Minecraft Wiki talk:Style guide/Versions

Proposed new section
I propose an amendment to Minecraft Wiki:Style guide/Versions.


 * Background

Since the announcement of 1.10, several features have been tweeted by the developers as being for 1.10, and several other features have been tweeted, but not mentioned when they would be added to PC.

Among that second category of features, include the Observer block, changes to the Structure block, and Nether Wart blocks.


 * The problem

The 1.10 page has been hit frequently with edits to the Planned Additions and Changes sections:
 * Observer block: Special:Diff/973112, Special:Diff/973132, Special:Diff/973624, Special:Diff/975226, Special:Diff/974930, Special:Diff/975278, Special:Diff/975622
 * Nether Wart blocks: Special:Diff/974348, Special:Diff/974547, Special:Diff/974691, Special:Diff/974747, Special:Diff/974844, Special:Diff/974877, Special:Diff/974930, Special:Diff/974976, Special:Diff/975156, Special:Diff/975226, Special:Diff/975278, Special:Diff/975337, Special:Diff/975620, Special:Diff/975643, Special:Diff/975935, Special:Diff/975940, Special:Diff/975954


 * Attempted solutions so far

Editor's notes have apparently been ineffective. Many of these edits have been due to VisualEditor, which does not make editor's notes obvious; they are effectively invisible to these editors.

We have just had to continue to revert these edits.


 * My own thoughts on why this problem is happening

I believe such people look at the page, and see simply that, for instance, Nether Wart blocks are not mentioned, and put an entry into the Planned Additions section.

I have the feeling that the majority of occasional editors are only slightly aware, if at all, of our Mentioned features page, and the distinction we try to strictly maintain, and this unawareness, in turn, is another reason they make that edit.

People who do see the notes know about the policy can still believe that the features are confirmed for 1.10.
 * It's my belief that most people can easily get the impression that since the developers tweeted it during 1.10 development, that means it's confirmed. This can lead to the editor note not preventing them from adding it.
 * If you look at who is adding the edits, it's sometimes even regular editors as well as casual editors.


 * Proposed solutions so far

On Talk:1.10, it was suggested that a link on the page to Mentioned features might be enough to stave off these edits.

I offer my criticism of that suggestion: For a person who scans the page looking for Nether Wart blocks, not seeing any specific mention of it, and not knowing enough about our policy to also consider the mentioned features page, that link will likely do nothing to stop them making their edit.


 * My proposed solution

It would be nice if something were stated on the page about those blocks, listing those blocks, stating they are not, in fact, stated as coming in 1.10, but instead have only been mentioned in the course of 1.10 development.

I do not propose muddling the meaning of the guidelines, or making changes to that at all. I fully believe it's important to be clear about what's planned and stated, with good references.

I do not propose a specific case-by-case exception to be made, temporarily, for the 1.10 page; I like it when rules are clear and can work well without exception, so I am proposing an amendment to the rules.

I propose a new section where such features and their status could be stated.

I believe that if editors read the text of the page, they would then easily find the mention of Nether Wart blocks. Furthermore, their mistaken impression that they're confirmed would be corrected, since we could include references and so forth.


 * Specific proposal

A new top-level section shall be permitted, called (for instance) "Unconfirmed features mentioned during development".

It would be allowed only for versions in development. It would only be permitted to contain features mentioned since that version started development, and only those that were never confirmed as planned / upcoming, and only those that were never released in a development version, and only those not explicitly promised for a different version. Added 21:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It should start with some short text, perhaps: "The following features were mentioned during 1.10 development, but were never confirmed for 1.10."

It should include a see-also template link to Mentioned features.

It should be concise -- It should not allow a big, multi-line description of each block / item / feature, as if we were detailing it fully. It would just be, for instance, "Taiga villages", "Observer block", etc -- because the purpose of this section is really to just state that these are unconfirmed features, and you shouldn't confuse them with confirmed features, the purpose is not to document the nitty gritty details. That can be done at mentioned features.

The features should be supported either by either:
 * a (non-joke) screenshot showing that a developer has worked on the idea
 * a developer's statement indicating they do plan to add the feature, not merely a statement responding to another person's idea. Added 21:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Example

Unconfirmed features ''The following features were mentioned during 1.10 development, but have not yet been confirmed for 1.10. Main article: Mentioned features''
 * Taiga villages
 * Jeb indicates he is "Not sure yet"
 * 'Observer' block
 * Jeb indicates it will come to PC 'eventually'
 * Two new blocks crafted from Nether Wart
 * Never specifically stated as coming in 1.10


 * Strengths of this proposal


 * It can directly educate the casual editor of the difference between confirmed and not-confirmed, a long-term benefit.
 * It can acknowledge the existence of the feature, and accurately describe its 'unconfirmed' status -- not leaving a reader with the impression that the wiki might be incomplete.
 * It communicates facts about the development of the version, and so, while it's definitely just a 'mentioned feature', it's also a 'feature mentioned during 1.10 development' and so it has a natural place on the page, from that perspective.
 * It doesn't encourage duplication of content, because it's simply naming some features, describing their status, and pointing to the main 'Mentioned features' page, where the screenshots and full details could be.
 * For all of the above reasons, it will probably stop people making so many edits to Planned Additions and Changes, which is the goal.

Submitted for your consideration, – Sealbudsman talk/contr 19:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

---


 * The original reason I proposed the planned additions/changes sections was for a similar purpose as this, basically editors kept adding features to the update article with no distinction of what was added, what was planned, and what was unsourced.
 * Along those lines, I think the section looks pretty good and should help with the issue of editors adding unconfirmed features. It might even be worth adding sectional links to Mentioned features for the features just so users can be directed to the exact location with more information. My only concern is to make sure features are actually have something to show the developer is planning them for some update soon and its not just a random idea they mentioned, basically not adding features where someones asks a dev on twitter "please add this" and the dev responds with "maybe" or "I like the idea".
 * On a related note, it might be worth combining planned additions and planned changes into planned features, as there is rarely enough content for both there and the difference when unadded is a little arbitrary at times
 * – KnightMiner  · (t) 03:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding the concern; I agree; proposal amended, shown in green . – Sealbudsman talk/contr 21:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with this change, and think it could work very well. Maybe we could also have links to the Pocket Edition pages for some features that were confirmed for 0.15.0, but not 1.10? Anyway, this would work out great and I hope it is implemented. Who decides whether these things gets changed? -PancakeMan77 (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If there's a consensus that people are okay with it / like it / won't oppose it, I think it's just as simple as agreeing on some wording, and once that's done, updating the Style Guide page. I think we're a little ways away from that; there's only 2 in support (3 including me) and personally I think it would be more credible if we, at minimum, heard the people from Talk:1.10, namely . – Sealbudsman talk/contr 20:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you've thought about this a fair amount and tried to come up with a good solution. I'm willing to give it a try; if this doesn't work out as intended, we can always come back and revise the policy. -- Orthotopetalk 21:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do it. Anomie x (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)