User talk:Goandgoo

Mods page
There's been a proposal to split the Mods page into smaller subpages (loaders, aesthetic, new content, etc.). You seem to be the unofficial curator of the page, so I'd like to get your opinion about it. -- Orthotope 05:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Orthotope, thanks for that. I didn't know one would call me the 'unofficial curator'!! Anyway, I have embraced the name and have kept everyone posted on the Mod'sTalk page. Goandgoo 09:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello mate. I think you added the wrong links for snapshot 30c--130.225.0.218 12:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The links use an anchor which I don't know how to change. I believe an admin has to change it.
 * Silly me, I changed it and it's all good now.
 * good good :D now I've made a profile so now i can edit it as well :D --Txd 12:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Your choice of words
Your choice of words is a bit unfortunate. In your commit message of you wrote (Undo revision 353478 by user:Kumasasa (talk) Don't be stupid all you did was remove all of the past few edits. Also, don't fake the change "linked ref", only makes it worse). I don't like to be called stupid and that I would fake commit messages. Yes, I did make a mistake (read: Yes, I did make a mistake) while editing several versions instead of the last version, but that doesn't give you the right to call me stupid. BTW: About making mistakes, read the topic just above this one... --Kumasasa 18:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops sorry I thought it was deliberate. I will know for next time.
 * Ok, accepted. ...but I don't want to know what you write when you're impulsive ;-) --Kumasasa 21:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Section headers
Level 1 section headers are never appropriate in bodies of articles. Also, some of the pages you just created require a References section. -- Hower64 07:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I fixed them up. Sorry, didn't know that before. Goandgoo. Talk - Contribs 07:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Version history
Just out of curiosity, what makes redstonehelper's changelog more official than the one that was already here? As far as I can tell, he(?) has no connection to Mojang or any other source of privileged information. -- Orthotope 05:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redstonehelper's information was just simply more detailed and better set out than what was previously here. It was not official, I probably should've worded it better. Goandgoo. Talk - Contribs 01:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Couple of notes
Remember to use the show preview button; it helps prevent having to go back just to fix minor mistakes. And just a tip, with the history template, early versions of the game which can only be differentiated by their date of addition can be correctly anchored to by putting brackets around the dates, like here. (Note the brackets are not displayed outside of the code.) — Hower64 05:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for the advice, I'll keep that in mind for future edits I do. –   Goandgoo ᐸ  Talk  Contribs  Edit count 05:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Bugs
The purpose of bug lists on content pages is not to have the bugs fixed, but to inform readers that, when they encounter anomalous behaviour, it's a known issue. Ideally, these bug lists should link to the appropriate entry in the tracker. --74.105.190.207 08:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem I have found is that usually 60% of bugs have been fixed in an earlier version of Minecraft. Also, it is not an effective way to show bugs, as there could be much more prevalent bugs which are present, but not listed on the content pages. Furthermore, I have not seen one content page where the bugs linked to the Issue tracker, probably because people don't list it there. Basically I can't see the point of it being there if it's not going to be kept up to date, or if people just post random bugs there which may actually not be a bug (the issue tracker is monitored by moderators to make sure the bugs are actually bugs, unlike the content pages). –   Goandgoo ᐸ  Talk  Contribs  Edit count 09:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Just consider bugs as trivia. As a new user, I like to know stuff about a block, and to understand why some strange behaviours appear. So bugs should be kept in the wiki (except maybe some too technical bugs)


 * I think we should at least show the most long standing or critical bugs, or perhaps have a way to link to the tracker showing only bugs relating to that page? –ultradude25 ᐸ Talk Contribs 11:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I understand your point. However, the problem was, and as I previously stated, none of the bugs linked to the tracker. I remember a few pages, including Bed (go back a few revisions) where all the bugs were simply locked in a hidden section, which messages saying "please check to see if the bugs are current" etc. When looking back multiple revisions, it seems like some of these pages were left for months without change. So I have an idea. How about on each page in the bug section, there is a page listed with a custom search to the issue tracker - name of block (e.g. Bed) with the following criteria: Project: Minecraft, Minecraft Pocket Edition, Resolution:Unresolved. So that way, it will always be up to date. So if you searched bed with those criteria, you would end up with this page. What do you think? e.g.

Bugs

For all bugs relating to Beds, click here to visit the Issue Tracker.


 * Or at least something like that anyway. –  Goandgoo ᐸ  Talk  Contribs  Edit count 11:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * And we could use JIRA's API to pull some of those directly on to the page and have that link as a "view more" sort of deal. –ultradude25 ᐸ Talk Contribs 12:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Great idea, if you could somehow implement this into the wiki (hopefully it's not too hard to accomplish) it will be a great feature, meaning bugs won't have to be uploaded manually. –   Goandgoo ᐸ  Talk  Contribs  Edit count 12:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)