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment * Definitely put it on the obvious things like NPCs, items, quests etc. Not on articles that are too vague or don't apply (like sections articles that are purely lore).23:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment * Hard to tell 'till it's done but I'd say put things where they belong, no limit so it's easier to find instead of having to go in a deep redirect search.09:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment - We shouldn't bother with broader topics. However some items have a pretty in depth history, such as abyssal whip which currently has its own history section. I think that we should develop a format which allows the history of an item to be told through updates, so we can standardize things and eliminate ad-hoc history sections. Gangsterls (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Include "added/removed from RuneScape" entries
Comment * Added no, removed yes. If we were to describe the addition of an item it would be hard to characterise everything about it on release. (League Wiki does this well because there's only so much to a new item/champion). Haidro 09:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- If we include added, I only support just adding a sentence saying "Item introduced" or whatever. There would be way too much to include if we had to describe what the item did at release. For removal it's easy because the whole page would be the state of the item at removal. Haidro 05:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment * Mention both when it was added and when it was removed (if applicable) - if someone wants an overview of how something's changed over time, they're likely to care about when it was added or removed too.20:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment * No comment, though there's cons to both sides (as well as pros of course)
Comment * It'd be nicer and easier to check imo.09:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment/Neutral - We already have the added/removed info in the main templates (NPC, mob, item, etc.) so I don't really see the need to. But on the other side I'd have no problem with them being added. Srylius (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Support - As pointed out on discord, the history section works better for items that are added/removed from the game several times, such as TH promo items. It'd be nice to have a list of dates in the update section rather than in the text of the article or the infobox, which only really supports a single date. Gangsterls (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Support added/removed lines - A definite strong starting point for the list. "X added to/removed from the game" will suffice. It saves scrolling up to the infobox for that information, at least. As an addendum: Items unobtainable before a specified date (the vast majority of these are TH items) should additionally have a point with their release (usually the promo), and ideally other promos featuring the item.18:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd agree with that, actually. Above trivia. ―HalfOfAKebab (talk, contribs) 10:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment * Under its own section heading, as the very last section except references (so usually right after trivia)20:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment *Personally I think the changelog style in NXT#Client_changelog is a good way of doing it. Of course there will be differences (eg patch dates instead of version numbers, a list instead of a table) but I think it's a good reference point.
- Per the NXT example, above Trivia for sure. Below Gallery too. 23:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support * 02:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support *
Comment * In the end, above Trivia and References (it's kind of Trivia tbh but a subsection would look weird)09:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Limit the height
Comment * Hmm. If we decide to add it to the very bottom, like I suggested, I think a scrollbar would be a bit unnecessary. However, if there's stuff below it that people might want to get to, it should have a scrollbar like in your sandbox. ―HalfOfAKebab (talk, contribs) 16:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment * Scrollable sounds good. Collapsible might be even better. Both is probably overkill.20:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment * Put a scrollbar if needed.23:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Support * Yes, collapseable.01:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support * Collapsible*.
Comment * Have we tried collapsible but no scroll? Jayden's scroll looks good tho, prob go with it.09:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Support scrollable - If this is collapsible, long ass update histories are going to dominate the page. Wikis that implement update histories like this tend to have a maximum height set before you have to scroll on the area for it to continue, which makes a ton more sense than a collapsible area. jayden 13:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
List the same patch on multiple pages
Comment * Shilo Village (the quest page). Haidro 09:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment * Both. Changelog points should be added to all relevant pages. This would make it easier for people to find the update they're looking for. For example, if someone wanted to find the date that update you mentioned was released on, they might first go to Quest List and see it's not there. Maybe not the best example, since I think most people would go to Shilo Village first, but you get what I mean. ―HalfOfAKebab (talk, contribs) 16:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment * I say if an update effects more then 1 item it would be good to have it on both pages but only if they are both like the main subjects of the update so from my example
Comment * That particular example should go on the Shilo Village page because the quest was changed, and not on the quest log page because the quest log only reflects the change to the quest. Likewise, if an item has its inventory icon changed, we mention that on the item's page and don't mention it on the Inventory page. 20:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment * Per three points above, Quest list and similar list/category type articles would be too vague a topic to put update histories on. If there is a more specific page it can be put on, put it there.23:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support * 02:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support - RS:UCS at it again. Srylius (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment * I'm neutral on this.
Comment * Both, imo. As refered on the answer to the other question, to prevent going around searching for what u want.09:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Changes to the template
Comment * I think an "event" update label would be nice. For example, with the update on 26th November 2018 (check the news), there's a limited-time event which doubles the amount of Dungeoneering tokens received from Dungeoneering and Elite Dungeons. I think these types of things would be a good idea to put on the history section of Dungeoneering, Dungeoneering token, etc. A fitting colour would be gold. ―HalfOfAKebab (talk, contribs) 21:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC):
Comment * As for the template
- IMO, the way it currently looks is bad, because that label doesn't look anything like a link.
- The suggested change is definitely an improvement, but it's not great. Every infobox (and probably a lot of other places) trains our readers to expect dates to link to pages about dates and specifically not link to updates.
- I'd suggest something like: update 2 May 2017 (Update) (Update): Bladed Dive is released along with Shattered Worlds. 20:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment - So... that means that it's all going to be listed as simply "Patch", rather than being split into things like "Patch", "Ninja", "Graphical", "Combat", "Other", etc, as per the first thread?
- Update - Sorry, didn't notice the link to Jayden's Sandbox earlier. Still... maybe it would be better if we actually applied tags that do match the categories that Jagex used, as seen in Weekly update 26th of November perhaps?
Comment - I've implemented some of this into the existing template as it seems there's consensus for tweaking the format slightly, feel free to discuss further. You can see what it looks like now on the example on jayden 13:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC).
Comment - I think we should have all updates use the "UL template on first line, changes on second indented line" format, like this:
- patch 23 July 2018 (Update):
- Adjusted 'Blow a kiss between the tables in Shilo Village bank' clue scroll area.
- ninja 24 July 2017 (Update):
- The Blacksmith within Shilo Village has adopted a no-door policy.
- update 3 April 2017 (Update):
- Gemstone Dragons are ready and ripe for the slaying in RuneScape today. Face off against three varieties of these fearsome beasts, and pick up resplendent new gemstone armour. Head down beneath Shilo Village and find the new gemstone cavern, its entrance manned by Kelhar.
- ninja 28 September 2015 (Update):
- Patrons of Shilo Village got together and repaired the gaps in the barricade.
- A shortcut has been added to Shilo Village, requiring level 74 Agility and completion of the Elite Karamja Task Set to use.
It's easier for the eye to just follow the left side down to read updates, rather than having to scan for a slightly different text starting point on each line due to the varying lengths of the dates.08:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment * How should we be ordering the updates? The Bladed Dive history section has them ordered from oldest to newest, which doesn't really make sense to me. I've brought this up in Discord, and betsan and Merds agree with me that it should be sorted from newest to oldest (top to bottom). What does everyone else think? ―HalfOfAKebab (talk, contribs) 11:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Reverse chronological (newest topmost)11:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Agree reverse chronological - as stated in discord12:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Definitely Reverse Chronological - As Iiii I I I informed me before I knew about this thread proper.
Comment - Mostly everything done so far is already reverse chronological, so unless anyone feels like changing that, you should probably just stick to that and save the effort. jayden 13:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Latest to Oldest - confirm I agreed13:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Default newest on top - though with good data-attributes, the ability to have a custom sort via a script can be provided.18:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Existing historical information
I brought up a bit above and we discussed in further detail on Discord that we need a uniform approach to dealing with history information which is already scattered throughout many articles. This includes articles with a dedicated ==History== section, price histories, and various patch notes or comments on the content's former place in the metagame simply scattered throughout the article. Some examples of pieces of content with a long and storied history include Abyssal whip, Dragon boots, and Ranger boots. Having both History and Update history sections seems messy and redundant.
One proposal is to classify the information into several types, and then agree on a place to relocate each category. A few categories are obvious, but we can add more as we go on:
|Direct update||Ranger boots graphical update||Update history section|
|Price history||See Ranger boots||Optional dedicated section with template, used selectively where there is already a GE history|
|"Meta" history||Telos / Staff of Sliske release renders Noxious staff second best in game, causes price fluctuations||Trivia or new section|
Basically, try to answer the following questions:
- Should this project include treatment of existing historical information within articles?
- If so, do you agree with the proposed sections above or do you disagree and have an alternative suggestion?
- Is there any historical information which doesn't fall into the above categories, and how might we deal with it?
Comment * Huge support for this project as a whole. However, I think a new "event" update type would be nice. For example, with the update on 26th November 2018 (check the news), there's an event which doubles the amount of Dungeoneering tokens received from Dungeoneering and Elite Dungeons. I think these types of things would be a good idea to put on the history section of Dungeoneering, Dungeoneering token, etc. ―HalfOfAKebab (talk, contribs) 16:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment My thoughts:
- I think the mock up Jayden made is really cool but at the moment there seems to only be the official patch note/update posts supported? While documenting these is more than enough to be getting on with, not everything is covered in them. There are also hidden updates, including ones we never noticed (maybe this is where Shauny can help if the project goes well) :) Maybe graphical updates could also be incorporated in future. I would go away from vertibram copies of Jagex posts to allow for the histories to be expanded to other sources in future; also patch note are sometimes very vague and don't really explain what's changed so I think clarification could be needed on those. Also don't like that patch notes are present tense; I think historical information should be in past tense. I agree with the suggestion to add it above Trivia sections and I think that added and removed dates should be included. Scrollable box is good. On another note I am happy to see someone interested in taking on this project, good luck :) 18:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment *I think it looks cleaner in past tense. Though, I have no strong preference either way. ―HalfOfAKebab (talk, contribs) 19:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support - For graphical update as part of it. @Iso there is already a "Hidden Update" option in the template. 21:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment - The style of the comments has been jumping all over the place, to the point that I'm sort of confused which standard we're using (and gave up on following the styling of the other comments).
Support - I've been wanting this for a long time, as other wikis (used to check on League of legends) have a history on character's changes through the patches and it's really nice. I thought I could live without it but now that it's gonna be a thing i'm excited. As for the questions and opinions, answers below since I wasn't here when the old post happened:09:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Support - but do keep a public list of which updates/patch notes/etc. are and aren't integrated already, so no double work is being done ;)13:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - User:Tombomb/Update History
- Comment - Everyone has permission to edit (and please do) User:Tombomb/Update History when you are knocking things off the list =) Tombomb (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- This seems to not include "normal" updates? They seem significant enough to also be added to the update history, plus with the new format the news post and the patch notes are basically merged... 07:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment normal updates will be included, I just started with patches, ill add all the other lists tomorrow, its bed time for me. Tombomb (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Some other things to discuss:
- Updates that touch a gigantic number of pages, e.g. does Update:New Skill - Invention mean that every disassembleable item get a point of 'added ability to disassemble for components'
- Do changes to monster drop tables also mean the change should be mirrored on to the item page? This can happen on small and large scales, like the grimoire/ritual shard switcheroo as a small example, and addition of off-hands to almost every monster that dropped a main-hand, or the upcoming M&S rework that changes all metal item drops to salvage as large examples; for the former, since the way off-hands were added was by halving the chance of a main-hand, should abyssal demon, adamant battleaxe, and off-hand adamant battleaxe all mention this patch note? Should salvage get a list of monsters that they replaced drops on (given that basically all the smithable items that are removed are affected in other ways by M&SR so probably get a point anyway)?
- Should every TH promo get a point on the item pages, especially now that most TH promos go without an update post (IMO yes)? What items should this even affect?
- Is there anyone writing up a comprehensive policy on all of this?
18:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- I drafted a policy at RS:HISTORY Gangsterls (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Closed - On each of the points:
- Update histories do not need to be verbatim.
- Jagex's help can be requested if need be, but this doesn't really require consensus or a discussion, as I think we're all pretty inline with the fact that Jagex's help with anything wiki related is useful.
- Use common sense when determining the scope of update histories, e.g "the Falador graphical rework doesn't need to be mentioned on Asgarnia or Gielinor"
- Update histories can have the addition or removal of the content stated, (e.g [x] was [added/removed] [to/from] RuneScape), even if already mentioned on the page.
- The update history section should be immediately above the Trivia section.
- The height will be limited, but there is no consensus to change the pre-existing model of adding a scrollbar to the section to making it collapsible instead.
- Use common sense when determining if patches should be listed on multiple pages, and what those pages are.
- There is consensus for having the UL template on the first indented line, and changes on the second one (https://imgur.com/a/Uz1JtbK).
- The update history section should be listed in reverse chronological order.
These points will be implemented into RS:HISTORY. For further discussion on other points, such as existing historical information on articles, it may be useful to make a new thread to iron that out. jayden 17:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)