I just saw you edited the Nobel Prize page to add some historical changes about what the Nobel Prize in Physics used to be before the patch. I am the one that edited out all of these historical changes just to simplify and keep all the pages consistent with one another. The only changes that are included are the ones that affect players differently depending on what expansions or dlcs that they may or may not have.
For example, the changes to Knight's cost are kept because only people with GS expansion are affected by it, while people without it will play with the Knight at an old cost. Buffs to unique units like Berserker or Samurai are not documented on their respective pages because they affect every player, regardless of what dlcs or expansions they have. Since there is no way to undo a patch to go back on the changes you do not like, I don't feel it is of the best interest of the readers to include all the changes. And since the changes to Nobel Prize affects everyone with GS expansion, I don't feel it is necessary to include those notes on that page, just like how we do not include the change to Mausoleum at Halicarnassus on its page.
I had this discussion on Mythril Wyrm back in February when GS was out, and that is how we went on with these changes so far, if you have a different take on this, we can discuss it, because, sorry, I am kinda that one guy that has OCD about keeping things consistent and in line with one another. Thanks for your time reading this wall of text :)
Hey, thanks for your message! We definitely need people with OCD to keep things consistent. ;) I find that at least I myself am interested in how a certain item or feature has developed over time. These are changes to the game play so I feel that they should be documented not only in the change notes but also where they actually have their effect.
I do get your point that it might not be the best for clarity to add that info next to the info about the current version. Maybe we could have a section called "Update history" or something, which would then document the changes in updates?
Oh yes please, I am also an editor on Dota gamepedia. We have a lot of patches and changes over the time, so we kept a tab called "Changelogs". Basically it is just a two column table, one is date or version and the other lists the changes, kinda like this:
Or we can do it similarly to how we did it in Civ 5 pages, where Vanilla, G&K and BNW have separate tabs if they contain different info. Because when the June patch was introduced, all the techs now have different costs in different versions and I have no idea how to change them without them looking all messy and confusing for the readers.
Oh by the way, few months ago I had an exchange with Mythril Wyrm about some pages, for example, Rifling (Civ6) which is an Indus Tech but gets categorized as Modern Tech and there is no way to change it. Here is Mythril's response:
"If the categories were added manually, you can open the Source Editor to delete the data from (the bottom of) the page. In the case of Rifling (Civ6) and similar pages, however, the categories are automatically added by the infobox, which automatically populates the era of each tech - adding a field called "era" is just gibberish to the template. If there's a problem with the list from which the template collects data and thus adds categories to the page, you should talk to ZeroOne first, since he contributed to the template and knows much more about LUA than I do."
I forgot to tell you but now I think it might be appropriate to bring it to your attention. Thanks:)
The Dota gamepedia table looks good to me! I don't see the need for a separate tab since we don't have nearly as many updates, though. Maybe just put the data under its own header somewhere near the bottom of the article?
As to differences between Vanilla, R&F and GS, yes, tabbed infoboxes would probably be the clearest solution -- but only if there's a way to do it so that it works on mobile, too. I'm afraid the current system used in the Civ5 pages doesn't.
Rifling (Civ6) seems to get its era from Template:TechnologyEra6 which tries to deduce the era from the cost of the technology. This sounds like a reasonable idea, but apparently the figures are (currently) wrong, then. Would it be possible to just fix that one template, or are there cases where tech A from an earlier era actually has a cost that's higher than that of tech B from a later era?
So here is what I found regarding the Science cost:
- As you know, Firaxis introduced multiple patches making Tech cost more to make the game last longer. The editor that edited the Rifling page didn't do the same for every other tech pages that were affected by the changes. You can see Economics and Rifling, which are supposed to be 2 equivalent techs, but have 2 different costs, cuz the cost of Rifling is the updated one while on Economics page, it is the old one. Since they edited the cost of Rifling, the template, which is outdated, mistakes that the tech may be in a later era. Same thing happens for Steel, Replaceable Parts, which is updated to have the new cost so they are considered by the template to be in a later era, but not Flight, which is equivalent to those two techs, but has an outdated Science cost, thus in its correct era.
- I suppose this happened before I came to be a frequent editor, because if one page gets updated but its equivalent doesn't, it will bother me a lot. What I suggest is to update the template so that it is in line with the new Science cost, then I will make sure that every tech page will display this new cost. I also suggest that we use the Vanilla version tech cost for now, since the June patch just introduce another wave of new tech costs for GS players alone, sticking with the Vanilla costs seems to make more sense cuz it gives everyone a general and uniform feel of how each tech costs relatively to each other.