Template talk:Help

Move proposal
The result of the discussion was do not move.

It has been proposed to move this template to "Template:Minecraft Wiki".
 * "Minecraft Wiki" is just as vague and too-encompassing as "Wiki pages". I think "Help" is/was perfectly fine, for both the page's and navbox's title. &mdash;munin &middot; Book_and_Quill.png Stone Pickaxe.png &middot; 07:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it again, it could be too encompassing, though the idea was that these pages are about the Minecraft Wiki, rather than being about Minecraft (as Minecraft might reference). The main reason I don't like the title of "Help" is that a lot of these pages would not fit into a help category, as really only the first row and a few pages in the last one are help related pages.
 * In either case, the navbox title should definitely be made to reflect the template title. – KnightMiner  t/c 17:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It would make more sense to have it as "Minecraft wiki" as it just means pages relating to the Minecraft wiki while help would just mean help pages. Considering the template has pages about rules, general wiki pages and help, "Minecraft wiki" is definitely the better option. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Wolffillms (talk • contribs) at 22:59, 01 September 2015 (UTC). Please sign your posts with


 * . Rules and guidlines could be seen as help pages (they help you to edit correctly) and the other two sections are clearly help pages, so it seems a pretty appropriate name to me. Does WP have a similar category of navbox we can steal the name from?
 * Certainly not calling it "Wiki pages" because that just sounds like it's trying to be Special:AllPages. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 11:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A page about the rules and a page about helping are two completely different things. Wolffillms (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Most of Wikipedia's guidelines are divided into other navboxes, as they have so many guidelines, but they do have a "summary" navbox called "Writing guides" which could work as a title (I would agree to that title here).
 * On the topic of them being seen as help pages, while I understand where the idea is coming from, I personally don't feel they fit the category as their main purpose is to document the guidelines, rather than directly helping users edit correctly like some of the "Wiki help" pages do. As a point of comparison, Wikipedia has simplified versions of some of their guidelines on their help navbox as a way to help users understand the guidelines and help new users start editing correctly, but the actual guidelines are left to their "policies" and "manual of style" navboxs. – KnightMiner  t/c 14:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As the template contains much more than just help, I completely agree. Wolffillms (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * : I see that this is mainly intended as a template for pages to help the users: to learn how to edit wikis and what not to do, etc. A “Minecraft Wiki” navbox would contain more links to more pages — lists of projects, templates, users... Also, I think we should remove links to missing, incomplete pages and recent changes, since they don’t fit the scope of the navbox. One can visit them through Minecraft Wiki:How to help. — Agent NickTheRed37 (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * the templates purpose is to have all pages relating to the wiki. Rules and general pages are different from help pages. Wolffillms (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You’re misinterpreting it. Would it be intended for that, it would have a different name and contain more pages then. Policies and guidelines, once again (as said by Matt), can be considered help pages — they help users to learn how to behave and edit correctly. — Agent NickTheRed37 (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Having it being considered "help" is still a big stretch and Minecraft Wiki would still be a better term. Also "Help" still wouldn't cover the general pages. Wolffillms (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * per all who oppose. -BDJP (t 22:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Administrators and Bureaucrats?
Should at least admins and bureaucrats not also be included in the User rights section? Asarta  (Talk)  09:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)