Template talk:Patched

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  tag stops the application of. For example:



.. displays like this:



-Howbizr (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The only work around I know to this problem was this:

*




 * 10:39 AM, 15 Jun 2009 (EDT)

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 !
 * 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)
 * If we're switching over, I would prefer "27 May 2009" as opposed to "27/05/09" or anything else. -- 20:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "2009-05-27" works too. -- 20:35, 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)


 * Made a policy post and bot request. -Howbizr (talk) 20:55, 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:

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. 3:10 PM, 19 Jul 2009 (EDT)
 * Yeah, red is the color of broken links...maybe orange or something. -- 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


 * Yields

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 --  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
 * -- 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 --  04:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We're going to need to fix these and these references. 9:13 AM, 11 Aug 2009 (EDT)
 * Hang on, let me take a look at the code. -- 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). -- 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? 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 , and in using the template can be defined as  or  or even .  Patch 1.1 is  -- 17:46, 12 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). -- 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? 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 , and in using the template can be defined as  or  or even .  Patch 1.1 is  -- 17:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Bug
For some reason, Patch 3.3.0's date isn't working, even though I just added one. *

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 (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. -- 22:43, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, and  both work fine with my version:  and  (vs.  and ). 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 is giving the wrong date (versus ).  Please re-read the section above. -- 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)

This is the correct template
For anyone else who has seen these Patch XXX templates, please do not use them. 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)