Category talk:Patch templates

Category

I like the idea of categories, but that functionality could have been added {{Patched}} without the need for 100+ new templates that are not in sync with each other.  Howbizr^(t·c) 4:42 PM, 6 Oct 2009 (EDT)

Considerations:

• about Template:Patched
  • about the new system

• add new patch by figuring out where to put it in Template:Patch
  • add a new patch by copying an existing patch template
• Template:Patched has become hard to maintain, with code for special cases that is not obvious
  • With a template for each patch, one category of special cases (the 1.1 vs. 1.10 issue) is eliminated, and special cases have their coding where they are needed, not in the central template (see Template:Patch 4.0)
• long switch statements are inefficient
  • two short templates with no flow control logic are efficient in terms of memory and CPU usage
• Template:Patched is transcluded on more than 5000 pages, all of those need to be updated when a new patch is added, creating unnecessary server load
  • Since adding a new patch means creating a new template, only those pages need to be updated that are actually affected by the patch
  • The "WhatLinksHere" on the patch template can be used to quickly find all pages affected by a certain patch
    • This functionality could be fitted to Template:Patched by auto-cateorizing articles
      • This would require extra logic to not create categories for unknown or invalid patch numbers, thus making that template even more complicated
      • adds a lot of categories for some pages, thus cluttering the category list
• Everything is in synch if you only use one template
  • The display uses Template:Patch for all but a few special cases, and as such is in synch as well
• Easy to maintain because everything is in one place
  • Easy to maintain because templates are short and clear

In short, using several templates is more efficient; a new patch template can be easily added by copying one of the old ones and adjusting the obvious info, rather than editing a template that requires a higher level of understanding of template code to use correctly.

--◄mendel► 17:04, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

I note that {{patched}} is not in this category. However, it requires a bit more intestinal fortitude and interest than I have to edit Patched (and thus the myriads of pages dependent on it). I find the new scheme simple/elegant, but I can echo the distress at the explosion of individual templates. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:32, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

If you've seen one, you've seen them all. ;)

Template:Patched is not in this category because it doesn't work like the templates in this category. (And neither is Template:Patch).

I agree that what's missing from my list is the (organizational) cost for editors to adapt to the new scheme. --◄mendel► 22:33, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

True, but if you've maintained one, you've not maintained them all. You do blow off the "now you have to edit 90-some-odd templates" as a down side for maintenance. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 17:30, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

The maintenance that is certain to be done on this system is to extend it with each patch, and that process is becoming a lot more stable with the new system. --◄mendel► 00:07, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

Template Icons

It appears that Cata patches use this before the patch number etc, which is quite long while they could use which is much shorter and more in-style of previous expansions' patches which used shorter inlines before them - and . What do you think guys? Encaitar 18:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 19:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think matches the others moreso than the . However is smaller which does make things less annoying (depending on where/how its used). But then... I also prefered to have the icon that just read Cata (), and not the whole Cataclysm. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 22:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that one's very nice Coobra, I even didn't know it was on WoWpedia, since it's not in the templates. I guess we could change it to the one you proposed:) Encaitar 22:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)