Minecraft Wiki talk:Community portal

This is the community's main discussion page.

Talk about anything wiki-related here!

Sign your posts with ~ and always add new posts at the very bottom after previous sections.

Updates for xbox
I have heard that updates for the xbox 360 version are coming out every 3 months....is this true? Have you figured it out at all yet?--Darkknight28 06:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's true, as the next update is set to come out in early July, and two updates have already come out. That's 3 in 2 months. return_0 15:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

how you post pictures
the title tells it all.... –Preceding unsigned comment was added by XXminerXx (Talk&#124;Contribs) 23:40, 4 June 2012‎. Please sign your posts with


 * 'Upload file', under 'Toolbox' in the left sidebar. -- Orthotope 01:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Tagging bugs as "Vote for removal"
Tkain47 proposed to tag bugs bugs as "Vote for removal" Also, why don't we make the "Not a bug, Candidate for removal" the color red? [R] It just looks a bit more of a "Candidate For Deletion." I second that. --Kumasasa 18:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

(Hey, i didn't make the idea, just added a new design! --Tkain47 18:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC))
 * That's exactly what I wanted to say ;-) --Kumasasa 18:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Fire resistance
It would be nice if an EXPIERIENCED user added the fire resistance to all the entity pages. I'm talking about if it gets destoyed and how long it burns e.g. Netherrack Fire resistance:  no, ∞

thank you 216.157.201.188 19:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Random Zelda Fan


 * The duration of fire is random and independent of what block is burning (netherrack being a special-case exception). As for the flammability of blocks, I'd support adding it to Template:Block; see the discussion at Template_talk:Block. -- Orthotope 09:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It gets to laggy and makes people freeze sometimes. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by WaffleGeek7 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 02:37, 18 June 2012‎ (UTC). Please sign your posts with

i need help
well, i built a mob spawn killer, witch they are drowned, and my loot goes to me by water, what i am trying to do is to extended the water to my base so i don't have to go all that way to the spawner.

my question is, does my loot disappear? and does the spawner only works when there is a nearby player?

thank you for your support.

178.132.42.128


 * If you check the Monster Spawner page it tells you that a player must be within 17 blocks of the spawner for it to spawn mobs. Checking the Item (entity) page tells you "Items always despawn after 6000 game ticks, or 5 minutes, of being in a loaded chunk." Further more, if no one is within about 21 chunks of the item, it will not be loaded, and therefore not pushed. Cultist O 20:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Known bugs and subpages rename
Copied from Ultradude25's talk page:

I have a suggestion for the known bugs articles. Right now, we are creating a new page directly at "known bugs/development versions/xxxx" or "known bugs/1.2.5", etc. The known bugs page right now is useless and people continue to add comments to the talk page. How about making the Known bugs page the current bug recording page for the current official release version, and then when a new official version is release, move the old version to the specific version that is was for. Example: Right now it is 1.2.5 so the "Known bugs" article is used for recording the 1.2.5 bugs. When 1.3 is released, we move "Known bugs" to "Known bugs/Version 1.2.5" without redirect and create a new page for 1.3 at "Known bugs" again. This way, we can ensure that all relevant comments made in the talk page stays with the version at that time, and we can automatically archive all talk page comments made to the known bugs page with the version it was for.

The other suggestion is for "Known bugs" to be renamed to "Issues", which is a more general and accurate term for the content. There has already been a discussion at Talk:Known bugs, but the proposal will need more admin approval and an admin to carry out the proposal. - Asterick6 (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, I think the snapshot releases should be titled "Snapshot xxwxx" instead of "Version xxwxx"? How about titling it "snapshot" for future releases (and also renaming the existing ones)? - Asterick6 (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. -- Orthotope 03:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I would definitely back these ideas. Cultist O 05:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I support that. --Kumasasa 06:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing the quality of tutorials on the wiki
After noticing a growing amount of non-tutorials on the wiki, we've decided to review them and delete those that do not fit on the wiki and serve more purpose on the forums. For example, lists of things you can do in Minecraft and garbage instructions ("build a lot of houses" for a tutorial on building a city for example) shouldn't be considered tutorials at all and are very low in quality compared to the rest of the content our wiki hosts.

You can find the tagged tutorials, as well as other pages that are pending deletion, in this category.

Feel free to add your (logical) input on what we should keep and what we shouldn't allow. --Quatroking -  MCWiki Administrator  19:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * While losing the current Advanced Construction page is no great loss, I did produce what I think is a good braindump of what an Advanced Construction article should contain. This is currently on the Advanced Construction talk page, so it'll disappear when the main page is removed. (I've also rescued a scratch copy and stored it in my user pages.) Feedback on that list would be appreciated. I do think it would be nice to have a good-quality 'Advanced Construction' guide, and I hope my skeleton list covers the areas we ought to document. I just don't feel like writing all that myself... --Simons Mith 20:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Whoever tagged the articles for deletion should probably notify the article creators as well (out of common courtesy/policy if there is one). - Asterick6 (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think tutorials should be deleted if they aren't written in an adequate quality, but please elaborate on what type of content should be deleted. Garbage instructions such as "build a lot of houses" doesn't quite fit all tutorial content.
 * Also, I think there needs to be an official style guide/policy on what and what shouldn't be included. If we don't have one, the quality of the wiki will continue to deteriorate. Hower64 has created a style guide at Minecraft Wiki:Projects/Style Guide, and I hope some of the admins of this wiki and other language wikis can contribute to it and establish a policy/guideline instead of using vague guidelines that are undocumented. - Asterick6 (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

C&P relevant comments and context from sleep-deprived Kizzycocoa's page:

The tutorial of the list of things to do to your shelter


 * I don't see any changes in the rules that this page violates. Plus the page has been here for a long time, and its incredibly useful. Can you expand on this for me? :3 Funky3000 21:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lists of challenges, activities and things to do in Minecraft that are creative-based, rather than practical, are to be removed.
 * The Userspace is where these articles belong. --Kizzycocoa 21:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that many of the pages you've tagged aren't Tutorials, but I'm not convinced userspace is the right place for them either. Take some examples, and my opinions on them:
 * Advanced Construction: not a well-written page, certainly worth redoing from scratch. I did have a stab at defining what ought to go on an 'advanced construcion page' on the talk page. If what I outlined was done, I think we would have a legit, good-quality advanced contruction page. Conclusion - keep, but redo, basically from scratch?
 * Things to do to...: Several of these. They are all basically lists of gameplay suggestions ('activities' as you put it) - make a ballroom, make an armory, make a bowling alley, whatever. If a player is feeling bored or uninspired, that kind of list might fire their imagination a bit. But, you're right, they're not 'tutorials'. So what are they? 'Gameplay guides?' 'Sources of inspiration'? Even the deleted and not very lamented playing styles page (all 'challenges' in your terminology) kind of fits under this heading, it just got overlong and over-silly. But I think the wiki actually is a better place to keep this material than, say the forums. Conclusion: Create a new category, and move the better articles into it?
 * The Furniture guide is another good example. Even though individual pieces of furniture are trivial, a guide showcasing a variety of ways to make chairs, shelves, sofas, etc. would be useful, because it would teach people how to use minecraft blocks such as slabs, gates, upsidedown stairs etc. in creative ways - certainly a legit objective for the wiki. This is also something a lot of people are interested in, and would expect to find in the Wiki. Unfortunately almost all Minecraft furniture is purposeless rather than practical, so AFAICS furniture tutorials would fall foul of the new rules. I think that's a fault with the updated rules. Conclusion: New rules are a little too tight - relax/refine them?--Simons Mith 22:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Any and all pages in the Userspace, provided they do not break general user conduct rules, can exist.
 * cars? sure. rabbits? why not. gold golem? be our guest.
 * Regarding the other pages, it is being discussed in the community portal. I'd advise you add these thoughts to that page, so to allow the entire community to respond to this as, quite honestly, I'm tired, it's 11PM, I'm about to go to bed, and as I was browsing the tutorials, I myself got confused on what I should or shouldn't tag to delete. --Kizzycocoa 22:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, copying comments. I think you've caught all the least suitable 'tutorial' articles that ought to be reviewed/moved/culled. --Simons Mith 23:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well one problem is the tutorial creators are pretty young, so the writing quality isn't exactly professional/encyclopedic. The articles could be moved to the creators' userspace or deleted, but we could improve them first if the content isn't a "duplicate" or derivative of other tutorials. Also, Simon I don't think creating a new category for these types of pages is a good idea. That just groups poor quality content together; the goal should be to improve them. I already started minor cleanup on some of the pages, but haven't rewritten much yet. - Asterick6 (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)