Forum:Update History - Type ordering

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Update History - Type ordering
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 17 February 2019 by IsobelJ.

We're already established the following, per Forum:Listing update histories on articles v2 and RS:HISTORY:

  • 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 (
  • The update history section should be listed in reverse chronological order.

But a problem has shown up while filling pages with their {{Update History}}. As you can see in Chat#Update History, there are 2 different types of patches on the same update, so the issue is:

In what order do we organize different types?

From top to bottom we've come up with these "most likely to get picked" options:

Options Order
1 Update -> Patch -> Ninja -> Hidden -> Hot/Coldfix
2 Update -> Patch -> Ninja -> Hot/Coldfix -> Hidden
3 Update -> Ninja -> Patch -> Hidden -> Hot/Coldfix
4 Update -> Ninja -> Patch -> Hot/Coldfix -> Hidden

Obs: All the options consider Update as first due to it being the default.

For now, the update history project shall keep going, but please keep track of pages where this issue happens so we can later go back and re-order. Meeeeerds msg 00:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


Support 2 - Meeeeerds msg 00:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Support 4 - Ninja fixes tend to be bigger than patch notes, and hot/coldfixes tend to be bigger than hidden ones. Talk to Kelsey 00:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Support 4 - Based on the impact/importance, I believe 4 is the best. Jr Mime (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Support 4 - After giving it some thought, ninja updates should go above patches because of how important they are, and some of the best updates come from ninja. Kosmiklove (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

??? - I'm confused. Are we not sorting updates by date? --LiquidTalk 00:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

It's sorted by date, but what happens if there's two or more things per date? Jr Mime (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Kevin you pleb, click the link on the second line of this thread. Talk to Kelsey 00:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
This was super not clear, I thought this was discussing changing the order of what priority we sort the list by. I did click the update link in the second line of the thread but it was not helpful in my question as the entries listed are all on the same date. --LiquidTalk 00:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
"the entries listed are all on the same date" - That's... kind of the point of the link. It's an illustration of the problem being discussed, what to do when there are multiple update-types on a single page on the same day. -- F-Lambda (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I meant that if there were additional entries that were on a different date it would have been a lot more clear to me that the proposal is not going to change the initial sorting by date, which was my concern. --LiquidTalk 19:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Support 4 - or perhaps 2, but hidden should be last imo. Giving a slight edge to 4 as ninja fixes can potentially add new things, whereas patches never do (I think?) Attamaris (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

2, but who cares - Are we really going to enforce this? Little inconsistencies like this are fine. Btw I vote Patch -> Ninja because Ninja is a subset of patch HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 00:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Are we going to enforce this? Probably to the same extent that we enforce the section order in RS:SG/ITEM. (Maybe a little less, because it's not as noticeable). But even if it's not strictly enforced, it's still good to have as a reference so people who run into this problem can easily have an answer instead of going, "What the heck do I do!??!?" And that will eventually happen. -- F-Lambda (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Who even cares jayden 00:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

jayden 00:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Support 4 - Like others have said, Ninja updates often add new features, Even so far as to have Update:Ninja Week (3 times). Likewise, Hidden updates tend to be smaller, with the rare, maddening exception (Ga'al miniquest, Curse of Zaros, etc.). -- F-Lambda (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Addendum - One thing about option 4, I think it should be slightly more specific, to specify Coldfix -> Hotfix. The reason for this order is that coldfixes require a server reboot, and thus are closer to a full patch than a hotfix. -- F-Lambda (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Support 4 - As others have said, it really isn't a huge deal if there is an occasional inconsistency. But, some people enjoy finding tiny inconsistencies and fixing them on the wiki, so for those people, having a policy on this can't hurt. And if we are going to bother with the policy, I also Support Lambda's Addendum above.  RS AdvLogMyles Prower  Talk 04:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Support 4 - I support 4 for the reasons above, as well as Support Lambda's Addendum above. Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Neutral/doesn't matter - Per dro and Jayden. We've already established Update as being priority and that's all the really matters. I feel like the actual context of the updates / patches / ninjafixes / hot/cold/yes/no fixes would be more important than what theyre actually labelled as. Superiosity the WikianQuick chat button.png : Hey mate 02:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't Matter - Sorry, I just don't see how this is really a concern, nor do we really need a policy on it. It should follow RS:UCS. RuneMetrics icon.png Tyler JarretTalkLight animica.png 17:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

After spending more time with this project, I find it hard to separate between PATCH and UPDATE, should everything be considered a PATCH besides the release (update)? If so, the ordering would be easier to set. Meeeeerds msg 14:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Follow Jagex labeling and Use Common Sense - Agreed, update is reserved for a release/major rework/et all, or something that can't be categorised. Most smaller notes (especially with EARLY updates) were put into "In other news..." therefore, patches. See comment above for ordering. RuneMetrics icon.png Tyler JarretTalkLight animica.png 17:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Closed - as some editors have pointed out, minor inconsistencies in ordering are not the end of the world. However, for those who want to ensure absolute perfection when working on this project there is consensus for ordering the entries as the fourth option, with the amendment proposed by F-Lambda: Update -> Ninja -> Patch -> Coldfix -> Hotfix -> Hidden. Jagex labelling can be used to help determine what a change is classified as. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 21:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)