Talk:Game updates/Archive9

Click here to update the main article's includes.

Appologies for messing the update around, thought i was formatting but seems someone has beaten me too it, ill check it tomorrow and make sure its the same as previously done large update. --Delphi 11:57, 29th Sep 2005 (GMT)
 * Much still needs to be added about the patch change. There is no information about the changes in Tomb of Primeval Kings or about the sky decor within those 3 locations.  --68.226.60.106 19:33, 28 October 2005 (EST)

is there a way to refresh the page other than changing a date in the TOC and changing it back? - JRR
 * Clicking edit and then saving without changing anything will update includes. Alteratively, you can add "?action=purge" to the end of the URL for the article.  --Fyren 15:34, 8 Sep 2005 (EST)

Good work, I think there should be a link to this from the Main Page! Also, I had some discussion with my guild mates about whether those new quests really are in ascalon. We couldn't seem to find them. - LordBiro

To head length-creep off at the pass, this has been broken up into individual update articles. This a) keeps the main article length down (as it will undoubtably grow over the years) and b) keeps the discussion-tabs focused. I pretty much arbitrarily decided the naming format should be Update:  BUT it also makes sense if we just number it Update: and then the actual # of the update (so May 11 update becomes Update:00001). Anyone have a good argument for changing it? The time to do so would be NOW while there's just a few pages to move and clear. Nunix


 * No need whatsoever; the game doesn't identify them that way, so neither should we. The only other valid format I can think of would be build numbers, but that's just about as tedious, and pretty much useless to anyone (besides maybe the developers themselves).


 * Actually, now that I think about it, it might be neat to include the build number on the update page itself. &mdash;Tanaric 18:53, 22 Jun 2005 (EST)

Perhaps this should be a category, instead? I think that makes better sense than doing the manaul listing of the game updates. Kathryn Maulhammer
 * Ok, categorised. One problem that I hadn't forseen is that it's sorted oldest->newest. Can that be changed? --Kathryn Maulhammer 17:17, 22 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * I don't believe so, unless you want to establish a new time system. Maybe we could do an inverted Unix time -- count the number of seconds until 1/1/2070? :)


 * In all seriousness, it shouldn't be too much of an issue. Updates aren't coming every hour, so the overhead of manual listing is pretty slim, and since we're manually copying the update here anyway, it doesn't take much to add a line to the index each time. &mdash;Tanaric 18:53, 22 Jun 2005 (EST)

Hadn't seen your post there Tanaric, I think my browser window was too small :P I agree, I think it was fine before categorization. Yes categories are useful when there is an unknown or complex structure or when the frequency of updates is such that a list could never be maintained. As this page is now I think categories are wholly unnecessary. Anyway, I've altered the design slightly to include the last 3 updates on the page itself. 21:42, 23 Jun 2005 (EST)

Update Format
A couple ideas for updates format:


 * 1) Archiving old months; I implemented it, see what you think.
 * 2) A small (discuss this update) link on each update page, pointing to that update's talk page, so that a person can access the talk page without clicking through to the update's main page.
 * 3) Removal of the update main page links from the top of the page, as they are completely unnecessary (small edit links on each section allow editing the update pages, and the TOC shows you what updates occurred recently anyway).

&mdash;Tanaric 18:35, 15 Aug 2005 (EST)

FUTURE Updates
Should we add a section about FUTURE updates here? I don't mean to start a rumor mill (allthough on second thought we might even do that). I'm thinking about collecting everything that has been officially confirmed by ANet in press releases, on official websites or in interviews. I'm thinking short term future updates, for example this one and this one about the changes to come next weekend. Mid term we might cover the Summer 2005 Update (the summer is almost over, right?) and long term the Expansion. --Tetris L 15:58, 25 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Opposed. My defintion of Game Updates is: a list of "updates" done to the "game." :) Has nothing to do with speculation/expectation. Now, I think what you are suggesting is valuable and it could fall under the "Category:Game Updates" but is should be in a separate place, like "Articles" or "Previews" or something. --Karlos 16:46, 25 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Not really opposed. :) Sure, this is the updates page, but that doesn't imply they have to be already done.. the page is about game updates, so if we know there's gonna be a future one, may as well collect info on that here, too, right? --Midk 19:35, 25 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * MY definition of Update doesn't say anything about whether they are past or future updates. And I don't have a problem with writing about future updates as long as we refrain from speculation and stick to the things that are confirmed by ANet. Oh ... and we could include what the Frog said. --Tetris L 18:53, 26 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Totally opposed to the Frog bit. How would we know? Some guy posts an article in the updates promising that ANet will remove the monk profession altogher. You ask him his source and he says: A frog told me! :) Are you supposed to believe him? :) If we will be putting future updates, then it will certainly be links to interviews and press releases by ANet, not conversations with a FROG. :) --Karlos 19:19, 26 Aug 2005 (EST)

PvP Extreme Weekend
Hey all.. earlier I began writing a PvP_Extreme_Weekend article, because there seems to be no other info on this around (except digging around the game updates page). I stopped after about 15 minutes, wondering whether it'd be acceptable or not. I don't know if there will be any more of these, and I'm not sure if it's alright to make a page dedicated to an event that happened once.. at first I felt it'd be a good idea, but I began to reconsider... anyways, does anyone feel that it should or should not be done? If it's green-lighted, I get dibs on writing it!!! ;) --Midk 12:28, 28 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * I say we should have an article. A ton of people were logging in late Thrusday early Friday asking: "So, what' this PvPX thing?" So, I guess we should have an article explaning what it is (pretty soon will be "was"). We could mention in the PvP entry that at times the developers of Guild Wars will increase the rewards of the PvP system as they "did" in PvP Extreme. So, go for it! --Karlos 17:18, 28 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * That's cool. :) I had only written a paragraph or so, but I was referring to the weekend in past-tense, while also trying to keep it categorized in a way, to "add" dates (weekends) later on if/when these events are held again... anyways, I'll begin work on it now, thanks. :) --Midk 18:29, 28 Aug 2005 (EST)

Long Dash
Do we want to keep the long dash for the article names? The most recent two use a normal dash. --Fyren 20:42, 30 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary... "Come again?" :) --Karlos 23:50, 30 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * If we don't have more important problems to discuss, then this Wiki must be in a pretty good state. ;) --Tetris L 23:55, 30 Sep 2005 (EST)