Template talk:Patchbox

UC redlink
If anyone was wondering, I brought back the redlink (removed the ifexists) so that when someone needs to create the page, it's easier to do so. Sometimes these pages were getting created with the wrong naming convention. I think it's appropriate when scrolling to previous or next patches, however, to hide the link, even though it's slightly less consistent. 5:44 PM, 11 Jun 2009 (EDT)

Abbreviation
Could you come up with a different abbreviation if you don't like "UC?" I just don't like that it's so big. I still thought those UC were ideal, personally, because they weren't obtrusive. But "undocumented changes" especially on two lines is just kind of over the top for me. 12:40 AM, 11 Jul 2009 (EDT)

Bug
For some reason, September 25 is getting transformed in September 9th. Any ideas? 2:34 PM, 1 Oct 2009 (EDT)


 * This was a problem with the date code, 'n' should have been 'j' (and I'm so glad we have users around who can help me find this stuff!) -- sannse (talk) 21:56, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

Removing patch date as SMW item
I don't think it has sense to enable browsing on patch dates, since they are unique. Trying to browse on it won't give patches of the same date (since there aren't multiple patches) but gives patches on nearby dates instead. It might have sense to add the browsability of the major version number (between 0 and 4). Thoughts? Hans Kamp (talk) 12:43, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Patch date is also used by Template:Patch, so I'm not sure you have a point. The idea behind the property is to look up all things on a selected patch date and not the patch number. If we wanted the patch number, we could go look in Category:World of Warcraft patches. :P --Sky (t · c) 14:32, August 2, 2010 (UTC)