User talk:Fenhl

please sign your comments with ~

History template
Overall, this is nice, but it shouldn't be used to generate the section header. The problem is that there's no way to edit just the History section; you have to edit the entire page, or the previous section (e.g., Video in the case of Crafting Table). -- Orthotope 02:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't notice. Will change. —Fenhl 02:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed. —Fenhl 04:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making the template. This should make it easier to edit now with the standardization. Before, I spent so much time adding these history sections and trying to figure out how to present and format the content smoothly. Hopefully more people will add it the update history notes themselves since this format is much clearer and simpler. - Asterick6 (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. I originally got the idea for this template after seeing multiple history pages where things just weren't sorted chronologically. This should help fix that. —Fenhl 04:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Update: I've started a discussion on the template talk page. - Asterick6 (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't like it... :( you're messing up the original format... by merging all the content together and leaving out details with short descriptions like the ones being added. - Asterick6 (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We have found a way to make both things work. The table will show only the release info by default, and on the click of a button, the table expands to list all the details of what happened between releases. ultradude25 still needs to add the required JavaScript and CSS, but when that's done I will change the template to support this. —Fenhl 05:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Your undo of revision 368726 to Template:History
You reverted my addition of the header for development versions, claiming that "development versions go under Upcoming". I intended this to be for past releases, such as Beta 1.9 prereleases, 1.1 snapshots, et cetera. These would correspond to the page Version history/Development versions, and would not fit under an "Upcoming' header, as they are very outdated. ~Supuhstar * 20:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Beta 1.9 prereleases go under Minecraft 1.0.0, 1.1 snapshots go under Minecraft 1.1 — this has been discussed before. —Fenhl 20:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry; I haven't ever seen it be discussed and there was no such indication on the template. ~Supuhstar * 20:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well technically we agreed that the specific snapshot or prerelease in which a feature was introduced/changed would only be mentioned in the detailed view, but since this has not been coded we're abusing the overview like this. (And just to clarify: even when the detailed view is available, they will still be grouped like I described above) —Fenhl 21:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

History Template 2
Please do not undo the history template, it is for tweets that are already in the history section and template. Minecraft5025 15:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The feature you added already exists: use the parameter to refer to a tweet. As for the header, tweets are supposed to be sorted under the correct version, not their own header. —Fenhl 15:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Tweet header in history template is better than history template with no header and nothing else but the tweet.Minecraft5025 16:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There should always be another header, which one depends on the development cycle. For example, see the edit I made to Enchanting —Fenhl 17:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Preserve history
The style guide states, and I quote, "To provide accuracy, the update changes should retain the exact version of the update/change even when the full update comes out (e.g., 12w08a instead of 1.2)." e.g., 12w08a instead of 1.2 means that when something is added in a snapshot, that will be the history entry, contrary to your edit summary, which mentioned the opposite. It is not magically added again when the version is released. Think of the snapshots and releases as a linear timeline. We lose accuracy in history if a snapshot is forgotten and everything that happened in dev versions is changed to the release version number. In fact, for more accuracy, we should have a second column to the left of the snapshot versions that labels snapshots with their release versions, since the year and week number aren't indicative of the intended release version. Here's an example:

I'm making this suggestion here since you created the history template, along with the clarification of what the style guide suggests. Redstone Comparator was not added when 1.5 released, it was added in 13w01a, hence why I said "duplicate entry". 09:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This feature exists, your example can be written as follows:


 * However, if you look at the edit history of the Redstone Comparator article, you will see that I reverted another edit by User:NetherQuartz along with yours. The history table as of my edits was not “broken” as you wrote in your latest edit summary, and the collapsible details sections were always planned for snapshot changes that never made it into a full release. —Fenhl 10:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ahh, I see. I didn't actually look at the table, I just noticed the abnormal look and the extra double bracket in the diff and assumed it was broken. Sorry for not paying attention. I reverted my change, and it looks neater that way with the dev changes hidden btw. This was discussed on IRC, but I replied here for continuity.  10:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)