Talk:Game updates/20060609

It's the 10th, page lists as 9th and GW.com lists as 8th.. I see &mdash; Skuld  00:08, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * In ANet's time zone it is the 9th, I know, I'm ~15 miles from them. --Rainith 00:11, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

aura
Aura as in those boss glows? - 00:44, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * The team color aura. It's kind of like the boss aura but not as bright.  Various PvP NPCs already had it.  --68.142.14.91 01:05, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * They all got it a while ago, then they removed it and now its back again :s &mdash; Skuld  01:39, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * So maybe tomorrow they'll be gone again o_O" - 01:41, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * There was that update a while back that conflicted with an nvidia driver update that gave a lot of the NPCs auras, maybe this is something similar? --Rainith 01:50, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

Exact text
We've been using the exact text for a while, Karlos. Look through the old game updates and see how many times links are piped to link ANet's (often just plain wrong) text/names to the correct names/our articles. If ANet never fixes their date, then in a couple weeks once everyone forgets, it'll actually make us "look stupid." --68.142.14.91 01:09, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I fail to understand why even a SIC is unacceptable to Kar. - 02:10, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * No, no, no. I know what we've been using and what we've not been using, Mr.Anonymous. This is the listing of the date on OUR site, this is not a verbatim listing of text from their site, this is how the update will be archived and viewed on OUR site. This has nothing to do with them misspelling the name of a collector or a monster or whatever. Apples and oranges. In fact, I would not mind us using the correct spelling in those cases too, but this is not about copying the update text verbatim. This is the indexing of the update on OUR site. --Karlos 02:11, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Indexing is done by article name, which uses 9th, so we are doing fine on that front. - 02:13, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * reference: Category:Game Updates - it's indexed as "Game updates/20060609" regardless of the how the date is shown in the first line of text within the article. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 02:14, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * * laugh* C'mon Karlos, if this was about the indexing, we would have moved this article back and forth over redirects half a dozen times by now. The section heading (which is what it is) has nothing to do with the indexing.  But I'm very tired now so whatever.  =)  --Rainith 02:17, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * C'mon, KarKar. The 8th!  The 8th!  --68.142.14.63 02:20, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

Actually, we're already failing to copy the date exactly as ArenaNet posts it. They list it as "Update - Friday June 8", while we show it as "Update – Friday, June 9th, 2006" (regardless of us showing 8th or 9th, we're already formatting slightly differently than ArenaNet). --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 02:19, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * This is weird. The date in the heading indexes the entry in the main Game updates article. Doesn't it? I know the article title is used in the category, but the section heading is what's listed in the main article that readers use.
 * This is not "website text" or "update text" we are copying, this is the date the update took place. If ANet told you the update happened last month, you'd list it like that? Just like with Weapon names and boss names. When Gorgnar's sword dropped from Grognard (or the other way around) we named each thing as it was named and then put notes. If the update happened on June 9th then we say it happened on June 9th and then point out the discrepancy in the notes. To list the update in the wrong date, and then put a note that it's actually in the wrong date is ridiculous to me. --Karlos 02:24, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Like I said, I'm tired, but I think you're mixing up the  ==Header Text==  with the  .
 * And with Barek's exception of changing - to &mdash; it is a straight copy of the text that is on the offial site. --Rainith 02:30, 10 June 2006 (CDT)