Talk:Game updates/Archive9

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? :)

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)


 * 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)