Talk:Minecraft Wiki/editcopy

Jinx and Thinkgeek links
I definitely disagree. Neither of those are Curse or Mojang related. All Minecraft merchandise directly from Mojang is at https://minecraft.net/store, unless you can prove those two sites are also directing revenue to Mojang and/or they approve. Otherwise, it's just random advertising to list them. 17:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Uhm... wow... nevermind. Looking for some mention of these two sites, I actually looked at the product links on their store page. I'm stupid. Don't mind me. *whistles*  03:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Current price
First of all, Raffox97, a price change is not a useless edit. Secondly, 007a83, minecraft.net/store still says €19.95. Please provide a source for €20.56. 16:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Minecraft is sold in USD. Check the store. and The USD is now worth more than The EUR. --007a83 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 21:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * http://i.imgur.com/SSabSPp.png --007a83 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 21:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Looked at the HTML code. GBP=17.95 USD=26.95 EUR=19.95. I will look in depth more next time. --007a83 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 22:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I was actually not aware the prices were there in the code for the page. I used several random European proxies to verify the price, but I guess having them there is the easiest way to display them based on the IP of the visitor. Also, Minecraft is actually sold in EUR with the GBP and USD being manually set by Mojang based on the conversion rates last time Minecraft's price was increased. Think of the EUR price as the default price they went for. This is one of the reasons why USD is in parenthesis on the page with the other being consistency to the USD conversion for Microsoft Points further down.  04:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I checked a china proxy, The default for everywhere else is EUR. Have not checked a place like Canada to see if they are shown USD. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 007a83 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 17:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC). Please sign your posts with
 * Canada is shown the price in USD, and should we post the GBP price? --007a83 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 17:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft Points Image
What do you guys think of "1600 Microsoft Points ($20.00 USD)" --007a83 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 21:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * - Personally I think that it's a bit unnecessary. The symbol doesn't really add much. –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk Contribs Edit count 06:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed to "1600Microsoft Point.png ($20.00 USD)" The symbol is well THE Dollar sign of Microsoft Points --007a83 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 07:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Is now "1600Microsoft Point.png (US $20.00)"--007a83 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 21:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The image is too blurry and poorly aligned. –ultradude25 ᐸ Talk Contribs 00:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The image is free to edit. I would love to see some pro work on it.--007a83 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 06:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The bigger problem is that the image means nothing to everyone who isn't familiar with the Microsoft Points symbol already. Without the text, it's confusing for too many people; with the text, it's redundant and doesn't add anything. Also, compared to a good-resolution version of the logo (such as wikipedia:File:Mspoints.PNG), this tiny image is barely recognizable even for people who know what it represents. -- Orthotope talk 07:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That is the same image used in the microsoft marketplace. and by hovering over the image it says Microsoft Points.--007a83 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 02:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Can some one please edit the image and make it better. It can work. it just needs work I am unable to do.--007a83 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 23:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

expanding reddit links
Since reddit.com/r/minecraft has been included on the main page; I propose we add links to platform specific communities within reddit, since there are two substantial communities currently operating (one for MCXBLA and one for MCPE) and one smaller one for Pi Edition....

I think it'd be nice to pull the 'reddit' link - create a new section within the official links page titled 'Reddit Communities' which would include the following links:

http://www.reddit.com/r/minecraft - PC version

http://www.reddit.com/r/MCPE - PE version

http://www.reddit.com/r/minecraft360 - XBLA version

http://www.reddit.com/r/MCPI - Pi version <- optional due to its significantly smaller size

/r/minecraft360 has seen participation from /u/4JSteve - QA Bug Tester @ 4J Studios relating to upcoming features and confirming bug fixes as well as utilizing community participation for assembling bug lists for the last title update.

as well, /r/mcpe has seen participation from /u/jbernhardsson - mojang developer working on Pocket edition - regarding upcoming features / bugs and bug fixes, etc.

reddit account confirmation for reddit.com/u/4jsteve :

https://twitter.com/4JSteve/status/320483596093759488

reddit account confirmation for reddit.com/u/jbernhardsson :

https://twitter.com/jbernhardsson/status/292733913334423553

unerds 21:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Heres the one for the Xbox One. http://www.reddit.com/r/minecraftone --007a83 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 21:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

here is the one for the PlayStation versions http://www.reddit.com/r/PSMinecraft --007a83 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 05:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

"Minecraft Wiki" logo
The "Wiki" in the box below is slightly of center on the vertical axis. --5ives 00:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's exactly 5px from either side. –ultradude25 ᐸ Talk Contribs 00:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think he meant the word "WIKI" inside the MCPE-esque box below the word "MINECRAFT" isn't vertically centered, which it isn't because of the angled perspective of the box. I don't see anything wrong.  01:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Header
I've changed the header up a bit since there is already a lot of boxes on this page, so now it's styled more like an actual header. If this is agreeable I'd also like to take the opportunity to move the logo image over to the main page as well. It's been there so long that the original discussion has long since been archived, so I think it's about time it got added. –ultradude25 ᐸ Talk Contribs 00:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you remove the line that is under "The official resource on everything Minecraft."?--007a83 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 06:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Why? It's the same line used on headers. –ultradude25 ᐸ Talk Contribs 06:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * because it looks like double because of the boxes below.--007a83 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 02:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This is what the page would look like if the image size was 400px: File:Minecraft_wiki-editcopy_400px_logo.png--007a83 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 03:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * We can't make that header too big. The ad space above already pushes the page down, don't make the header push it farther than it has to be. Also, don't throw images into a talk page, link them, unless absolutely necessary. An image smashed into the middle of a topic screws things up.  03:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Forgot about ad's, My Virus program thinks there all viruses .-. --007a83 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 05:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

New Header, some other changes
Hi, maybe you noticed the edit which added a new header and the changes in the boxes below. The idea comes from the german Wiki and we want to change this. But the Main pages of the different Wikis should look similar. So we present our idea to the english Wiki, which has the biggest community and sets the standard for the layouts of the other Wikis. Changes: 1. At the top there is now a new header with information about the respective Wiki. The text can be copied from the page Minecraft Wiki:About. As you can see there are links to the content of the box Wiki community. At the moment they are the translated links of the german box "Wiki community". But every Wiki should customize their header to their box. Beside every link there are pictures of Items which fit to the respective link. We would replace the old header with our new header. We think, that we don´t need two logos of the Wiki. On the top left corner there is already the Minecraft Wiki Cube. 2.Because of the new header we don´t need the box Wiki community any more. So we would split the overcrowded box Updates, news and events to a box News and events and another box called Development. The advantages: We can display the news and events in a better (clearer) way. Another point is that we have more space for the Version history and Upcoming features. These changes would tell the user more about the Wiki, offers important links on a better seen place and prevents overcrowded boxes. What do you think about our suggestion? --.zip de.MinecraftWiki-Admin talk page 22:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The heading "Version development" doesn't make sense, "Version history" would make more sense although it conflicts with the "Version history" subheading. To fix this we could either change it back or rename the "Version history" pages to "Release history", unless anyone can think of something else? --5ives 07:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I actually like the look. It could definitely use a little more tweaking though, and more people should take a look at it first. As for the logo thing, we do have File:Logo2.png that matches the new logo that finally got to the front page. It took quite a bit for the logo to make it to the front page since most of us weren't sure if it would be accepted, so I don't know if we'll ever get the blue logo changed, especially since Curse defines it as the main logo. I have custom css that alters the top left logo to that Logo2.png as well as a browser extension that forces the favicon to that. I personally like it better than the blue cube.  23:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * So, two problems I have with this: 1. Takes up too much vertical space, there's plenty of horizontal room that should be used. 2. The icons don't seem very relevant. What does a compass have to do with a community portal? What does a pickaxe have to do with help? Unless more appropriate icons can be found, I'd rather there be no icons at all. –ultradude25 ᐸ Talk Contribs 05:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Do we even need all those links? Community portal, admin noticeboard, wiki rules, help contents, and recent changes are all in the left sidebar, create account is at the top of the page, and general disclaimer is in the footer. -- Orthotope talk 07:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not so much about efficiency as it is about making sure the, uhm, average user gets the point. We can worry about redundancy only so much before some people seem to miss things. I personally like the idea of those links being almost the first thing the user sees if they come to the site not following a direct link. It's not like we're throwing them into some header that shows on every page. I think the yellow box I threw into the talk pages is mostly redundant, but it felt necessary to try and deter useless posts. There's also plenty of other links that have been on the front page for a while that are also on the sidebar. It's not that bad of an idea to make parts of the front page a stylized version of the sidebar. 07:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @ultradude25: The community portal is a page where the most important links are provided and the users can orientate. Because of that we chose the compass as image. The pickaxe is a tool which helps the player and the help:Contents page does this, too. That were our thoughts. @Orthotope: We also had the discussion about links which appear more than once at the Main page. But is it a disadvantage to have two or three identical links on the same page? The Main pages job is, to lead the users to the pages they want to see or such which are important for them. So we think that two links are better than one in the sidebar, which can easily be overlooked. The new header will be seen by every visitor of the Main pages. --.zip de.MinecraftWiki-Admin talk page 10:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I made some changes at the header. With some display settings the header looked very messed up. If the header was displayed in the right way before my edit shouldn´t made noticeable changes.--.zip de.MinecraftWiki-Admin Diskussion 18:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Display settings"? –ultradude25 ᐸ Talk Contribs – 00:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * For some reason Chrome failed to render the multiple columns. — Hower64 06:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Safari had the same issue, though it looked fine in Firefox and Opera. Interestingly, OmniWeb (WebKit-based) rendered the text in multiple columns, but not the icons. The pure CSS approach is cleaner, but it needs to work in all the major browsers. -- Orthotope talk 06:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What about the other multi-column lists on the page? Does Chrome and Safari fail at those too? –ultradude25 ᐸ Talk Contribs – 06:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

No, those work fine (once I stretched the window enough to get multiple columns - your monitor must be huge); it seems that specifying the number of columns is where they have issues. -- Orthotope talk 07:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Just standard 1080p, I'd even call it a bit small by today's standards. –ultradude25 ᐸ Talk Contribs – 11:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What is your opinion about the design now? Can someone take it to the main page? Suchti talk EMail 10:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I fine with the design, however I would like to find some stuff to fill in the blank areas of the news (could just add more news entries) and version development sections. –ultradude25 ᐸ Talk Contribs – 17:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Some time ago I made a suggestion for the news section, but was reversed later.That one. This would prevent more entries in the news section and the single entries would be shown more clearly. Maybe we can integrate the Template:Version history nav in the Version development section? Extended with entries about the respective upcoming features. --.zip de.MinecraftWiki-Admin Diskussion 23:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That just shows the same information, but takes up considerably more space, with no gain. The version development section already has everything the version history nav template has, plus some extra things. –ultradude25 ᐸ Talk Contribs – 00:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I hate it, takes up to munch room, makes it not look like the main page, and it ugly. I see you want to make it easier for people, but I think if you want to make account or report stuff on the admin notice board you shoulder by smart enough to find it. I do think it should be used, just not here. It think it would go good on Minecraft Wiki:Welcome.--007a83 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 22:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It's only 1 or 2 lines higher depending on your screen size. You suggested making the logo 400px, which would've been larger than the entire box that you're calling too large.
 * How does it make it not look like the main page? There's no set design that defines a main page, it can be whatever you want it to be. Additionally, this box is quite similar to the one on Wikipedia, so does their main page not look like a main page? –ultradude25 ᐸ Talk Contribs – 23:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You just broke my brain. I sill think it looks ugly and should be on Minecraft Wiki:Welcome. But you just broke my brain--007a83 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 05:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it does not look good on the Minecraft Wiki. the one of Wikipedia looks fine. But this is the Minecraft wiki. I don't think we should have all that info right there on the top of the main page. it pushes the content to far down down. I think we should sick with just the logo on the top.--007a83 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 09:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The new header is only a little bit higher than the old one. And the messagebox on the editcopy page doesn´t appear on the Main page so the content is not really pushed so far down.--.zip de.MinecraftWiki-Admin Diskussion 11:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about the ads. And I just don't think is should be on the MAIN PAGE. Minecraft_wiki:welcome is a way better place for this. I don't think the main page should have this link block on top of it. Under maybe, but no on top.--007a83 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 01:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is what it would look like on the main page. File:Minecraft_Wiki-editcopy_New_Header.png--007a83 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 01:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * So you don't think the main page should have lots of links to get around the wiki...? Those links are, if anything, bringing the content up higher (since they ARE content, too), instead of just having a logo with useless space all around it. –ultradude25 ᐸ Talk Contribs – 05:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Now that all the migration guff is out of the way, I think it's about time this was applied. I'll do it tomorrow if there's no objections. –Matt ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:9px;vertical-align:-3px>Talk Contribs ⎜ 22:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I guess I just haven't been paying enough attention to what been going on here. There is a reason that the wiki community box was at the bottom of the page, and why certain links were not included in it. It is mostly information that is not of prime importance to the average visitor here, and as such does not merit prime placement (top right corner of the content space). None of the sidebar links are necessary to be repeated, and NO, you can't remove them from the sidebar to only have them in the main page header, as they are links that need to be available from any page on the wiki. I would suggest that you move the wiki related stuff back to the bottom right corner, where they were, and out of the header space. If you need more mainpage room to do this, I would rethink the whole news and events box, as very little of that is necessary on the wiki.... once a news item is a week old it is outdated, and can disappear, and there are links there that go back months.... so.. totally irrelevant at this point. -- Wynthyst  [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png ]]  talk  12:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, it'd be nice if the average visitor did take up an interest in the wiki community, and perhaps started editing.
 * Either way, I think having prominent useful links at the top of the page (which I'd like to point out don't actually take up any vertical space, they're just filling in blank space around the logo) is a "good thing"™. But maybe changing the links to pages that would be more useful to readers would be better. –Matt ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:9px;vertical-align:-3px>Talk Contribs ⎜ 13:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * While I agree that getting more people editing would be great, however, I look at the numbers every day. MCW has 550 Active registered editors (people who have made an edit in the past 30 days), and yesterday alone had 358,025 unique visitors. With that in mind, catering to readers over editors is a must. Simply put, people aren't coming here to read the wiki rules, or visit the admin noticeboard, they are here for information about the game. You might want to think about rearranging the main page is other ways.... stretch the about the game portion across the entire page, and spit up your boxes in new and different ways if you are looking to simply revitalize the feel of the wiki. With the change of the logo, the blue header bar isn't really a tie in anymore (that blue was taken from the old logo), so maybe think about some color changes... maybe a light sand color background rather than the pale blue, you guys are pretty creative. I bet if you really thought about it, you could come up with something cool... or, make it a contest... I bet I could get Curse to come up with some sort of prize to give away (maybe something that doesn't have the US/Canada only restrictions). --  Wynthyst  [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png ]]  talk  13:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect use of the term "computer" as opposed to "PC"
Specifically I'd like to point out the use of terms in the "Play it!" box.

Every link is suitably named except "Purchase the computer edition!". 'PC' does not strictly refer to Windows computers, in this case it generally should refer to Linux, Mac and Windows computers but not video game consoles, tablets/smart phones, and small single board computers (like the Raspberry Pi), which all come under the term 'computer'. It is inconsistent that each except one is suitably named.

It also may seem redundant to anyone who doesn't confuse the term. Reading "computer edition", then reading four other links for different editions which are also in a way, computer editions, because they too run on computers.

Of course it is not perfectly ideal to rename the link just "Purchase the PC edition!" because many people do confuse the term. I suggest renaming it "Purchase the PC edition! (Linux Mac, Windows)" which would avoid confusion but remain correct.

I have raised this issue before in the talk section of the main page here if you'd like to read the discussion that was had then. --5ives 10:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It would kind of work for that one particular link, but the issue is every other mention of the computer edition. You can't replace it with PC edition (Linux, Mac, Windows) every time, that would look messy and awful.
 * The term computer is commonly used to refer to just the PC, and not other electronics that are also technically computers, so it's fine. –ultradude25 ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:9px;vertical-align:-3px>Talk Contribs – 07:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the confusion of the term 'PC' would matter too much elsewhere. It matters so much on the purchase link because some people may decide not to follow it if they are on Linux or Mac and think 'PC' means only Windows. --5ives 10:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"Create an account" link correction, possibility of plainlinks bug
I was going to correct the link in the header: (www.minecraftwiki.net/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin)

with plainlinks to:

(www.minecraftwiki.net/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&type=signup).

But notice the color difference, the plainlink-link is slightly lighter, like Wikipedia links. As far as I'm aware the link should be the same color as internal links, since plainlinks is a workaround for internal links with parameters (they don't work with regular internal link syntax). After reading the MediaWiki manual for plainlinks, it seems the color can be changed in the css of the plainlinks class. However, this would create the issue that all Wikipedia links linked with plainlinks will be the wrong color, but I think internal links are more often linked then Wikipedia links.

I did try Template:Fullurl but it seems that it only works with the action parameter and not type which is in the link I'm trying to implement.

The same link is the implemented here with the correct color but I doubt it's done in wikitext.

Does anyone know any other workarounds? Where should I report this bug, assuming it is one? --5ives 04:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure fullurl works with anything, not just the action parameter. -- <sup style="font-weight:normal; color:#00E">t  numbermaniac  <sup style="color:#00E">c  04:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a different colour because it's an external link. Plainlinks has nothing to do with it. fullurl works fine with the type parameter, but it is still an external link and is identical to just writing the url yourself. (Also, just use the parser function, there's no need for the template to ever be used now.)
 * I can make external internal links the same colour as standard internal links. Or perhaps all external links should just be the same colour as normal links. They already have an icon to differentiate them, after all. –ultradude25 ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:9px;vertical-align:-3px>Talk Contribs – 05:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If Template:Fullurl works with the type parameter. Compare my markup to what the link actually turns out to be.
 * I thought every link within the wiki was an internal link.
 * I don't know what the parser function is.
 * I think the different colors are also supposed to differentiate between internal links and Wikipedia links. --5ives 06:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's odd, but I don't see any reason why we shouldn't have the same colours for internal and external links.... -- <sup style="font-weight:normal; color:#00E">t  numbermaniac  <sup style="color:#00E">c  06:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there should be some kind of differentiation for Wikipedia links. --5ives 06:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia links don't have the arrow/lock symbol on the end. -- <sup style="font-weight:normal; color:#00E">t  numbermaniac  <sup style="color:#00E">c  06:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If they were the same color, they'd look like internal links. --5ives 07:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That's because you have an  which means it's looking for a parameter called "type" with a value of signup. To get around this you either have to explicitly give it a parameter (in this case the anonymous parameter  ), or escape the equals sign (by using =,   or the HTML entity of  :  ) . This is the main reason the template should never be used. The fullurl template has an action parameter (since it's the most common), which is why it works without any messing around.
 * Any link (except interwiki) is an internal link. Everything else is external, even if the link is to the local wiki.
 * I've edited your first post with an example of it. The fullurl template itself uses the parser function.
 * "Wikipedia links" (a.k.a. interwiki links) are "external interwiki" links. They have a different class to external links (although they use the same colour). –ultradude25 ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:9px;vertical-align:-3px>Talk Contribs – 06:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Very helpful. Is there no way to make the link the same color as the others, and blend in (besides how it was before)? --5ives 07:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said before, I could change the link colour of external links that are actually pointing to the local wiki to be the same colour as internal links. I could also change all external links to be the same colour as internal ones (that doesn't have to include interwiki, since they're separate from normal external links), but since that could do with more opinions on if it should be changed, I won't bother with it now. –ultradude25 ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:9px;vertical-align:-3px>Talk Contribs – 07:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think there should be a color difference between links pointing to the local wiki, and links that point elsewhere. I'm not an expert though, it's just my opinion based on how much I do know. --5ives 18:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate links in the article, sidebar, footer and links from the previous "Wiki community" box that were not transfered
Duplicate links in the header (of article) and first section of the sidebar (of website):
 * Minecraft Wiki:Community portal
 * Minecraft Wiki:Admin noticeboard
 * Minecraft Wiki:Wiki Rules
 * Help:Contents

In the header (of article) and footer (of website):
 * Minecraft Wiki:About
 * Minecraft Wiki:General disclaimer

In "Useful pages" (section of sidebar) and "Popular and useful pages" (in article): I don't really think there needs to be an always accessible section of the sidebar with general Minecraft articles.
 * Blocks
 * Items
 * Enchanting
 * Mobs
 * Redstone circuit
 * Resource pack
 * Mods

Links from the previous "Wiki community" box that were not transfered:
 * Frequently asked questions
 * Minecraft Wiki:Sandbox

I don't think there should be more than one instance of a link on a single page, at least not in this case, especially since there are two links that have not been transfered that could fit in the header (or even somewhere else like the sidebar or footer) if there were less duplicates. Maybe some of the duplicate and non-transfered links are ok, but I'd at least like to let it be known. --5ives 18:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The useful pages section was actually directly copied from the main page. See the discussion that prompted adding it. The only reason the section is still on the main page is because we've had nothing else to put in its place. I was going to put tweets from Minecraft devs, and even wrote a script for it, but I never got around to following it up to see if people actually wanted that.
 * As for the other duplicate links, if they're taking up space on the main page then maybe they can be removed. But if they're just a linked word that would be there anyway, it may as well stay. –ultradude25 ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:9px;vertical-align:-3px>Talk Contribs – 21:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"In-Browser Play"
"can be played in the user's web browser, or using the downloadable launcher." Mojang quietly removed that feature from the site in July, 2013. Should be "Singleplayer and multiplayer, when purchased, can be played using the downloadable launcher." CanadianMike15 (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You are partially correct. http://minecraft.net/play is still available, but only 1.5.2. Newer versions use the launcher, which is a function that a browser cannot provide. There may be some way to reword that text, but that play url is only accessible by purchasers, so the text is still correct. 03:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)</tt>

Lego Minecraft
Just a suggestion - do the lego minecraft sets deserve any recognition on the front page? –Goandgoo</b> ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:1em;vertical-align:-1em>Talk Contribs Edit count 11:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I would think not, but a small link might be nice.  Meeples10 t ~ c 20:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)