Template talk:Major Updates Nav

Japan Charity Bundle

i was wondering, why is the japan charity bundle update missing from the template? -- zFn (Talk) 07:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

UBER Update Logo

Hi. I was working on this all morning and I was wondoring id I could change the uber update logo to this just cause I don't think we should be using the Medic logo for two different updates. Smashbrother101 12:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

First 2 contribution updates were also minor

Smaller image and italics may be needed for those also. I'd do it myself, but I couldn't figure out how. Balladofwindfishes 12:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed they aren't considered major updates on the blog... So I'll turn those into minor major updates right now... Tturbo _{( / )} 12:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Size

Sorry to bring this up but I think this should get resolved here and quickly. The reason I made it bigger is because I thought it looked to small. Smashbrother101 17:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It may be small, but it's too big in comparaison to the rest of the icons. It's a nav, it's not supposed to be really visible, it's supposed to allow an easy switch between pages once you're on a related one... For instance you're on the replay update you look for the next one, you simply look at the nav and what's in bold and click... And it's mostly the text that count. If you make one icon bigger it breaks the balance of the the column. Making one update more visible than another, which isn't the goal of a nav, because it doesn't allow an easy switch between updates, if one is more visible. And in the end it's a question of style too... (I hope I was clear because I typed that really fast I have another problem right now) Tturbo _{( / )} 17:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No but what I'm saying is it DOES look too small compared to the rest. Besides... It is a BIG update : D EDIT: Alright we can leave this for now and I'll wait until your problem is sorted out.Smashbrother101 18:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The vertical format...

...will not work very well in the future. It will be way too right-heavy, with a big blank spot in the lower-left corner, and I'm pretty sure no other navboxes use a 100%-columned format. The previous horizontal format was much better. Toomai Glittershine 20:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Should the Grordbort's update be added?

I'd say it's just as important to list as the community updates. Should it be added? Evang7 16:05, 25 July 2011 (PDT)

 Agree It has its own update page on the official website. Yeah, it's about as fitting as the Shogun or Mac update are. --SilverHammer 16:07, 25 July 2011 (PDT)

 Agree I can't think of a reason why it's not already there. Balladofwindfishes 16:12, 25 July 2011 (PDT)

 Oppose We're not going to make a community update out of every 4 special items added. We didn't make an update out of the Poker Night at the Inventory special... It's a special set of item design by a professional studio, not a community update. Tturbo _{( / )} 17:27, 25 July 2011 (PDT)

But it's got its own page and comic on the blog, it's even in that little "Now Featuring" box to the right. It has its own pack in the store, I just don't see how it's any different from the Summer update or the Mac update. The same professional thing could be said about the Earbuds, or even the Shogun stuff considering the company commissioned Larolaro. --SilverHammer 17:32, 25 July 2011 (PDT)

 Comment I say it depends. If for some reason Valve will try to uncover the mystery of the other two grockets (which means probably 8 more items at most) then it should be included. If not, I doubt that it's anything special, but probably still does deserve it since the update has its own comic and blog post. -- Denmax (talk|contributions|sandbox) 17:39, 25 July 2011 (PDT)

 Comment It's obviously important enough to be featured heavily in the store and all over the blog. It's exactly the same situation as the Shogun and community map update as far as publicity and content goes, and has even more mention than the second and third community contribute update, which are in the nav despite the former not even having a blog post. Further, it's not a community update, but nobody was saying it was so I'm not sure why TTurbo implied someone was. Balladofwindfishes 17:43, 25 July 2011 (PDT)

It's the original question, should it be added to the "list as the community updates". And The poker night at the inventory was feature on the Blog too. For now I don't think those weapons should have their own update page, especialy now that there's already a pack for the pack. Now, if the 2 other grockets reveal something more, then we might call it an update, depending on what comes out (but I'm still thinking it's not community, as long as a community item isn't in it). Tturbo _{( / )} 07:41, 26 July 2011 (PDT)

No it wasn't. The original question said it was just as important as the community updates. It was stating that. Anyway, the poker night thing doesn't really explain this away because those were not featured on their own update page, nor were they highlighted by the blog in the same sense this update was. Besides, this update already has an update page on the wiki, the poker night stuff does not. Balladofwindfishes 10:22, 26 July 2011 (PDT)

Fall Crates/Total War Promo Update

I believe both should be in this list. The Fall Crate update was the same amount of content as the three community contribution updates and they're on there (even though #2 didn't get a blog post). The Total War Promo was bigger than the Japan Charity event and had ample PR about it all over (just not on the blog), it's large enough for its inclusion also. Balladofwindfishes 06:40, 1 November 2012 (PDT)

 Agree The October 9th patch could also do with being listed as a major update, as it was mentioned on the blog as a "Big MvM Update [1]" --Erfly 06:49, 1 November 2012 (PDT)

Yes, I had forgotten about that update. That probably could get on there also, that was a pretty substantial update. Balladofwindfishes 11:17, 1 November 2012 (PDT)

 Disagree Your reasoning is sound, but none of those meet the nominal requirements for being major updates. I think we should take the japan charity event, and the third community contribution update out of this nav, since they didn't bring any new weapons, maps, or gamemodes. — Armisael (T · C) 07:20, 1 November 2012 (PDT)

What's the distinction between adding a large number of hats and adding a weapon though? Had it had just one reskin, would it have qualified? The patch that added the Cozy Camper added a new weapon, as did the Rift update. I'd consider neither really worth putting on here though, but I'd put the Fall Crate on here. I think "major" is a bad term to use since those are your Uber Updates, Engineer Updates, etc, but there have been a lot of large content patches that deserve to stand out from "fixed mac client crash" or some of the other random stuff that's been in a patch. Balladofwindfishes 11:17, 1 November 2012 (PDT)

What I'd really like to do is split this nav into updates listed at http://www.tf2.com/history.php and those not listed there. But maybe that's just me. — Armisael (T · C) 16:49, 1 November 2012 (PDT)

Yea, that would make it so the "large content updates" and "major updates" are seperate, so we're not claiming the Japan Charity Event was on the same level as the Uber Update. Balladofwindfishes 05:21, 2 November 2012 (PDT)

Split?

Shall we split this template into two groups of major updates and content packs? by Limie Pie 01:49, 24 May 2013 (PDT)

 Why not Darkid (|) 09:10, 24 May 2013 (PDT)

 the current looking is awful, so why not? Rikka Takanashi (talk) • (contributions) 02:10, 24 May 2013 (PDT)

  The major updates nav lists both major updates (which copies http://www.tf2.com/history.php) and content packs together, unlike any other place on the wiki (or any valve site), as far as I'm aware. Is there a reason for this, other than to bloat the 2011 category? If not, can we split that nav in two, one for major updates and one for content packs?
I've taken the liberty of drawing up a split here. — Armisael (T · C) 07:30, 24 May 2013 (PDT)

  I don't think we should split them into 2 different templates. It still has to be comfortable to navigate through all big updates. It just needs some better classification and restyling. Now it looks weird. by Limie Pie 09:24, 24 May 2013 (PDT)

  Yea, our major updates should match Valve's definition. Honestly, I doubt anyone would really care if you'd just go and do it. It's a minor change with good rational behind it. Balladofwindfishes 00:33, 24 May 2013 (PDT)

  Definition consistency is always a good thing.

Zabidenu

(contribs ▪ talk) 11:58, 24 May 2013 (PDT)

 Comment Thinking about use cases I think it's pretty likely that if split both templates would end up displayed next to each other all the time. For that reason I think it's better to just split them within the single nav. —Moussekateer·talk 09:41, 24 May 2013 (PDT)

Guys, try to make something like this but make it look nicer. by Limie Pie 10:47, 24 May 2013 (PDT)

  I agree with Limie Pie and Moussekateer - they'll mostly be displayed side-by-side anyway. » Cooper Kid (blether) • (contreebs) 04:10, 24 May 2013 (PDT)

  Possible alternative approach: remove the icons from the less important updates — or, just remove the whole shopping list of updates and replace it with a Patch Layout template. --Bp 11:29, 24 May 2013 (PDT)

Why would we need to have both on any given page? There's no reason for Uber Update to have a direct link to all the content packs, and there's no reason for Japan Charity Bundle to have direct links to all the major updates. The average content pack differs from the average major update by almost an order of magnitude - the navs should reflect that fact. On that note, I don't have any issue with the notion of a patch layout style replacement, as long as the major updates are kept separate from the content packs. — Armisael (T · C) 04:47, 24 May 2013 (PDT)

 Comment} I agree with Armisael. Kind of pointless to put the shogun bundle on the Uber update page, given the huge difference in scale between them. But I have to say this nav is miles better than the current one. Balladofwindfishes 10:46, 26 May 2013 (PDT)

 Comment Neutral about this but the idea of spiting up the two is a nice idea though. Though some improvements can be made to your current "Rough" template. Icons should stay as well, we need something to represent them still. Ashes 12:02, 24 May 2013 (PDT)

Did we come to any conclusion? by Limie Pie 06:59, 28 May 2013 (PDT)

Of course we didn't - this is a wiki. — Armisael (T · C) 07:09, 28 May 2013 (PDT)

I think we should have a vote on adopting the nav that Limie Pie suggested, shown here, since it appears to be the only one that received support from any reasonably large group of members.

  — Armisael (T · C) 07:09, 28 May 2013 (PDT)

Finale

Implemented my version of the table due to lack of discussion and negative comments. I have another idea and I will work on improving the current table. by Limie Pie 08:33, 30 May 2013 (PDT)

error?

Several pages get an ERROR category from this template. At first I thought it came from these pages not in the "includeonly" at the end of the page, but some are in it but still get the error category (Dr. Grordbort's Victory Pack Update). Since I'm not even sure what the function of this "includeonly" is, I don't know what to do. Makrontt (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2013 (PDT)

 Fixed – Smashman _(talk) 06:51, 17 June 2013 (PDT)

Robotic Boogaloo is a major update

Right now it's listed as a content pack. I was under the impression the criteria for "Major Update" is that 1: It has an update page, 2: It's listed as a major update on the blog. Robot Boogaloo fits both of these criteria. The content within the update is meaningless, if that weren't the case, I'd question why the Replay and Mac updates are considered major. Valve themselves literally have the update tagged "Major Update" on the blog's history section. Balladofwindfishes (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2013 (PST)

Can we have this discussion more generally for what constitutes a major update and what's a content pack? I think that inclusion on http://www.tf2.com/history.php should be the dividing line, because it's clear and inarguable (if a little slow at updating), but I know that other people think differently. — Armisael (T · C) 14:18, 25 November 2013 (PST)

I tend to agree on both points. I think that the inclusion of an update on www.tf2.com is a good way to a) verify that an update is considered to be "Major", and b) can be used to solve any disputes. Depending upon the speed with which the page is updated, using that page to assess future updates when in doubt may be easiest way to verify any future releases. --- Esquilax 18:25, 25 November 2013 (PST)

Yea, using what Valve sets as a major update is the easiest, non-controversial and best way to do it. That would mean the Boogaloo is a major update and the Summer 2013 update isn't. Balladofwindfishes (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2013 (PST)

Smissmas 2016 should be a Content Pack, not a Major Update

That update didn't really add much to the game, and it didn't even have it's own dedicated update page. All it added was a cosmetic case, a few new taunts, and some minor changes to Casual matchmaking. That's it.

Now while Scream Fortress 2016 didn't have an update page either, it at least had a lot of content to warrant calling it a major update, with the new maps, the new Halloween case, new contracts, new taunts, and the Unusualifier tool. Smissmas 2016 though felt more like a Content Pack like the Mayflower and Rainy Day updates.

So unless there are any other second opinions, I'd like to reclassify Smissmas 2016 as a content pack. -- Dr. Scaphandre 14:31, 27 October 2017 (PDT)

I think the reason Smissmas 2016 is labeled as a major update is because it's listed as such on the official TF2 blog history page here. I assume that's why it was labeled as a major update in the first place. ClockworkSpirit2343 14:45, 27 October 2017 (PDT)

We discussed that on the IRC, and we decided that wasn't really a good reason since Valve classifies the Saxxy Awards as major updates, but of course we don't, we label them as events. I think the reason it was labeled as a Major Update was because it was Smissmas, and historically Smissmas has always been huge updates until the 2016 one. But no one had spoken up about it until now. -- Dr. Scaphandre 14:52, 27 October 2017 (PDT)

Well if it's been discussed and an agreement has been reached, then I see no reason to not reclassify it. ClockworkSpirit2343 15:07, 27 October 2017 (PDT)

Smissmas 2017-22 Classification

Just opening this up for discussion, funnily enough the last discussion was related to the definition of smissmas updates. Smissmas 2017-22 were recently reclassified out of major updates, whilst I believe this was a step in the right direction I believe they still need to be included somehow.

These two content updates need to be included as something due to their multiple significant additions to the game, most notably the permenant maps, taunts and cases. These updates were releases of multiple content types from the workshop at once so it seems appropriate to consider them content packs as opposed to major or not at all. I named the triad and summer 2013 content packs as including both year round maps and cosmetics when changing the major updates navigation. I feel these updates are a similar situation. As for why not major updates well Valve's definition for a major update is the most objective. There's people arguing about jungle inferno being the last one but then that opens the can of worms of where do we draw the line for seasonals because most would consider old seasonals major. Valve stopped considering smissmas major after 2016 so I am going with that. FastAndCurious (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It's fine if Smissmas are content packs, there's not much to discuss here.
GrampaSwood (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I've expressed this multiple times over the past years through chat, but I think a good middle ground would be to create a third category: seasonal updates.

Scream Fortress, Summer Pack, and Smissmas would reside in this category. However, big seasonal updates with fancy dedicated pages, comics, SFM, or major game changes such as weapon rebalances (like Scream Fortress VII, Mecha Update, and Blue Moon Pack) would be classified as both major and seasonal (because that's what they are).

So, for example: "The Mecha Update was a major seasonal update..." — Tark 01:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I think listing Smissmas and Halloween updates as a special "holiday" on top of being major updates/content packs is a good idea, but I wouldn't put them in their own category on this page if that is what you mean. As for the classification of major updates, we should obviously adhere to Valve's definition.
GrampaSwood (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

What is Valve Thinking? I may be wrong, but I don't think Valve does not think of any of the newer updates are major, I think they just don't think about it ("it" being whether or not they call an update major or not).

What is Valve Doing? I miss the update pages, I miss the ARGs, I miss the comics, I miss the campaigns. They just don't do that any more? (Maybe this summer?)

What will we do? The graphic list of "major" updates is useful, even if many of them are not called major. Is it useful to have all of the seasonal updates in the major updates? Probably. Are the separate Smissmas and Halloween lists useful? Sure. Redundant? Maybe, at least a little, but OK. It may be helpful to create the class "seasonal" or "event", and it might be OK to keep them in the graphic list with the majors. I really don't want to make the Updates page any more complicated

M I K A D O 282 ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ (Contact Mikado282 (SM)) | (contribs) (Help Wanted!) 03:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

This page dictates what is and isn't a major update.
GrampaSwood (talk) 08:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

It's, like, duh, GrampaSwood, we are all aware of that and agree to the tautology that it is a major update because it is listed as a major update, regardless of past relevancy of the Valve list. Could it be that our page is not as useful as it was because all updates are less than they were. I think the question is not whether anyone will budge on the dictate, or whether the Valve list will become useful again, but whether we can come up with a new way of listing (some adjective other than major) updates that is more useful or relevant than what we have now. Frankly, our present list of major updates violates policy somewhat because is just a redundant list that is already covered adequately by the other site.

M I K A D O 282 ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ (Contact Mikado282 (SM)) | (contribs) (Help Wanted!) 03:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't realize this was already an on-going discussion, so I'll move what I said in the Major Updates talk page here. Regarding what Swood said, about the History page dictating what a major update is and isn't, in early 2022, that page didn't list Scream Fortress 2021 as a major update, because they hadn't yet created the newer Halloween pumpkin-case graphics they use now, and that year didn't feature a spider-case like the others. However, we as the Wiki considered SF2021 a major update the day it dropped, and no one questioned or changed it, despite the fact that it didn't match the History page for months. It could just be they don't have Smissmas case graphics made, since the years after 2016 don't have a "generic case" image to use.

I would, however, be in favour of the sometimes-mentioned solution of having the update nav be broken into "Major Updates", "Seasonal Updates," and "Content Packs," in that order. That way, we can segment the routine holiday updates from the larger-scale updates and the smaller scale content packs -- like the Grordbort Update and the Community Map Pack, without having to decide what sections the holiday updates qualify for. Failing that, I think we need to decide for ourselves what content qualifies a "major update" distinction, because as it stands, there is little difference in recent years between SF's content and Smissmas's content, yet only one is consistently a major update -- even when the page doesn't say it was. — 07:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Mikado: I don't think adding any new qualifications that we just make up is going to add anything besides confusion. Valve used the term "holiday-sized update", which should only be used as an extra adjective on top of "major" or "content pack" and not its own thing (as Tark suggested before). I also don't know what you mean with "our present list of major updates violates policy somewhat", because we are supposed to document this stuff and it doesn't break any policy whatsoever. All the things in that list either consist of people, other video games, or technical stuff.

@HatGuy: It shouldn't be broken into 3 different ones, but rather becoming "a holiday content pack" or "a major holiday update". Having an extra list doesn't add anything if you ask me. I don't think it's necessary either to separate Smissmas from the smaller content packs besides simply calling it a "holiday update". And especially not "we need to decide for ourselves what content qualifies as a "major update" distinction", as we exclusively use Valve's definition whether we like it or not and we can't go around it. Us calling it a major update before it actually was listed as such by Valve is simply a mistake, just like how the Smissmas updates were wrongly called major until I changed it a week or so ago.
GrampaSwood (talk) 11:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the topic of what is considered a 'major update', I'd like to ditto what I said in this thread. Yossef • Talk 14:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Just an FYI, this conversation should be about the classification of Smissmas as a content pack update and not about whether or not it's major, as that's purely and exclusively decided by Valve.
GrampaSwood (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

We absolutely can "go around it", and an additional category would absolutely stop this kind of conversation in the future, clarify which updates players can expect and highlight past high-quality, history-making updates in an easy-to-follow manner.

Apart from "Valve says this!!", I'm not seeing any original argument against these ideas. Yes, blindly following what's on that page is the easy thing to do, but if that page fails to convey the reality of these updates, I see no real reason to follow it as gospel. — Tark 16:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm with Tark on this. There's no reason that we can't have holiday updates be their own separate thing. They're routine and to be expected at this point, but they're also some of the only content we get these days. I'd say, given the state we're in now, it's perfectly reasonable to have Summer events, Scream Fortress, and Smissmas as their own section of the updates nav, and then list history-defining major updates and other content packs aside from holiday events as their own sections.

Plus, mistake or not, as I've stated, there was a time we accidentally didn't treat the History page as complete gospel truth, and no one seemed to care that it wasn't followed to the letter back then. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have even realized it was a mistake until I pointed it out. I think what's more important is trying to find a proper solution. There's clearly still a discussion to be had here, and I think there's a better way forward. — 07:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think an additional category is bad, it should be an additional category, not a replacement one. Factually speaking, Valve considers the SF updates a major update, so we should always list them as such. We're not a fan Wiki that can make up its own standards for this kind of stuff. Again, holiday update is a fine classification but it shouldn't replace anything. If it doesn't convey a "reality" because that's subjective (because many people in the community consider Jungle Inferno the last major update, while I would consider SF + Smissmas to be a major update) and the best solution here is to follow what Valve says because it's their game that we're documenting here. Regardless of if we have made a mistake in the past, that doesn't justify anything whatsoever and I genuinely struggle to see its relevance whatsoever.
GrampaSwood (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Summer 2023 Classification

Noticed someone added summer 2023 to the major updates section. Think discussion is worth having here again, seeing lots of disagreements on how major this update is. Valve described it as holiday sized obviously however Update has 14 maps, the most ever by far - 4 of which specific to a new gamemode. More of most other content types as well. Compare these to the content added in updates such as Robotic boogaloo or end of the line. It's difficult and I don't want to try to make the call on how major this update is. It most notably is lacking themeing or a name, like summer 2013?

Valve hasn't added the update to their major updates page either however its not even been a day and i know they have retroactively added updates to that page before, might be worth leaving as is and waiting until they add the next scream fortress to that page? And we can just follow their classification from there if this one is still omitted.

Also I changed the icon to the Saxton hat as vsh seems to be the main draw/focal point of the update. Definetly is not just a cosmetic case update like last. FastAndCurious (talk) 8:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The update is not listed as major here, so it is not a major update.
GrampaSwood (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I second GrampaSwood, if it's not listed on the TF2 website, Valve don't consider it major. Additionally, the only new official artwork for it is the Steam advertisement which isn't suited to be a tiny icon. Using the key or crate icon would be more in-keeping with the other Content Packs in this template. JoseonBanana (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

They released another, smaller, version which fits the icon much better. It's now listed as major because the update announcement called it major.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see, thanks. JoseonBanana (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Confusing

This template has links to Patches, which seems completely different from what is shown here and some are categorized with "Seasonal major updates" (categories are different too) which is even more confusing. What happened? Mgpt (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Patches needs to be updated according to this template. — Tark 01:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Sir yes sir o7 Jh34ghu43gu (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I thought the whole purpose of the seasonal updates category was to be an additional category and not a replacement, but now they look like a replacement on the Patches page and the nav.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 09:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

It was always meant to be what it is now. The initial proposed nav revision, during the discussion phase for this, was shown as a sandbox on Tark's userspace, that has apparently since been deleted as of last August, so I can't link it here. The point is, it looked nearly identical to the nav template that we've had since. I made a few extra changes to it, adding a couple content packs that had seasons named in their crates, but this is largely what everybody agreed on at the time. It was meant to separate updates into major (non-seasonal) updates, the usual seasonal rotation of updates we get every year: Summer, Halloween, and Winter, (again, with stuff like Summer Appetizer Crates also included) and non-seasonal content packs at the bottom.

However, an update can indeed be both a major update and a seasonal update, which are still listed in the seasonal category; the Summer 2023 Pack is an example of that, it is a major update, but since it's a Summer update, it goes in the seasonal category. — 11:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah the nav is not the issue, I was mainly talking about the Patches page.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 11:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Are the changes ok... or not? I don't want to change what was discussed but the page had different contents and made me confused, probably other readers too Mgpt (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm not sure, I don't like them personally as it just does exactly what was said wasn't gonna happen (fully replacing the "major update" classification with "seasonal update").
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps titles can be bolded in the seasonal category if they are also listed as major updates on the valve page? Jh34ghu43gu (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. Right now, the page is perfectly fine and accurate.

We've previously discussed this and it was completely fine until now. — Tark 11:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Bloated

I really don't see how these categories make any sense. The "Seasonal updates" section is extremely bloated, both with major updates that aren't seasonal (Mecha Update, Tough Break Update) and with content packs that aren't updates (Summer Sale, First and Second Workshop Content Packs, Limited Late Summer Pack, Mayflower Pack, Rainy Day Pack). It feels like the only requirement considered for this category was "mentions a season somewhere" instead of actually looking at their content. I'm also not seeing where this was "previously discussed", since the last post in this thread was about the then-new Summer 2023 update, but I could be missing something there.

Can the categories really not be as simple as "it's a special event if it has special/event in the name, and it's a bundle/pack/sale/contribution if it has bundle/pack/sale/contribution in the name"? This seems way less arbitrary than what we're doing now and no obvious exceptions jump out at me. Grapevine (talk) 08:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It was discussed previously here. Personally I think going by date is fine, rather than by name. This should only really be an identifier in the Nav and on the articles themselves, but they should not be split here into major, seasonal, and content packs on the Patches article. That should only be Major updates/Content packs imo (going by Valve's definition).
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 13:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my 2 cents here, it certainly does seem bloated and a bit questionable - why is End of the line under major and not Tough Break? Neither were Smissmas style updates right? Tough Break added the festivizer smissmas gift I guess? iirc that wasn't useable for a week. What about the Gun Mettle Cosmetic Case? That came out in August and over a month later, couldn't you argue that's the summer seasonal cosmetic case update? Man this doesn't seem easy to classify lol. Just go with what Valve does major wise imo, it's their game. Like obviously "modern updates" aren't the same as old major updates but I don't think its worth having seasonal separately if it doesn't make it any easier to find or classify the updates on the page. (FastAndCurious (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC))

"Just go with what Valve does" doesn't really work anymore, considering they've abandoned their update history page entirely, so it unfortunately does come down to the community now. I think the "seasonal update" classification is a really good and clever solution to the problem, I just take issue with the current definition of "seasonal" which appears entirely arbitrary. I would like for clear guidelines to exist on what "seasonal" means; I laid out my idea above but it doesn't have to be that exactly, as long as there's something consistent that's better than the current setup. Grapevine (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

They still mark updates as major/minor on the Steam updates section, which is how 2023 Summer is designated as major.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 06:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I was the main person behind this. Discussion for these changes actually started in 2020, and much of it occurred via Steam/IRC, so unfortunately there aren't many places to link to inside the wiki. This was definitely a mistake on my part, so I apologize.

Originally, we looked at each update based on its features (whether it added or balanced weapons, maps, cosmetics, merchandise/videos/comics etc.). This idea was a bit too radical and results sounded even more arbitrary.

"Seasonal updates" are the middle ground of that discussion. We still respect Valve's definition but add the "seasonal" descriptor to better highlight the updates of today:

"Summer 2022": seasonal update / "Scream Fortress 2022": major seasonal update / "Scream Fortress 2023": seasonal update / "Summer 2023": seasonal update / etc.

The main factor to consider something seasonal is the timeframe and theme. The updates already listed as seasonal are considered final, but I definitely don't rule out the chance that a few updates might have gone unnoticed until now (it happens!). — Tark 07:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I understand why they would be "considered final"? Updates like the Workshop Content Packs and Mayflower Pack are not themed updates in any meaningful way. There are many others but these are two of the more egregious examples. Is having a "Fall Crate" because it happened to come out in Fall really a reasonable standard? Why would this not be within the realm of reasonable discussion? Grapevine (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)