Template talk:Patched
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Bluenote display issue
This is actually a CSS issue, but I'll post it here since I've only noticed it while using this template. An <ol> tag stops the application of class="blizztext". For example:
* {{patched|date=2009-03-06|bluenote=
We applied a few key arena hotfixes over the past couple days to both the live realms and the tourney realms. [...]
# We removed the gates. Players are now free to begin combat as soon as the elevators reach the floor of the arena.
This one was a doozy but we think we finally have a good handle on it now.
# We modified the small side pillars to start in the up position. They used to rise up a few seconds after the start
of the match.
# We made a fix to the flame wall that allows it to break fear / root / etc. effects just like any other type of
spell damage would. (ie. x damage taken and overall % health)}}
|
.. displays like this:
|
-Howbizr (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- The only work around I know to this problem was this:
* {{patched|date=2009-03-06|bluenote=
We applied a few key arena hotfixes over the past couple days to both the live realms and the
tourney realms. [...]<ol><li> We removed the gates. Players are now free to begin combat as
soon as the elevators reach the floor of the arena. <br/>This one was a doozy but we think we
finally have a good handle on it now. </li><li> We modified the small side pillars to start
in the up position. They used to rise up a few seconds after the start of the match. </li><li>
We made a fix to the flame wall that allows it to break fear / root / etc. effects just like
any other type of spell damage would. (ie. x damage taken and overall % health)</li></ol>}}
- Template:Patched
Time format
Is there some reason we are using the American date format rather than an international one? DD MM YYYY or YYYY-MM-DD for example. -Howbizr (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Much more logical to use the International format and also more easy for a non american or low english leveled people to read.
- Problem is you'll have to come back on every article using this template in order to put the date in the good format ==> HELL ON WOWWIKI !
Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 16:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- If no one is opposed, I can update the template. We could probably recruit someone's fancy bot skills to get the hotfixes converted over, or at least the majority of them. -Howbizr (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I vote "2009-05-27" given Pcj's suggestions. Year first makes it easier to scan (IMO). -Howbizr (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Went ahead and just changed it. -Howbizr (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Bluenotes
I feel like something is missing with this template, and I don't have a good idea - other than what I've already been doing - to remedy it. When you want to add a bluenote, but it's not a hotfix, there isn't a good way to say where the bluenote came from. So I've just been adding a reference with {{ref web}}, but I know there are at least a couple of editors who don't seem to like that look-and-feel.
For example:
{{patched|patch=3.2.0|comment=Will become unattainable.|bluenote=...removed when 3.2 comes out <ref name="Bornakk">{{ref web
|url=http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=17367881473&pageNo=1&sid=1#4
|archiveurl=http://blue.mmo-champion.com/20/17367881473-ironboundrusted-protodrake.html
|archivedate=2009-05-29
|title=Ironbound/Rusted Proto-Drake
|author={{Blizz}} [[Bornakk]]
|date=2009-05-29
|accessdate=2009-05-30}}</ref>}}
=== References ===
{{reflist}}
|
|
Template:Patched References |
Any ideas? 
Howbizr(t·c) 10:00 AM, 15 Jun 2009 (EDT)
- Personally I'd put the "will be removed in patch 3.2.0" note somewhere else, and put the reference there. It may just be me, but references in the "Patches" section looks out of place. --g0urra[T҂C] 14:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're not the only one, although I'm not keeping a scoreboard so I don't remember who else was bothered by it. I have a hard time seeing a bluenote and not wanting some kind of link, even if it's not a reference. Putting that "...removed when 3.2 comes out" all by it's lonesome seems like it's begging for a {{fact}} flag. I still feel like the source of the problem is the template. It already has {{patched|<link>|<bluenote>}}, we just need a way to display the link if both are supplied.
Howbizr(t·c) 10:12 AM, 15 Jun 2009 (EDT)
- You're not the only one, although I'm not keeping a scoreboard so I don't remember who else was bothered by it. I have a hard time seeing a bluenote and not wanting some kind of link, even if it's not a reference. Putting that "...removed when 3.2 comes out" all by it's lonesome seems like it's begging for a {{fact}} flag. I still feel like the source of the problem is the template. It already has {{patched|<link>|<bluenote>}}, we just need a way to display the link if both are supplied.
- I was thinking of something more along these lines:
|
This mount will be removed with Patch 3.2.0.[1] Patch changes
References
|
- I'd be fine Gourra's idea. I wanted to throw this out there too, if you like it better PCJ.
- {{patched|patch=3.2.0|bluenote=...removed when 3.2 comes out|link=http://blue.mmo-champion.com/20/17367881473-ironboundrusted-protodrake.html}}
- Patch 3.2.0 (???): "...removed when 3.2 comes out" (Source)
- Howbizr(t·c) 10:20 AM, 15 Jun 2009 (EDT)
- IMO, {{Patched}} should only be used for past changes (as indicated by the tense of the template's name). As we all know, future changes announced by Blizz may or may not occur, or may be delayed. For changes which still require a source, Howbizr's solution is better than the current model. --Pcj (T•C) 14:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah. I was going to leave the link at the beginning, since the majority of the time, it's just a hotfix. But for the one-offs like the example, where they need a link to both a patch and a bluenote, put it at the end. Howbizr(t·c) 10:48 AM, 15 Jun 2009 (EDT)
- Yes, but hotfixes would still look terrible because they would have the link at the beginning and the end. --Pcj (T•C) 14:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- *raises eyebrow* I thought the edit I made would check if there was a hotfix and made the text link there, otherwise if there wasn't a link there would be a "(Source)" link at the end. --g0urra[T҂C] 15:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Surprise, it doesn't. See the example on the template page. --Pcj (T•C) 15:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- I found the error. It's fixed now. --g0urra[T҂C] 15:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- OK, that works, don't see why they can't be in the same spot though. --Pcj (T•C) 15:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's just a visual thing. I think most of the time it's a string of patches, one hotfix, and only for content in development will we ever see the "(Source)" thing show up. And I'm confident all of those things will eventually show up in real patch notes, so we can get rid of the bluenotes. Howbizr(t·c) 1:16 PM, 15 Jun 2009 (EDT)
- It's just a visual thing. I think most of the time it's a string of patches, one hotfix, and only for content in development will we ever see the "(Source)" thing show up. And I'm confident all of those things will eventually show up in real patch notes, so we can get rid of the bluenotes.
- OK, that works, don't see why they can't be in the same spot though. --Pcj (T•C) 15:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- I found the error. It's fixed now. --g0urra[T҂C] 15:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Surprise, it doesn't. See the example on the template page. --Pcj (T•C) 15:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- *raises eyebrow* I thought the edit I made would check if there was a hotfix and made the text link there, otherwise if there wasn't a link there would be a "(Source)" link at the end. --g0urra[T҂C] 15:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think the entire issue is that this template was never designed for upcoming changes ("patched", past tense). This template was designed around patch notes (the note param), hotfixes (bluenote) and undocumented changes (comments). I think the best solution is to make another template specifically for upcoming changes. This would also make it easier to track down what pages need to be updated to use this template when the patch finally drops. Then one could simply use:
{{upcoming change|patch=3.2.0|note=This will be removed|link=blah}}User:Tekkub/Sig 21:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think the entire issue is that this template was never designed for upcoming changes ("patched", past tense). This template was designed around patch notes (the note param), hotfixes (bluenote) and undocumented changes (comments). I think the best solution is to make another template specifically for upcoming changes. This would also make it easier to track down what pages need to be updated to use this template when the patch finally drops. Then one could simply use:
I'm down either way. Howbizr(t·c) 1:11 AM, 16 Jun 2009 (EDT)
If not red then
Pcj, we really should use some color for "PTR" other than white, going back to your previous statements about it being past tense ("patched"), but PTR information really hasn't been implemented yet. Howbizr(t·c) 3:10 PM, 19 Jul 2009 (EDT)
- Yeah, red is the color of broken links...maybe orange or something. --Pcj (T•C) 19:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Problem
Really have no idea how to fix this "1.1" and "1.10" always yield the same date, even though they're both listed separately in the switch/case statement. It's either a bug with MediaWiki, or we're gonna need some fancy code.
- Code
{{Patched|patch=1.10|note=Newer note.}}
{{Patched|patch=1.1|note=Old note.}}
- Yields
{{Patched|patch=1.10|note=Newer note.}}
{{Patched|patch=1.1|note=Old note.}}
Howbizr(t·c) 12:22 AM, 11 Aug 2009 (EDT)
- In this particular case 1.1.0 should be 1.01.0 because 1.1 = 1.100 = 1.100.0 in math terms (Wikia web pages just use character not math but the template is using math -- (M o r p h | C | T)
04:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is also one of Blizzard's blunders in their numbering of patches -- the only solution I know of is change 1.1 to 1.01 in the patched and make a redirect from Patch 1.01 to Patch 1.1.0
- Template:Patched
- Template:Patched
- Template:Patched
- -- (M o r p h | C | T) 04:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- hmm looks like you have to use 3 numbers 1.1.0 and 1.10.0 not 2 number 1.1 and 1.10 to keep from renaming it to 1.01.0 -- (M o r p h | C | T) 04:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- We're going to need to fix these and these references. Howbizr(t·c) 9:13 AM, 11 Aug 2009 (EDT)
- Hang on, let me take a look at the code. --Pcj (T•C) 16:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- This should now be fixed. Patches like 3.2 can now be defined (both in editing the template and in using it) as 3.2 instead of 3.2.0. However, for patches like 1.10 you need to define it (in editing, but not in using) as 1.10. (with the period at the end). --Pcj (T•C) 16:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Morph for the hold-over, and Pcj for working out a long term solution. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say Pcj, so could you just update the documentation? Maybe use 1.10 as the example? Howbizr(t·c) 1:46 PM, 12 Aug 2009 (EDT)
- The usage of the template stays the same (but works as expected now), when updating the template itself is what changed. Patches like 1.10.0 should now be defined in editing the template as
1.10., and in using the template can be defined as {{patched|...|patch=1.10}} or {{patched|...|patch=1.10.0}} or even {{patched|...|patch=1.10.}}. Patch 1.1 is {{patched|...|patch=1.1}} --Pcj (T•C) 17:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The usage of the template stays the same (but works as expected now), when updating the template itself is what changed. Patches like 1.10.0 should now be defined in editing the template as
- Thanks Morph for the hold-over, and Pcj for working out a long term solution. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say Pcj, so could you just update the documentation? Maybe use 1.10 as the example?
- This should now be fixed. Patches like 3.2 can now be defined (both in editing the template and in using it) as 3.2 instead of 3.2.0. However, for patches like 1.10 you need to define it (in editing, but not in using) as 1.10. (with the period at the end). --Pcj (T•C) 16:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- We're going to need to fix these and these references.
- hmm looks like you have to use 3 numbers 1.1.0 and 1.10.0 not 2 number 1.1 and 1.10 to keep from renaming it to 1.01.0 -- (M o r p h | C | T)
Bug
For some reason, Patch 3.3.0's date isn't working, even though I just added one.
* {{patched|patch=3.3.0|note=Added.}}
- {{patched|patch=3.3.0|note=Added.}}
Howbizr(t·c) 9:13 PM, 1 Oct 2009 (EDT)
- Hi, the problem is the code that removes any extra .0s I've made a change that will fix it (3.3.0 and 3.3 will work in the template call) but a rewrite would be better -- sannse<staff /> (talk) 21:54, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
- Rewritten. Check Category:Unmatched patch date in Template:Patched for potential problems -- so far, the only problem is that there's no date for 4.0 (Cataclysm) yet. If anyone wants to be really eager (and do some botwork), I'd replace this system with a set of small templates, one for each patch revision, that call a common formatting template with the proper parameters; that way, you don't need to change this template which is used on over 5000 pages every time a new patch comes out. --◄mendel► 22:27, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing any problems. See the section above for the reason it's coded this way. --Pcj (T•C) 22:43, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
- Well, {{User:M.mendel/Patched|patch=1.10.0}} and {{User:M.mendel/Patched|patch=1.10}} both work fine with my version: {{User:M.mendel/Patched|patch=1.10.0}} and Patch 1.10 (2006-03-28):
(vs. Template:Patched and {{Patched|patch=1.10}}). So there was really no reason to revert. - If you do not see any problem, you have not read this section. And I'd appreciate a comment on my refactoring suggestion (or ask if I need to explain it more). --◄mendel► 11:21, October 3, 2009 (UTC)
- With your template Patch 1.1 (2004-11-07):
is giving the wrong date (versus {{patched|patch=1.1}}). Please re-read the section above. --Pcj (T•C) 12:10, October 3, 2009 (UTC)- I see where I went wrong now, and adjusted my template. I still would like a comment on my refactoring suggestion, it would avoid the problem altogether. --◄mendel► 15:36, October 3, 2009 (UTC)
- With your template Patch 1.1 (2004-11-07):
- Well, {{User:M.mendel/Patched|patch=1.10.0}} and {{User:M.mendel/Patched|patch=1.10}} both work fine with my version: {{User:M.mendel/Patched|patch=1.10.0}} and Patch 1.10 (2006-03-28):
- I'm not seeing any problems. See the section above for the reason it's coded this way. --Pcj (T•C) 22:43, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
- Rewritten. Check Category:Unmatched patch date in Template:Patched for potential problems -- so far, the only problem is that there's no date for 4.0 (Cataclysm) yet. If anyone wants to be really eager (and do some botwork), I'd replace this system with a set of small templates, one for each patch revision, that call a common formatting template with the proper parameters; that way, you don't need to change this template which is used on over 5000 pages every time a new patch comes out. --◄mendel► 22:27, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
This is the correct template
For anyone else who has seen these Patch XXX templates, please do not use them. Howbizr(t·c) 4:32 PM, 6 Oct 2009 (EDT)
- See Category talk:Patch templates for a discussion of the change. --◄mendel► 17:11, October 6, 2009 (UTC)