User talk:MaXiMiUS
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Version history
You stated in an edit summary that "version history should only contain patch note excerpts." That is not actually the case. There are no guidelines, informal or otherwise, which state that the version history section should only contain excerpts from patch notes. —Vini (t|c) 16:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding "version history should only contain patch note excerpts" — I wasn't trying to make a statement that such a rule or guideline exists, though for the record I think it should; especially when it comes to editors paraphrasing patch notes instead of copying them verbatim. Version history should be considered sacrosanct and only document things GGG wrote related to the page in question, IMO. It's not like we're lacking for space where editors can write on the rest of the page. —MaXiMiUS (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- I was referring specifically to editor commentary when I said "the rest of the page." Regarding version history copying from patch notes verbatim that might not be a rule currently but it should probably be a strong suggestion in the manual of style. There is an implicit expectation from players that the version history strictly provides page-relevant patch notes and any exceptions to that rule (e.g. editor interpretations or opinions) should be indicated as such. Players shouldn't need to cross-reference patch notes to figure out what is and isn't written by GGG in the version history. —MaXiMiUS (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- To clarify further, what I mean by "editor commentary" having "the rest of the page" is something like a description of how Corrupted Blood currently works. Just for the sake of argument let's pretend Corrupted Blood currently stacks to 10 and is not considered a Bleed effect, in 3.14 it stacked to 15 and was considered a Bleed effect, and in 3.10 it stacked to 50 and was not considered a Bleed effect, and for some reason GGG never saw fit to mention these changes in the patch notes anywhere (or the way they did so was ambiguous, confusing, or open to interpretation). It would make sense to include the current behaviour in the main article on Corrupted Blood and list any historical behaviour under version history, with a clearly visible indicator that the information provided there is not an actual patch note excerpt unlike most version history information. In this example I would consider listing the current behaviour under version history inappropriate, as it's not an intuitive location for players to look for how the game currently works and at best you're just duplicating information needlessly (which is extremely frustrating as a reader; a particularly egregious example of this would be the Fenumal Plagued Arachnid article, where the fact that split items cannot be split again was mentioned over and over and over and over). —MaXiMiUS (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think we're somewhat in agreement about certain things, but not completely. Excerpts taken from patch notes that appear in version history are not presented as direct quotes, so they should not be read as quotes either. There is no reason for readers to think that the changes described in version history are only copied verbatim from patch notes. Cross-referencing is expected. If changes cannot be cross referenced in the patch notes, then that means editors may need to provide additional references or explanatory notes. —Vini (t|c) 17:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)