Template talk:Patch layout

I need something which can make different title between test and non-test patch update. --Elite stay (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Undocumentated changes and multiple updates
This is all looking a bit messy and want to start a discussion about how the "optimal" patch notes should look like. Currently it's done a bit like this: {| class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%;" ! Code ! Result
 * + Current
 * notes =
 * offical patch notes
 * notes =
 * offical patch notes


 * changes =

Treasures

 * New summer treasure IX

Ingame UI

 * Some random clipping fix

Patch notes

 * offical patch notes

[Slark]
 * Got hit by nerf hammer again

Treasures

 * New summer treasure IX

Ingame UI

 * Some random clipping fix

Update 2

 * }

My suggestion would be to not distinguish whether the patch notes came from Valve, SirBelvedere or anybody else who noticed changes in the game. If anybody is interested in the official notes, he can click the sources. Update X heading should be level 2 headings (==) always:

{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%;" ! Code ! Result
 * + Proposal
 * version = 7.02
 * notes =
 * version = 7.02
 * notes =

Update 1

 * Not sure if we need this heading if there's only one update, just skip to level 3 heading for the update topics instead.

Update 3
=Version= Gamplay update to version 7.02: =Updates=

Update 1

 * Not sure if we need this heading if there's only one update, just skip to level 3 heading for the update topics instead.

Update 3

 * }

Thoughts? Molldust (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of the stuff, just don't see a reason not to split patch notes into official and undocumented ones. The headings for successive updates on the same day can still be changed to level 2. --Psion1C (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The official patch notes should be linked anyway. From a player perspective it should be more helpful to have all changes formatted and sorted by topic together rather by the arbitrariness of the release notes. We could tag official entries with a Template:Documented, similar to Template:Undocumented. Molldust (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Undocumented changes are often very minor/unimportant changes, that's why they are not documented in the 1st place. Not only it's way easier to have the documented/undocumented changes in two separate sections instead of tagging them, but it is also cleaner and easier to read for a player when they are not mixed imo.
 * Also, the official update pages only last for a certain amount of time, and after their links are not available anymore, the current layout in terms of doc/undoc changes is more reliable. --Psion1C (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You are joking right? Every second undocumented change is equally or more important than the documented changes. And actually it's cleaner and easier if the changes are grouped together by topic.
 * The update pages last to eternity . Molldust (talk) 09:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'm joking, Valve is documenting only the unimportant changes and leaves the important changes undocumented to troll everyone. Also it's very clean when Valve releases a huge update with a length of a few pages, and we mix in the dozens of undocumented changes.
 * I have been on many patch pages on this wiki (e.g. March 28, 2013 Patch) where the source links don't work anymore and where I couldn't find a still available link on the Internet. --Psion1C (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm a little bit slow in replying sometimes :/ The broken links can be fixed by using the steam store instead of the dota 2 domain: http://store.steampowered.com/news/10277/
 * For the documented/undocumented problem I raise you this: May_07,_2015_Patch. The taunts and the compendium wards were announced on a blog post. There were no "patch notes" per se, so Lemon put it all under "Undocumented". How would you design a page like this? Move the ward and taunts on top? The max pet setting has been very important as well at this time, because people felt distracted by those. Molldust (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 1. Ok, let's hope this works for all the left broken links.
 * 2. And what is the problem with having an empty patch notes section and right after it the section with the undocumented changes on May 07, 2015 Patch. I don't see the problem (people who go on that page will notice the changes anyway, just knowing they weren't put on the official update log). Also, there are pages like August 28, 2012 Patch right now, which before at least had a "No patch notes have been released." note, so one could assume that some undocumented changes happened. --Psion1C (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I could check whether "notes" or "changes" is set and state "No documented changes.".
 * Regarding a seperate documentated section: Can you at least see the point where I'm coming from? I'm not saying having them mixed up is the best for everyone, but it makes more sense to me if the wiki itself decides which changes are to highlight and how things are structured instead of leaving it to Valve. Molldust (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)