Forum:How to handle outdated "patch changes" sections?
(This topic is archived. Please do not edit this page!)
Well, I've noticed (at least for the pages I've been updating) that the "Patch Changes" sections are badly out-of-date. Speaking as a newer WOW player, I will say that I don't care about patch changes pre-4.0.1 in a detailed list format on the various pages. (I'm not referring to the pages that are specifically about a patch.) I do think having general information about changes in the articles and in a history section is useful.
I think it would be easier to update and for newer players if we just removed the patch changes (on pages as we update them) that are pre-4.0.1 or pre-4.0.3. And then add patch changes going forward. For anyone who really wants to know the changes for a particular patch, they could always read the specific page for that patch. (And, of course, I don't think we should remove those pages.) Tulonsae (talk) 09:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps they aren't tailored for new players, but for some players those can be handy to know. Some abilities and talents has changed, and it's interesting to know when. --g0urra[T҂C] 09:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- I can understand that. But does that mean we need to research all the patches to get them up-to-date? The ones I'm looking at haven't been updated since pre-2.x or something. It seems like that's a lot of missing material, and those pages are going to get long.
- Or, perhaps a compromise is to put the most interesting changes in a history section rather than detailed patch changes? Tulonsae (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I'm not sure I want to spend hours researching all the patches so I know what needs to be added. I'd rather spend that time playing or updating the current information. I think I'll just ignore those sections and put an outdated on them for those few times when I know they're not complete. Tulonsae (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've been slowly going through old patches and updating the notes. To Tulonsae, though, this is a wiki: if you notice something out of date, please add the missing changes yourself instead of simply telling us it needs to be done, as that just creates more work. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm quite aware this is a wiki. I may be new to this wiki, but I'm not new to wiki's. I do not have the time to update every single thing that I see that is missing or wrong. And for some of those things, I do not have the knowledge to update things I see correctly without spending a lot of time in research. I am taking the time to fix and update some of the things I see. If you don't want me to mention that something is outdated on a page, then why is that even available and why do pages have it in the first place? Tulonsae (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Also, I don't understand how I would be causing more work for you. If I'm putting an outdated in any patch changes sections where I know that there have been more patch changes, then that should make it easier for you to identify pages that need editing. In reality, I expect that to be very few pages since I don't have a lot of first hand knowledge about patches since around 3.0.3. Now, if you thought I was just going to put outdated on any page I touched whether it needed fixing or not, I could see your point about more work. But I certainly wasn't thinking about doing that. Tulonsae (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've been slowly going through old patches and updating the notes. To Tulonsae, though, this is a wiki: if you notice something out of date, please add the missing changes yourself instead of simply telling us it needs to be done, as that just creates more work. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I'm not sure I want to spend hours researching all the patches so I know what needs to be added. I'd rather spend that time playing or updating the current information. I think I'll just ignore those sections and put an outdated on them for those few times when I know they're not complete. Tulonsae (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
As a side note, there have been a ton of hotfixes since Cataclysm, so anyone wishing to contribute would probably be best off checking the MMO Champion newsfeed or wherever and starting there. I don't know how up to date our pages are with all those (that's what I thought this forum post was about). --Bellocois (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- In addition, the most important thing is the latest change. While historical changes are important, if they were big and unexpected, updating the latest change is all one should worry about unless they have a great historical interest. --
Fandyllic (talk · contribs) 12:31 PM PST 17 Dec 2010
- I don't see why only the latest change would be interesting. Either you care only for the current version and aren't interested in the change history at all or you are interested at least in the difference between the last version known to you and the current version which could include more than just one change. And if the list of changes becomes to large for a single page it could still be moved to a sub-page. --Elkano
/
10:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see why only the latest change would be interesting. Either you care only for the current version and aren't interested in the change history at all or you are interested at least in the difference between the last version known to you and the current version which could include more than just one change. And if the list of changes becomes to large for a single page it could still be moved to a sub-page. --Elkano
To me this (I know, 4 years old) question has a simple answer: Add the info you know (including its outdatedness), research more info, or ignore it, as you like! All of these options keep the information correct, as complete as possible given our editing capacity, and available for future editors to complete. But for god's sake, don't delete perfectly correct information! It takes the "knowledge documented on the wiki" count downward, and there's quite simply no reason to do it. As with any page content, readers uninterested in that section can simply skip it.
I see that "tagging it outdated" is where the discussion ended up, but I just felt someone should discourage deletion in no uncertain terms. - jerodast (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)