Minecraft Wiki talk:Community portal

This is the community's main discussion page.

Talk about anything wiki-related here!

Sign your posts with, add new posts below others, and click "Add topic" above for new topics.

Note that this page is NOT for suggesting new ideas about the game. That belongs on the forums.

Talk page guidelines
I've noticed many new users post messages on talk pages that get reverted by a more seasoned user due to violating general talk page usage. The problem is the new user has no way of knowing they were not suppose to do that, as it is never stated outside of edit summaries.

Currently the only two rules stated are only discuss the page and its content, and sign your posts. The best way to state the other guidelines are a page which will not only state the aforementioned two rules, but will also mentioned the following:
 * 1) Don't Generally avoid replying to a comment more than a year old, as the user is very unlikely to see it and your response most like was not relevant back then.
 * 2) Keep replies to the same topic as the original topic of that section.
 * 3) Don't edit other user's comments, except to sign unsigned comments or fix minor formatting errors (basically cover someone forgetting to use tl when discussing a template, forgetting to indent, and forgetting to escape a category/file link).
 * 4) Don't edit archives (it may seem obvious, but some people still edit them)
 * 5) Formatting guidelines, including proper usage of indentation for standard topics and consensus topics, and the proper way to link to a template, file, category, ect.
 * 6) Rule #5 (it relates to talk pages, it would be a good idea to have mention of it so it is all in the same spot)
 * 7) Rule #22, possibly with some extended guidelines on signatures (such as excessively larges files and text, this rule could theoretically be migrated to the page)
 * 8) That one thing I'm forgetting, and someone will remind me of in a reply (just so I covered everything)

– KnightMiner  · talk 03:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't use talk pages for anything other than discussion or (in delimited places in user talk pages) testing talk page features.
 * – Nick the Red37 — ru.wiki moderator (talk) 06:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to a proposed page with such guideline listing. Feel free to correct things or leave suggestions on the pages content.
 * NickTheRed37@undefined Thanks, I knew I was forgetting something.
 * – KnightMiner  · talk 23:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * So... – KnightMiner  · talk 22:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't like the first rule (can we number these for discussion purposes?). One year seems arbitrary, and I'd be happy to answer someone who responded to a years-old post. I'd just make that a recommendation or something to consider -- not something you would, say, undo for "breaking the rule".
 * For formatting, I wouldn't specify a specific number of indents before using outdent -- just use it when it feels right. Also, because of the way the wiki formats lists, I like to include a paragraph space between each user's comments -- that also makes it easier to follow the thread in the edit window which doesn't have indenting.
 * NickTheRed37's rule is fine for article talk pages, but it shouldn't apply to user talk pages -- there the user has total control of what is allowed on their talk pages, as long as it doesn't break the general rules.
 * &mdash;munin &middot; Grid_Book_and_Quill.png Grid_Stone_Pickaxe.png &middot; 00:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It would make sense to change that to recommended, although in most case of replying to an old comment it is a anon telling someone from 2011 to use a hopper to collect items (well, along those lines). I would agree to it being strongly advised rather than revert worthy though.
 * The number was mainly just copied from the template, I changed it to simply use eight as a standard. And I like the idea of adding a line break between comments by separate users (I already do that normally)
 * That makes sense, considering the wiki rules. The page now states the only user talk page requirements from that list that is not from MCW:Wiki rules is not editing other people's comments.
 * – KnightMiner  · talk 00:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've made one last tweak, as it is mostly generally agreed upon. The signature guidelines now states that the username should either link to your user page (eg, Knight), or display your username (eg, KnightMiner), for the sake of identification. It also forbids impersonating another user by displaying their name and linking to their page (if my signature claimed I as one of the admins for example).
 * I am a little unsure of how far to extend the last part, as in what would qualify impersonation. It might happen that someone wishes to link another user's page for some reason, and display names are allowed, but both should not be combined. – KnightMiner  · talk 16:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * What you have sounds reasonable to me. Basically, signatures need to identify the user who made a comment. The MediaWiki default both displays the username and links to their userspace, which is great. Some users may want to display a different name (such as munin, above); as long as there's still a link to their userspace, this is fine when the display name is a variation on their actual username, but something like Bob starts getting confusing. Not including a link is questionable at best – Wikipedia actively prohibits it – and I don't see any reason why one person's signature should link to another person's userspace. -- Orthotopetalk 23:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't have anything against it being more strict. Most users already follow those guidelines, and those who don't it is usually by accident.
 * More specifically, I agree signatures should contain a link to a users page or talk page, to help with identification. In this case, it might make sense to go even farther to require a link to their main/talk/contribution page, otherwise the guideline should at least advise it. I would also agree to limit display names to being directly similar to the original name.
 * With linking another user's page, the only reason I can think of are to clearly show alternate accounts, so I would agree to advise against linking another user's page, if not forbidding it.
 * It does raise the question of other links though, wikipedia directly forbids external links, category links, and files in signatures, and advises against links not directly related to general information. I think we should take a similar stance taking a similar stance towards external, category, and internal links, though I am unsure about files (the reasons against using them make sense, though files are used to show curse or mojang staff in a few cases). – KnightMiner  · talk 05:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Rather than forbid replying to old topics, we should instead try to archive them better.
 * I think it should be a rule that signatures must contain a link to one of your user pages (not sure if it is necessary to limit that to the more main ones, like main/main talk/contribs/logs), and the name should be similar to your username. It's really inconvenient when someone doesn't have a link to one of their user pages. I think wikipedia's rules are sensible, however as we don't have the talk page density that they have, I think it is fine to allow files, but limit them to one, maybe two at the most as well as sensible size restrictions. Speaking of which, an additional guideline should be that your signature shouldn't increase the line height, doing so causes the rest of the text surrounding the line with the signature to have excess spacing that makes it less readable. It's not like there isn't plenty of room to use anyway. Even though my signature spans two lines, the text is smaller and is pulled closer together, so it still stays within the standard line height. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 05:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

We do need a better archiving system, that could be a later project though (would be nice to have one of those archiving bots like Wikipedia has, but a wiki project would make sense for now) We should at least archive entries that are over a year old. (On the proposal page, I did change it to advise against replying to old comments, rather than directly forbid.)

With the line height guideline, I do agree the line height change can be annoying and affect reading negatively. We should definitely advise against it, if not disallow it. For the most part, tags such as small, sup, and sub have little to no visual effect on line height (unless you have too big of font size), so the main things that would affect are files (20 pixel height limit sounds good), and 's signature. – KnightMiner  · talk 15:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * So, any more/final comments on the guidelines? Otherwise, would anyone have anything against implementing them? Assuming there is enough of a consensus then, I can implement the guidelines in a week or so. Link to the proposed guidelines.
 * It may also be relevant to use the MediaWiki:Sitenotice to alert users of the change for at least a week after, as from what I've seen, many of them don't read the community portal discussions. (it was most notable with the upcoming features rewrite) – KnightMiner  · talk 15:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My rule about usage of user talk pages can be rephrased like so, changing it from a policy to a guideline: “Using user talk pages for things other than discussion or testing talk page features is discouraged.” —  Agent Nick the Red37 (talk &middot; contribs) f.k.a. Naista2002 16:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My rule about usage of user talk pages can be rephrased like so, changing it from a policy to a guideline: “Using user talk pages for things other than discussion or testing talk page features is discouraged.” —  Agent Nick the Red37 (talk &middot; contribs) f.k.a. Naista2002 16:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Currently rather than advising against non-talk usage, it advises towards good talk page usage (the rule about talk page usage is advised on user talk pages). I flipped it to discourage non-talk usage. In the case of talk page sandboxes, they would fit the category of advised against usage, but the user is free to do it still. – KnightMiner  · talk 16:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I have a couple of additional guidelines to consider: pinging and signature interwiki links.
 * Pinging should generally be used for pulling someone into a subject that warrants their attention, which they may not be watching. This means that it doesn't apply to the user's own talk page, as they should be getting notifications there already. Replying (which is really just pinging with an @ in front of it), should be used when your reply is to multiple people. It isn't necessary when your reply is to the previous post (the one directly above and one indentation level less), unless you feel they may not be watching the subject (a passing comment rather than a full reply, perhaps), and so you also wish to alert them to your reply.
 * Interwiki links probably shouldn't be used in signatures, at least not as the only link. Suddenly being taken to another wiki (even if just another language version) can be confusing, and a nuisance if you actually wanted to access a user page or user function on the original wiki. On a related (but not to this topic) note, we should probably also advise against redirecting at least the main user/user talk pages to another wiki/language, and instead use a soft redirect (and actually create that template too). –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 00:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The pinging guideline makes sense, it helps to know which user someone is replying to, and it would be a good idea to state when pings are needed and when they are redundant. With the layout of the proposed guideline it would likely fit best in formatting, if not its own section.
 * As for interwikis, assuming we do not declare them as external links, that could be covered by requiring the link to your user page to be your English wiki user page, as I don't see any other useful English link to require them to have. Someone from another wiki could then link internally to their main page, and interwiki their talk page, or vice versa.
 * Yeah, that template would be useful, though I think only user pages would use it right now.
 * – KnightMiner  · talk 00:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * So, any more points/guidelines to discuss before implementing? Otherwise, I will implement it shortly. – KnightMiner  · (t) 17:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If there is, it can't be anything important or someone would've thought of it by now. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 02:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Since this topic has contained all agreement and the current revision of the page has had no major changes in over two weeks, I've moved the page to the "Minecraft Wiki" namespace to be treated as official guidelines. Now would be a good time for that site notice related to this topic and.
 * Looking over the archives of the community portal and a few other pages, I also find it interesting to note that a few of the policies were already "in place" from previous discussions, such as the guideline about image size in signatures, and there may be a few more relevant to add from MCT:Wiki rules/Archive 1 (specifically editing the main topic without noting it, and removing old sections other than for archiving. – KnightMiner  · (t) 04:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Minecraft texture for blue boxes
Following up the previous topic, where I mentioned a lighter stone color for the blue boxes. I applied a texture like that to Minecraft Wiki/editcopy, and I am wondering what opinions are on the design (as no one replied to any proposal in the previous topic other than the dirt). – KnightMiner  · talk 05:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks okay, though I'm concerned there's not enough contrast between the black text and gray stone texture. -- Orthotopetalk 06:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I brightened it somewhat to increase the contrast. I think the contrast is alot better, the only place I'm at all concerned is completely standard text (which is only used on MCW:Community portal) – KnightMiner  · talk 23:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Much better, though I'd like to get Majr's opinion before rolling it out to the main page. -- Orthotopetalk 00:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I still don't like the new boxes as the black text and the grey backbround blend in far too much. I think using stone is probably not great as the box background. –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk Contribs Edits 02:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * One option would be recoloring the stone to make it blend slightly less; either lightening it more or giving it a tint, provided it does not take away from the Minecraft feel.
 * If using a different block, we would need to make sure it is iconic enough to denote usage on most pages, while being simple enough that words can be read on it. That basically leaves block such as stone, cobblestone, dirt, grass, wooden planks, obsidian, maybe clay or sand, wool, possibly stone bricks, water, and lava. From that list, stone does fit the criteria the best, as the rest are either not as iconic or too dark/noisy.
 * Otherwise we could keep the current, but that really both does not say "Minecraft" like the rest of the skin, and has been in place for awhile (over three years it seems). – KnightMiner  · talk 14:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * White text on dirt might be reasonably readable. -- Orthotopetalk 15:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally don't like that bright stone texture, I still prefer the dirt one although I have to say that the texture really was way too dark, so I made an experiment on my test page (compare: former (darker) version). I also blurred the background file so you can read the white text better. | violine1101(Talk) 18:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I personally still think it is a little dark, as it requires a font color of white. I am not fully sure what can be done about that though. – KnightMiner  · (t) 16:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe use wood planks texture? ru:Обсуждение:Заглавная страница/Копия, Заглавная страница/Копия, ru:Файл:Фон заголовков заглавной.png, ru:Файл:Фон заголовков заглавной 2.png, ru:Файл:Фон заголовков заглавной 3.png — NickTheRed37 (former Naista2002) (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe use wood planks texture? ru:Обсуждение:Заглавная страница/Копия, Заглавная страница/Копия, ru:Файл:Фон заголовков заглавной.png, ru:Файл:Фон заголовков заглавной 2.png, ru:Файл:Фон заголовков заглавной 3.png — NickTheRed37 (former Naista2002) (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I had previously ruled it out, due to me thinking it would not look good, but it actually is not that bad, especially the third one (birch, right?). It also solves the issue I was having with the stone being to monochromatic. One minor concern is it does not blend as well with the light blue background, though the yellow message boxes have been doing the same thing for years.
 * It also sort of makes sense if you conciser the background as natural Minecraft terrain, and the blue headers as player made buildings, though I might be stretching it a bit. – KnightMiner  · (t) 19:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the planks texture causes that the text ("About Minecraft", "Play it!", etc.) is more difficult to read, but I think that the birch planks texture would be a good choice if we take a planks texture. Anyway, the dirt texture can always be lightened - also it should be mentioned that the dirt texture is also used in Minecraft itself in the menu. As I earlier said, the texture of buttons would also be an option, but is technically difficult (and would also cause some problems on the German wiki's main page) . | violine1101(Talk) 19:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Edited 19:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Korean wiki already uses changed headers: ko:마인크래프트_위키. I just wanted to add that, form your own opinion. | violine1101(Talk) 17:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC) (I have absoulutely no idea why I duplicated this section, sorry for the inconvenience! | 18:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC))

Markus Persson/editcopy?
Everyone probably knows this message box by now: Surprisingly, why is there no editcopy version of Markus Persson? BDJP007301 01:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there a need for one? Since he's no longer at Mojang, and didn't actively work on Minecraft for several years before it was sold to Microsoft, I don't imagine there will be many changes that need to be made on that page. -- Orthotopetalk 04:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, seeing as this template says that every user can contribute to every page, not allowing an editcopy version of that page would just be egregarious lying. BDJP007301 00:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Not if we allow changes to be proposed on the talk page, which allows any user to contribute. I've done that before on that page. – KnightMiner  · talk 00:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * An editcopy has the advantage of showing the exact suggestion, whereas a talk page can only be used to propose the basic idea and has the possibility of miscommunication. I know this from experience not the planned versions talk page before I had an account. ~From Contrapple Grid Empty Map.png 03:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should try using mw:Extension:Approved Revs? It's like FlaggedRevs, but not ridiculously overcomplicated and (hopefully) buggy. It could be used instead of page protection, which would then be used for handling spam. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 02:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That could work, and I . BDJP (t 14:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but it may appear to be redundant. . —  Grid Command Block.png NickTheRed37 (talk&#124;contributions) 15:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I like the idea behind it, but I am not so sure about the specific implementation, as it requires either a magic word for approvals (which the page claims has a few bugs), or setting entire namespaces to require approval, rather than adding a specific protection level per page. This would mean we would get increased amounts of revisions/posts on talk pages wondering why their edit is not shown (as we already know that most users don't read the edit notices) and it would require either additional administrators to maintain it, or a new usergroup for reviewing pages. – KnightMiner  · (t) 21:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. The namespace setting and magic word are to make pages approvable, as in allowing approving to be enabled. Requiring edits to be approved on an approvable page is as simple as approving an edit, and no longer requiring edits to be approved is as simple as unapproving the current approved edit. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 14:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean by setting unapproved pages to not be blank, but not display an unapproved page warning? I hadn't though of that, but in that case I don't have anything against the extension. – KnightMiner  · (t) 15:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * By default, unapproved pages act like the extension isn't installed. It's only approved pages which show a message, which we could hide. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 02:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * On a semirelated note, I disagree with the wording in that notice (I haven't brought it up before because I've never paid it any attention until now): we definitely do not allow every user to edit every page; even ignoring the obvious issue of interface pages and high-use templates and files, banned users are not allowed to edit (that's the whole point to their being banned). I would suggest cutting "every" from "every user" at the least, and maybe change "contribute" to "propose changes", since that's effectively what the editcopy pages are intended for. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 03:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Can be insta-mined
I think we should add this into pages in some sort of way (the lowest tool that can instamine a siad block), and add enchantments if necessary. Like put on a page you need efficienccy V and haste II on a daimond pickaxe to insta stone, while a efficiency stone axe will melt mushrooms. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if I see it as useful, I don’t feel like it should be added. I’m Nick the Red37</b>, f.k.a. Naista2002 </b> 19:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem with insta-mining is it is rather relative, and actually is not instant, just very fast. The only blocks that can really be insta mined would be slime blocks and tnt
 * This might make a relevant tutorial though, possibly under mining tips. – KnightMiner  · talk 20:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It's slightly interesting for harder blocks, but I don't think it's generally useful. Part of the problem is that there are too many ways to do it. For example, saying that "huge mushrooms can be insta-mined by a gold, diamond, or iron axe, or an Efficiency I stone axe, or an unenchanted stone axe with Haste I, or an Efficiency III wooden axe, or an unenchanted wooden axe with Haste III, or an Efficiency II wooden axe with Haste I, or an Efficiency I wooden axe with Haste II" doesn't really help anyone. If there was exactly one way to insta-mine a block in Survival mode, that might be more noteworthy. -- Orthotopetalk 21:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Reform the style guide and wiki rules
I've noticed the style guide currently lacks the ability to expand, as it only lists sections for general feature articles. On a similar note, guidelines on article create are split in multiple places, and are even hard to find within their places, such as the rules has notability as random numbers.

A possible solution would be this proposed rewrite from by sandbox, containing the following pages:
 * Style guide
 * Mostly contains the current style guide, minus the layout sections. <small style="color:green">This change was implemented on 15:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The section "Section headings" links to the general sections. <small style="color:green">The section "Article layout" was kept to link to the subpages.
 * The section "Notability" comes mostly from the wiki rules, except General 4 and 5, which are from the style guide's future section/ <small style="color:green">This change was implemented on 17:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability's wiki rules are duplicated from the remaining rules. They are mainly there so all the information is in one place.
 * One of the current wiki rules was moved to the section "Images" (previously "Image captions") <small style="color:green">This change was implemented on 17:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Article titles" general title format is entirely based on general practice.
 * Style guide/General features <small style="color:green">Page was moved to MCW:Style guide/Features on 15:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Contains the general sections for the most part copied from the current style guide.
 * Style guide/Versions
 * A style guide proposed on the style guide talk page previously. Everyone in the topic liked it, but there were only two of us there (including me).
 * Wiki rules <small style="color:green">Implemented at 00:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Will contain stuff that is block worthy, rather than just any random policy we want to list (except maybe what would be rule #7).
 * Removed all the rules that are now within the style guide.
 * The note about the userspace was moved as well, as now all the rules are required in the user space (except where noted)
 * Also removed the talk page guidelines, since if we are going to be changing all the numbers, might as well only do it once. (see )

The major advantages of this proposal are that the style guide will be more organized, as well as the wiki rules being all major violations, rather than half being minor. The style guide is also easier to expand for other article types, such as mods, template documentation, and tutorials.

The major disadvantage other than some rearrangement of information (making it confusing for a bit remembering where things are now) is that most of the wiki rule's numbers change, causing previous edit summaries to be broken. Things such as some deletion summaries also would need to be updated to support the notability guidelines rather than rules.

– KnightMiner  · talk 00:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Another thing this would have the ability to solve is the controversy over various parts of version pages, specifically bug tracker titles. With the current style guide, there is no place to put such a guideline relating to anything that is not general article style or specific to feature articles. – KnightMiner  · talk 01:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry for butting in to your huge paragraph of changes, but I sort of don't like the tracker title idea. Knight, do you remember the time that I told you I'm not used to sudden change? Well, I really don't feel like wanting to spit it out here (a bit shy on discussing this condition), but I suffer from High-functioning autism a.k.a Asperger's syndrome a.k.a "Autism Level 1" (kudos to Holtz for that name).
 * When I feel like there's a sudden change in my real-life schedule, I feel like I need to release all my anger. That same thing went for when Majr edited a tracker title on 1.4.6. NickTheRed decided today to rewrite almost all of the tracker titles on that page after wondering if I read Majr's notice regarding tracker titles. I told myself to stay calm, but my mind kept on telling me to revert every single little change. I eventually decided to give in.
 * Story aside, I'll now ageee to this change, but on the condition that all nouns (Piston, Baby, Cow, etc.) are capitalized. BDJP007301 02:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * On the subject of bug report titles, I don't think it's necessary to rewrite them for the most part. Occasionally there's one that's so badly written it's hard to understand, which should be improved, but I don't see a need to go through all 200+ pages that use bug just to change capitalization and minor grammar issues. I can understand not liking sudden changes to the way we do things; that's why this is a proposal for discussion, rather than one user deciding to change things without consulting anyone else. -- Orthotopetalk 03:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Other than a preference towards title readability (correcting typos and impossible to understand titles, code tags/cmd where relevant, ect), I don't have anything against changing the style or the current style, but I am against using inconsistent styles or switching back and forth between the two.
 * The main thing I was proposing here was a place for the guideline, and turning current standard practice into guidelines to avoid unneeded repeated discussions, which I brought up here as I felt it was directly related. That, and I've had quite a few proposals go unanswered, without anyone agreeing or disagreeing.
 * Sorry if I offended you with my actions. I often tend to be eager (if not overly eager) to use a new solution or method. – KnightMiner  · talk 03:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's fine for you to disagree with a change and discuss it, however using your condition as a sole reason for not liking a change is not an acceptable argument. There's no reason that tracker titles should be left at a poor standard compared to the rest of the wiki, especially since the lists are not automatically populated, and thus have to use the original titles.
 * It's not necessary to go through every page and fix every title to have perfect grammar and formatting, but they should at least be readable and have useful formatting like links.
 * As for the capitalisation: I don't see why tracker titles should treat those words as proper nouns when the rest of the wiki doesn't. If you don't agree with that capitalisation, that is something to take up with the general style guide. –Majr ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:9px;vertical-align:-3px>Talk Contribs 05:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it makes a lot of sense and will be less confusing to have individual guidelines for different types of pages split out from the general guide. I would recommend starting out by just moving the general article structure (what should we actually call these types of pages?) to its own style guide page and any other rules specific to other types of pages to their own pages. Afterwards any changes to the style guides can be proposed as normal. This gets things organised now, rather than having that held up waiting for people to agree on changes to the actual guidelines themselves.
 * The rule changes as well I agree with, but I'm not sure what the best way to handle the changes should be. Here's the options I can think of:
 * Rules that no longer apply get moved to another section on the page, but keep their number. Any new rules always get a new number that hasn't previously been used. This retains links, but will continually increase the page size and rule numbers (as well as having gaps in the numbering), and clutter the page with old rules that don't matter any more.
 * "Version" the rules page. So the old rules page would be left as it is aside from a notice stating they no longer apply, and then a new page would be created somewhere (Wiki rules/v2? Wiki rules/Revision 2? Wiki rules/2015?). This also retains links, and keeps the "current" version clean with just the relevant information. However, maybe the page naming isn't so appealing, and anyone that ends up on the main wiki rules page will be looking at an old version. We could fix that by moving the existing rules page as version 1, but this then breaks links, and if we have the original page name redirect to the current version, this encourages people to create links that could break in the future.
 * Archive the old rules, as we do with talk pages, then leave links to previous versions of the rules. This keeps the main rules page current and clean, but breaks existing links, requiring the original rule to be hunted down in the archives. Obviously this is no worse than what we already do with talk pages, but that is a technical limitation from wikis not having an actual discussion system, rather than a good way to handle things.
 * –Majr ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:9px;vertical-align:-3px>Talk Contribs 05:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll split out the general sections to their own page shortly if no one disagrees. For the most part the style does not contain other page types yet, so we can continue from there with what other guides to add. The best titles I could come up with were "Features" with an optional prefix of "General", or splitting it further into "Blocks and items", "Entities", and "Structures", though splitting would lead to duplicate sections across article types.
 * As for proposals of actual guidelines, everything except "Article titles" and the version style guide are already rules in action, so assuming the new format is agreed upon, I can start the reorganizing, which would be moving notability guidelines and the image guideline from the rules and later adding the currently general practice guideline from.
 * I think archiving the rules would make the most sense, to preserve the commonly used name. It should be fine, as long a section/archive box is added with rule usage periods (so old talk page posts/edit summaries can use their date to discover the rule). Maybe we could add a notice to the top stating the start period of the current rules as well.
 * – KnightMiner  · talk 05:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A similar idea for article-specific style guides is used in work-in-progress Russian wiki's style guide. It uses a tree layout for them, and links to avoid duplicate information. —  Agent Nick the Red37 (talk &middot; contribs) f.k.a. Naista2002 05:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That could work, though it does become slightly confusing for the general section links.
 * Another option might be transcluding the sections, which would add a bit of confusion only to the editing (though if done right, the section editing links would lead to the proper place).
 * Otherwise, since most feature articles follow the general format listed, except with variants on the names (obtaining for blocks and items, spawning for mobs, generation/creation for structure...), the titles could be changed to state variants (Obtaining / Spawning / Creation), and add anchors for each variant, though that may become more confusing. – KnightMiner  · talk 16:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The article structure section on that style guide is here. There are the general guidelines on article layout, and links to sub-guides for guidelines specific to different articles. I may move the general ones to a separate sub-page. But that is a different style guide for a different wiki and discussing it here is off-topic. —  Agent Nick the Red37 (talk &middot; contribs) f.k.a. Naista2002 16:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've implemented the first change (moving the article layout to a sub page). If all goes well, I will start moving a few of the rules over in a day or two. It could be split further if desired, having the specific sections link to subpages "Features/Blocks and items" or "Features/Entities", or some other system that gets chosen.
 * To explain my editing up top, green is notes edited in later, gray is implemented stuff, and strikeout is canceled. – KnightMiner  · talk 15:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Rules relating to notability and images were copied over to the style guide. Can an administrator remove said rules from MCW:Wiki Rules, archiving the current rules?
 * Since rules 18 and 22 are likely to get moved soon due to, I would place them at the end so the numbers are only required to change once.
 * Also, rule 12 does not really fit with the rest of the remaining rules, although I cannot think of a better place to put it. – KnightMiner  · talk 17:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, notability could be listed separate from the style guide, which would make the anchors a bit easier to deal with, and allow it to be protected without protecting the style guide. (sample here)
 * In any case though, something needs to be done with the wiki rules to finish this discussion, and the rules are administrator protected. – KnightMiner  · (t) 16:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The rules have been updated, with both the changes here and the talk page guidelines, since they don't belong there either way. I've left the archive page unlocked, if you want to make any changes to it.
 * In addition, I added the style guide to the sidebar. You may wish to propose a better tooltip for it. –Majr ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:9px;vertical-align:-3px>Talk Contribs 09:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown still needs to be updated, adding a new group for notability violation and updating the rule numbers. Currently I have not added anchors to specific notability guidelines, as based on what is wanted we would have only one delete reason for all of notability, or one per guideline. A single reason could be something like "Violates notability", although mentioning which guideline they violated would likely be better.
 * I don't have anything against the tooltip for the style guide, as it seems rather consistent with the other tooltips. I am mainly glad the link was added, as I use it frequently. – KnightMiner  · (t) 20:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It occurred to me while updating the reason dropdowns that rule #11 is a duplicate of rule #4, rule #7 sounds like it belongs in the style guide, and rule #12.1 should be its own rule, rather than a sub-rule of abusing multiple accounts. –Majr ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:9px;vertical-align:-3px>Talk Contribs 02:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Since these have only been in place for a day, I doubt they are heavily linked enough to require archiving again, so I would just make those changes:
 * Rule #11 does seem to be covered by rule #4, although I assume it was added due to Herobrine. If needed 4 can be expanded to specifically state facts must be from actual game features.
 * I really don't see why 12.1 is a subrule, I agree it should be its own rule.
 * Based on the new rules requirements, 7 could easily be moved to a brief line in "Writing". I cannot foresee anyone being blocked for not leaving edit summaries.
 * – KnightMiner  · (t) 02:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . Once the guidelines are all in place, we should probably put up a site notice about the rule and guideline changes. –Majr ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:9px;vertical-align:-3px>Talk Contribs 04:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You might want to reinstate the disallowing of users from abusing multiple accounts in the user namespace. (numbers changed, but not user namespace exceptions).
 * As for the rest of the stuff left incomplete, I'll propose that on the style guide a little later. – KnightMiner  · (t) 04:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Fixed. –Majr ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:9px;vertical-align:-3px>Talk Contribs 04:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The remaining two things have been moved to MCT:Style guide, as well as a few other minor proposals. – KnightMiner  · (t) 23:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Indestructible blocks
Do you think a Category:Indestructible blocks would be useful? This category is for blocks that cannot be broken in Survival mode. 108.210.219.49 00:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There would not be a lot of blocks (Bedrock, barriers, End portals, command blocks, and Nether portals if you do not count breaking the frame), so I am not so sure of the usefulness. If needed, a user can simply check Hardness and see all the blocks that cannot be broken by hand. – KnightMiner  · talk 16:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

New administrator
1, 2, 3. The activity of admins on this wiki is dropping down, to the point that administrative actions may take much time to be done. In that time, everything can happen: a new snapshot of 1.9 (with much new blocks, items, entities etc.) or a mass vandalism/spam attack.

To respond to that, we need a new active administrator, and I’m confident that KnightMiner is best candidate for it.

'''Unsigned comments by new or anonymous users will be deleted. Please sign your comments with, which also can be added with or  button.'''

—  Agent Nick the Red37 (talk &middot; contribs) f.k.a. Naista2002 13:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * KnightMiner, Majr, Dinoguy1000, JEC6789, LauraFi, Orthotope, BDJP007301, Goandgoo, GreenStone, ToonLucas22, Munin295? — NickTheRed37 (former Naista2002) (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I doubt I am the best person to state reasons why I should be promoted, due to this wiki's administrator promotion policy, so rather I will state a few other things.
 * The administrator activity is a bit lower than before, though most administrative issues are dealt with in a reasonable amount of time (Majr's response to the first mentioned topic stated that for the most part). The main thing my promotion would change as far as administrator activity is a couple hours where I am online and no administrators are online (towards the early middle of the time I can be found here).
 * Overall, I would advise if you think I should be promoted to change or expand your approach to state if and why you think my skills or experience would be helpful as an administrator, rather than only my time.
 * Also, ping automatically comma separates – KnightMiner  · (t) 18:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * : Basically agreeing with what KnightMiner said. On the contrary of administrator activity, (apologies beforehand to every admin and bureaucrat for checking the contributions) there have been some admins who have been inactive for quite a long time. Take IKJames, Hower64, and Kanegasi for example, who have been inactive since 2011 and 2013, respectively. I think we could promote a few more admins if need be. BDJP007301 (t 20:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm still not convinced that we need more admins for the sake of having more admins. However, KnightMiner has made many good contributions, particularly to templates, modules, and the MediaWiki interface, but has often had to ask admins to make the actual edits to protected pages. I think the wiki would be well-served by letting him make these changes directly, instead of going through someone else. -- Orthotopetalk 04:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Split PE versions into their own articles?
I think the PE versions (listed in version history as of right now) should probably be split into their own pages. I talked about this in Talk:Planned versions regarding 0.11.0 being split into a new article (before it got too big) a short while ago and Knight suggested that I should start a discussion here.

TL;DR Should we split the PE versions into their own articles or leave them as is? BDJP007301 (t 19:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I would support splitting them. A few preparations would need to be made first, such as better support for non-PC versions in version nav (eg, support for multiple release dates and listing which editions got the release at all out of the four mobile versions). We would also need a value for the edition parameter which sets categories and likewise ("Pocket Edition", "Pocket" or "Mobile" would make sense). Lastly we would have to decide a consistent naming format (as of right now, "Pocket Edition version" seems to be the most popular).
 * I could work on the version nav changes if there is enough consensus to split the articles. – KnightMiner  · talk 19:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I will move everything in the section. Note that if the page is actually moved, the new page would have irrelevant information. ~From Contrapple Grid Empty Map.png 22:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Merge granite, andesite, and diorite
I propose that granite, andisite and diorite, as the only differences are their look and the way they are crafted.Please state your opinion.71.35.109.25 19:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * They should be merged with stone. And . – LauraFi -  talk  21:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This was discussed a year ago, see Talk:Granite. The general opinion was to avoid merging them, as rather than decrease the confusion, it would increase the confusion. A similar case was discussed a couple times on Talk:Red Sandstone to merge with Sandstone, and the two cases basically stated that even if blocks function the same way, the community prefers article separate.
 * Specifically, there is no title the three variants can be merged under that would make sense, and they are too different from stone to consider merging it with that article. Also the crafting recipes would become confusing attempting state the block can be crafting into another colored block. – KnightMiner  · talk 00:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * How about decoration stone.71.35.109.25 14:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Since they are never called that in game, nor do any of the titles contain "decoration" or "stone", it would simply lead to confusion. – KnightMiner  · (t) 15:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Account
I attempted to create an account, but I do not have an email.67.160.25.176 00:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The only solution would be for you to create an email. Many places offer a free email account, and you do not have to use the email account after signing up. – KnightMiner  · talk 00:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Why do they ask for your email address?71.35.109.25 03:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * See gphelp:Logging in (fifth bullet point).
 * According to that, the email should not be required, but it is recommended to help with identification. For example, should you ever have difficulties logging in makes it easier to contact support. – KnightMiner  t/c 03:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What happens if you try to use someone else's email address?71.35.109.25 02:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You will not be able to confirm the email address, which prevents you from using any of the email features, thus defeating the purpose of adding the email. – KnightMiner  · (t) 02:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The page says that if you use your email, you will be able to send and receive emails, but even unregistered users can send and receive messages.71.35.109.25 02:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do have email. Does it matter what website an email address is using?71.35.109.25 00:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't, any site should work, provided its a valid email address (name@website). – KnightMiner  · (t) 03:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is the wiki "official" ?
Hi, the main page's title is "Official Minecraft Wiki - The ultimate resource for all things Minecraft", but can someone explain me why it is official ? Did Mojang say something about it ?

I am wondering this because of that... • ObelusPA2 d · FR Admin · 14:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ask Citricsquid via email. — NickTheRed37</b> t ⁄ c (f.k.a. Naista2002) 14:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Try asking VaultAusir, see Special:Diff/631033. – LauraFi -  talk  14:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * https://minecraft.net/community, under 'Official Resources'. -- Orthotopetalk 15:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! • ObelusPA2 d · FR Admin · 17:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Periodic Table
I think there should be a page that shows the periodic table of Minecraft.71.35.109.25 16:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no periodic table of Minecraft. Creating anything as such would be a fan made product, and would not belong here. Try the forums if you want such a table. – KnightMiner  · (t) 16:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Non-renewable creative mode items
I disagree with including creative mode items in Category:Non-renewable resources, they seem out of place there. Maybe creative mode items should have their own category, which could be a sub-category of non-renewables. That would still leave outlying cases like items that can only be obtained by inventory editing. Has this already been discussed? Is there a wikiproject for categorization? PhilHibbs (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Minecraft Wiki:Projects/Categorization —  NickTheRed37</b> t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) 14:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * With the way the categories are added, it would not be easy to denote which are creative only using subcategories, though it could be done. (currently the categories are added automatically, but that would require them being added manually or change the infobox design)
 * Other than that, I don't really have anything against it, though a few more categories than creative only would be relevant.
 * Also, with the project mentioned above, it is currently not very active as far as discussing the categories, but I would still be open to discussing it there. – KnightMiner  · (t) 16:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They technically count because you can't get them in Survival. 108.216.28.48 00:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Missing texture
Should we have a page on the missing texture? If yes, please upload a picture of the current magenta-black checkerboard missing texture. 108.216.28.48 00:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Lockedchest13w18b.png. I don't think we need an entire page for it, but it could be mentioned at Resource pack. -- Orthotopetalk 00:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Default User Page
I recently created my account and user page. However, my page defaults to my profile. How do I change this?Contrapple (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Go to Special:Preferences. | violine1101(Talk) 14:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Which section? I tried everything that would make sense.Contrapple (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In Special:Preferences, go to User Profile and scroll down to Public Profile. Then, click on the box with Page Type next to it and select Use a standard wiki user page. BDJP (t 14:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Can't change my signature correctly
I attempted to change my signature using. However, when I saved my preferences, "SUBT:" was automatically added just before the word "ItemSprite", which messed things up. How can I fix this?Contrapple 03:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Templates aren't allowed in signatures. –Majr ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:9px;vertical-align:-3px>Talk Contribs 03:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I tried using the file and got ~From Contrapple Map (Item).png 03:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC).


 * You can't put files inside links. Use . –Majr ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:9px;vertical-align:-3px>Talk Contribs 03:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism on my page
I was creating one of my user pages and there was an edit conflict. The version that would've been saved had no wikitext, meaning that someone tried to vandalize my page. Can someone tell me how to protect the page?~From Contrapple 15:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * None of your pages have been edited by anyone other than you. You may have edit conflicted with yourself, I've done that a few times.
 * As for protection, you cannot protect pages unless you are an administrator, and even if your page had been vandalized, a single vandalism is not enough to require protection. – KnightMiner  · (t) 15:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * How do you know that you conflicted with yourself?~From Contrapple Grid Empty Map.png 19:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How is it possible to conflict with your own edit?~From Contrapple Grid Empty Map.png 19:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Pressing "save page" two or more times. – LauraFi -  talk  20:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I put all my user pages on my watchlist. Is there a way to set up my account so that pages on my watchlist will give me a notification when edited? If so, how do I do it? If not can an administrator add a way to do so?~From Contrapple Grid Empty Map.png 22:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Go to Special:Preferences and select the 'Email me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed' option. -- Orthotopetalk 00:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Help pages
How relevant are the help pages to keep, since gamepedia has a whole wiki devoted to general help? Most of the help pages here are barely touched, with many outdated, and this edit by gives the implication that using the help wiki is preferred over the local help contents (especially since the help link was removed as least four times in that edit...)

I would propose migrating the general help pages which are not already contained there to the help wiki, and keeping any help pages specific to this wiki, such as Help:Official sources and Help:Schematic.

– KnightMiner  · (t) 01:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And add missing wiki-specific help pages. I once made one for infoboxes (on Russian wiki) -_- — NickTheRed37</b> t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) 11:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I would agree to adding a few more of pages specific to this wiki, though we may want to decide a few standards on what is relevant and what should remain elsewhere (like on template documentation). – KnightMiner  · (t) 15:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Smilies
On Russian wiki, there is a template for inserting graphical smilies into the text. I would like to also have that template here. Any objections/concerns? —  NickTheRed37</b> t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) 15:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see much need for it; we're not a forum. Also, those particular icons appear to be copied from the Invision Power Board forum software. As far as I can tell, its license doesn't allow this use: see https://www.invisionpower.com/legal/standards . -- Orthotopetalk 15:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of them are also found in phpBB. I think that these images were widely used elsewhere, and so some forum software creators decided to use them in their software. —  NickTheRed37</b> t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) 15:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Either way, I need to ask Ivan-r. —  NickTheRed37</b> t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) 16:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * GNU General Public License. —  NickTheRed37</b> t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) 14:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The exact images should be able to be replaced with some royalty free icons, maybe even Minecraft themed ones, so I don't find that as a major concern.
 * I don't have much against the idea, but how often would it get used? I personally doubt I will use it, as I rarely use smilies, so in the rare case that I do use one, I am fine with a simple ":)". In general, I don't see a lot of smilies from other users anyways. – KnightMiner  · (t) 16:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A smiley face can be proposed on the talk page. On mobile devices (at least on iOS) you can type a smiley face. ~From Contrapple Grid Empty Map.png 03:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Messages (pages)
When you search a page starting with "Mediawiki:", you will notice that in the section above the page, it is called a message. I couldn't figure out what they mean by message. Can someone please explain or create a page about it? ~From Contrapple 03:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * mw:Help:System message – KnightMiner  · (t) 03:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Official user page guidelines
Welcome back, KnightMiner here, and today I have a guide proposal in the userspace. (wait, that's not quite right, hold on a moment...)

Seeing as there has been some recent disputes on what is allowed in the userspace, and the specific guidelines are not stated in any central point, I have written another guide proposal to sort all of the information out and make the information official.

The proposed guide is located at User:KnightMiner/Workbench/User pages. A few notes on the content:
 * It starts by describing the userspace, specifically the user pages, user talk pages, and user pages within other namespaces (those being modules, categories, and files)
 * The main purpose of this is to describe which pages the user has control over, and to allow more page types to be added should the need arise, such as if we ever have another extension requiring its own namespace.
 * The second section contains content allowed (mostly anything) and disallowed (mostly wiki rules and content that affects the mainspace).
 * It also has a brief segment to allow fixing of broken and double redirects, as well as to implement soft redirect for user page redirects to other wikis (notably language variants)
 * The final section contains allowed reasons for editing the userspace, with the primary reason being to remove disallowed content or discuss on talk pages, and other reasons that are generally allowed stated.

For the most part, the only new guideline is that user talk pages should discuss the relevant user content page (other than the main page, for direct communication). This is mainly because any other usage would end up as spam, such as a user taking build requests or minecraft suggestions. Other than that, I avoided adding any new guidelines, as I preferred to discuss new addition here or on its talk page if implemented.

That's about it, thanks for reading. (there it is again...) – KnightMiner  · (t) 01:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Any user may … edit another user's talk pages" — This seems like a dangerous statement. Maybe something like "Any user may create another user's talk pages or contribute to a discussion on another user's talk page."?


 * Also, something like "Users may delete any posts or discussions in their own userspace, even admin warnings (though they still must obey rules). However, users are strongly discouraged from modifying other people's posts except to comply with the wiki rules, or deleting single posts that would make a discussion confusing." &mdash;munin &middot; Grid_Book_and_Quill.png Grid_Stone_Pickaxe.png &middot; 18:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, looking at the first rule does seem to be able to be taken the wrong way. I changed it to be basically what you said.
 * As for modifying other people's posts, that is already disallowed by the talk page guidelines, so I don't think discouraging it on the user page guidelines as well is needed (since the user page guidelines require following the talk page guidelines).
 * As for removing discussions, I added that it is allowed, but discouraged. Though, mentioned disallowing deletion of comments, which would be something to discuss here. My opinions:
 * I personally would suggest disallowing deletion of comments or discussion, except in the case of rule violation. Still allowed would be moving the discussion to another talk page or archiving it. (if the user wishes to, they may create a separate archive for warnings, like I've seen several times on Wikipedia. They also are not required to reply to the warnings if they don't want to). (I feel it is worth mentioning that this rule would not apply to topics deleted before it was enacted should it become a rule)
 * On the other hand, users should be allowed to define some topics that are not allowed (as long as the topics do not include warnings), in which case creating a topic would be violating a rule for that talk page.
 * – KnightMiner  · (t) 18:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I can see that allowing users to delete admin warnings might make it more difficult for admins to notice a pattern of behavior. Allowing users to move or archive warnings seems like a reasonable compromise that still allows users to present their userspace in their own way.


 * New issue: A non-native English speaker looking up the word "guideline" might believe it means the same thing as "rule" (that's the first definition listed in my dictionary, for example), but as a native English speaker I interpret it much more loosely than a rule. Perhaps "Recommendations" might be a better word, so that non-native English speakers don't believe these are rules that might justify blanking user pages, etc.? &mdash;munin &middot; Grid_Book_and_Quill.png Grid_Stone_Pickaxe.png &middot; 19:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I tend to think of guidelines as not quite as extreme consequences as rules, but still required (other than that one case with the project I started, in which I use the word "guidelines" as I would now conciser incorrect, I should really fix that...) . I could use a different word to state that meaning, though "recommendations" seems like we are advising against such action, but they are fine to do it, meaning we would lose the ability to remove improper content, while "rules" as it is used on this wiki sounds much too extreme.
 * It might be relevant to add some sort of rule priority scale to rules. The scale would range from "you could get blocked for breaking" to "fix only if you are already editing other stuff".
 * As for specifics on blanking userpages and alike, the only content disallowed by the guide would have to be removed anyways. Specifically:
 * Userspace redirects would get fixed or broken userspace redirects deleted
 * Some categories will get removed
 * Spam, plagiarism, and advertising would get removed. This one could be a slight problem as spam, plagiarism, and advertising are somewhat open to interruption.
 * Things like the rule about talk page usage exempts the userspace, and the userspace is also be exempt from the style guide (it is required to follow the wiki rules and talk page guidelines, and all other guides fall would fall into the "almost else allowed", though I could state it more specifically) – KnightMiner  · (t) 22:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Based on some recent actions by newer users, I would suggest disallowing the usage of a user's main talk page as anything other than a talk page, which would go in line with the "don't delete old topics". Otherwise, when a user fills their talk page with article content, it become impossible to use it to actually communicate with them, such as to communicate rule violations or to ask for a reason for a revert. I know we want to avoid "biting" the new users by removing their main place to test things, but that does prevent proper communication with the user, and we also now have a better sandbox to point them to should the reason be simply resting edits.
 * Along with that rule, it would be a good idea to suggest if a user is misusing their main talk page to move the page to their main userspace, rather than deleting the content (but first leave a topic to point to the rule about proper usage) – KnightMiner  · (t) 03:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Finally... . &mdash; NickTheRed37</b> t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) </i> 09:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * . – LauraFi -  talk  11:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - BDJP (t 12:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Punishment is not an argument. &mdash; NickTheRed37</b> t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) </i> 12:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do I have the word "punishment" anywhere in that sentence? BDJP (t 13:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, but I feel that you oppose due to punishing me anyway. —  NickTheRed37</b> t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) </i> 13:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposing to punish you. I'm opposing because of a few things:
 * KnightMiner said that "advertising would get removed." If so, then the userspace is no longer exempt from rule 5.1 on the wiki rules.
 * KnightMiner also said that he is against disallowing deletion user talk page comments which contradicts his next statement regarding about topics that are not allowed on a userspace as defined by the user.
 * If these rules go into place, my gosh, I feel like I want to shout f**k it and leave. In fact, no rule for the second thing I described exists on Wikipedia, and users have been allowed to delete user page comments on their own will (unless they are blocked, in which continous reverts can lead to editing the talk page being revoked) . BDJP (t 13:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Rules are not ideal, and may be corrected if needed.
 * We’re not Wikipedia. They have their own rules, we have our own. For your interest, I shall say that while English Wikipedia, as you said, allows users deleting comments on their own user talk pages, Russian Wikipedia forbids it.
 * —  NickTheRed37</b> t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) </i> 14:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)




 * 1) That comment above was mainly stating the only content that would get removed to address munin's concern about userpage blanking. Advertising is things such as "Discount Steam games at our site" or spamming advertisements for a mod (which would be different from stating "I have this mod, here's a bit about it", that's the reason for the "open to interpretation" part). This specific rule is already in place, and the proposed guide still exempts user pages from 5.1 (though I did make it a bit more clear just now).
 * 2) With deleting user page comments, the idea is you are allow to set up some rules for topics allowed on your talk pages to go along with the general wiki rules (such as disallowing people to ask for Minecraft support, a Minecraft dev disallowing suggestions, or requiring certain topic types on an alternative talk page). You would not be allowed to disallow warnings or discussion on recent actions entirely. Along with this, you can then delete new topics that contradict the wiki rules or personal talk page rules, but you are not allowed delete old topics because of a new rule or delete topics that do not fit any of the rules (archiving is still allowed).
 * This specific rule was still open to discussion, it has not been added to the proposed guide yet so it is not final, so feel free to suggest improvements or a compromise (such as suggesting to only disallowing deletion of warnings). It is important to note its main purposes, which are allowing administrators to check user pages for past warnings, and allowing users to discuss recent actions of other users. – KnightMiner  · (t) 15:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I would also like to point out that you suggesting a user's talk page to not be anything other than a talk page would be disastorus and destructive, as the user pages (including talk) are already exempt from rules 4, 5.1, 6, and 8. Adding these so-called guidelines in place would probably cause some users to feel discouraged about the rules and what they actually mean, including me. With that, I still hold a . BDJP (t 16:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think my comment above implies this, but for the record I believe people should be able to control their own userspace (including talk pages) as much as possible. Your userspace is a place to explore your ideas about how to structure articles and talks and that allows people to innovate. Maybe 99% of non-standard userspace will be confusing and purposeless, but that freedom is where new ideas will come from that improve the wiki. Imagine if this conversation had ocurred before user boxes become common -- they might have been prejudicially banned because they didn't fit the conventions in place before the discussion. More rules just make people think they can go around telling other people how to run their userspace. I don't see any need for these rules -- there are already rules the admins can use to maintain the integrity and safety of the wiki, and otherwise people should just leave other people's userspaces alone. &mdash;munin &middot; Grid_Book_and_Quill.png Grid_Stone_Pickaxe.png &middot; 17:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As for the talk page usage, we already limit a user's "ownership" of their talk pages to allow comments from other users. Assuming we allow anything on their main talk page, how would you suggest leaving a comment on this user's page? A few comments have been required there in the past, but there is now no way to discuss stuff with that user. If they need to freely experiment, they have their main userpage which has alot more freedom.
 * As for the rules that are "already in place" for the admins, there are none other than block worthy violations. The only authority users have to prevent user pages from interfering with the mainspace is some topic buried in the archives of the community portal. – KnightMiner  · (t) 18:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * User talk:Lhs970317 —  Grid Command Block.png NickTheRed37</b> (talk&#124;contributions) 18:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The rule has not been agreed upon, so that was still technically allowed usage at this time. It is a better idea to wait until consensus has been achieved for a bit of time before making changes based on it. – KnightMiner  · (t) 18:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Materials
In Minecraft, each block has a "material" that controls certain properties and gives defaults for others that the specific block time can override. After digging through the code for 1.8, I wrote up User:Anomie x/Materials. If anyone would like to look that over, I'd appreciate it. Anomie x (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I see a few minor errors, such as you used "Grass" instead of "Grass Block" for the grass material, and I see a few points where the grammar could be slightly improved. Other than that, it looks pretty good, I would support it becoming an article.
 * I assume the propose of this page is to replace the article Materials? (If unsure of what I'm referencing, see here) – KnightMiner  · (t) 03:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to make any necessary edits. Materials would be a good title for it, yeah, in which case the existing article could move to Raw materials which is currently a redirect with no incoming links, but that'd need admin help to take care of. Anomie x (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I made a few tweaks. I assume that list of blocks within the first table was left over from before the table split?
 * Also, as for the current Materials article, I don't think it is necessary to keep it. I previously posted on its talk page stating that it really did not fit as a main space article, as its content would make more sense as a category (the entire content is a brief description, then article that fit the description). then pointed out that Category:Raw materials already contains the same pages and suggested instead of deleting the page to replace it with an article about Minecraft's internal materials. – KnightMiner  · (t) 00:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Works for me, I overlooked that conversation when I checked that talk page. Anomie x (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Shortcuts for to Minecraft Wiki pages
Following up MCT:Community portal/Archive 15, where it was stated redirects for the Minecraft Wiki pages should be discussed, I am proposing a few redirects. It may also be relevant to create a page containing a list of shortcuts.

As for specific suggestions:

As for which of these I think need the shortcut the most, I would emphasize the style guide shortcuts for images and history/future, and the talk page guidelines shortcut. – KnightMiner  · (t) 19:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I would be in favour of those suggestions, as well as perhaps one for the admin noticeboard. –Goandgoo</b> ᐸ <small style="display:inline-block;line-height:1em;vertical-align:-0.4em">Talk Contribs 04:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That would make sense, though the best I can come shortcut I can think of is MCW:ADMINS or MCW:ADMIN (ex. if you need administrative help, ask the MCW:ADMINS? It would be slightly inconsistent with MCW:Administrators leading to MCW:Directors). Otherwise, we could copy the shortcuts from wikipedia and end up with MCW:AN or MCW:ANB, though they are hardly descriptive. – KnightMiner  · (t) 00:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I do think MCW:ADMIN makes the most sense out of all those suggested. Not really sure about the inconsistency, on one had it might be confusing but on the other neither MCW:AN or MCW:ANB seem very intuitive... –Goandgoo</b> ᐸ <small style="display:inline-block;line-height:1em;vertical-align:-0.4em">Talk Contribs 11:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright, I added shortcuts, except where crossed out. For now I just added the shortcuts to the pages using shortcut. I am not so sure about the second wiki rules shortcut, as a title is normally used when linking that page anyways. – KnightMiner  · (t) 17:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, but why are they all uppercase? They're not abbreviations. –Majr ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:9px;vertical-align:-3px>Talk Contribs 07:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps for the same reason they are uppercased on Wikipedia. &mdash; Grid Command Block.png NickTheRed37</b> (talk&#124;contributions) 09:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Which is? –Majr ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:9px;vertical-align:-3px>Talk Contribs 11:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * All caps is basically a stylistic design. While the shortcuts could be in any case, keeping them in one case, even between abbreviations and short names, helps users remember them. Other than that, it help are users who are use to Wikipedia, and keeps them consistent with any Wikipedia shortcuts we may reference, such as WP:BOLD. Lastly, I think it reads a little better when a referenced policy is all caps should you reference the shortcut directly in text, such as saying "refer to mcw:style" or "refer to MCW:STYLE", (though arguably capitalizing the namespace and first letter would read fine)
 * Although, since they are not wide usage at this time and redirects are cheap, I don't see any reason we cannot change them if enough people prefer a different case. – KnightMiner  · (t) 15:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Version pages
Reviving discussions from here and here

Recently, the version history pages for the release and development versions were split up into their own pages for each respective version to increase readability. However, pages from Beta and earlier as well as the version history from other editions (Pocket and Console) were still left in tact. My questions are:
 * 1) For the PC version, should we go further back in creating version pages? I think Beta should probably be converted but for versions before Beta the changelogs are not very long.
 * 2) Should Pocket and Console Edition be converted to the new page format? Looking at the Pocket Edition development versions page, it is starting to get very cluttered with new versions being added. These would need additional support for multiple editions.   –<b style=color:#282>Goandgoo</b> ᐸ <small style="display:inline-block;line-height:1em;vertical-align:-0.4em">Talk Contribs 04:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As for the PC editions, I don't have anything against splitting the articles, although the farther you go back, the less content is contained. I would suggest splitting beta editions for now, as there is a bit of an issue regarding its pre-releases and it seems to have decent content in most cases. I would wait longer for alpha, indev, infdev, and classic a bit longer, due to the latter three having very inconstant title format and all having a lot less content (though more than some snapshots).
 * I also still agree the pocket editions should have their own articles. I think the only reason it has not been done yet is due to only a few people stating support in previous discussions. As for titles, I personally prefer prefixing them with "Pocket", partly due to is current usage in version link and partly due to the addition of "Edition" seeming redundant, as it is going to be some form of edition in all cases. I would not disagree if most other editors agree to using "Pocket Edition" though.
 * With the console edition, the version history could use splitting up just as much, but we also have the problem that each update has three different names (Xbox uses TU#, Xbox One uses CU#, and PS3/PS4 use more standard version numbers), and I cannot think of a reasonable solution to cover all of them.
 * – KnightMiner  · (t) 19:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the table we have at/on/in(?) the German wiki (de:Konsolen-Versionsgeschichte) is pretty clearly arranged. A single page for every version is just confusing in my opinion (at least for the console edition; do you want five pages for a single version? And if you want only one, how do you name it? And how will someone find it?) so I don't think that it's good to split Console Edition version history up. I wanted to update that page after I completed the translation into German, which I haven't done yet (It's almost complete), maybe I'll look into that soon. | violine1101(Talk) 22:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * While what you have there Violine1101 on the German wiki is probably better than the mess that is on our page, the fact that close to half of the width is taken up just by the version/date information is way too obtrusive. Only smaller devices (tablets) this issue is made worse. I do think version pages are the way to go to avoid long tables but I'm trying to think of how the navigation would work and how to sort out the multitudes of different editions. It might still turn out to be a mess...
 * I have also completed converting all of the Beta pages to version pages. Perhaps we can start converting the Pocket Edition as there don't seem to be any objections? –<b style=color:#282>Goandgoo</b> ᐸ <small style="display:inline-block;line-height:1em;vertical-align:-0.4em">Talk Contribs 11:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The new Beta pages look pretty good. I think the next step would be splitting the Pocket Edition versions, though we may want to wait a few days to start that to give people time to voice opinions.
 * I also agree that the amount of versions causes an issue due to the width of the version details. It takes up about half of my monitor. If there was a way to make it smaller, I might agree with that design, though I would overall prefer to split them out for consistency with the other versions.
 * On a somewhat related note as we are expanding the number of version articles, do the version pages really need the navbox minecraft? They are already contained in their own navbox computer versions, and none of the versions are on the minecraft navbox (other then the version history "hub" articles). Would anyone object to the removal of the minecraft navbox from version articles. – KnightMiner  · (t) 01:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree with removing Minecraft from the version articles. &mdash; <b style=color:green;font-family:sans-serif>NickTheRed37</b> t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) </i> 11:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Would KnightMiner or Majr be able to create support for the Pocket Edition pages? In regards to the Console Edition pages, I think we'll leave them for a bit longer and see if there are any other better solutions to fix the multiple version/platform problems. –<b style=color:#282>Goandgoo</b> ᐸ <small style="display:inline-block;line-height:1em;vertical-align:-0.4em">Talk Contribs 06:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Does pocket edition not have the same issues of multiple platforms as the console edition, though? –Majr ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:9px;vertical-align:-3px>Talk Contribs 07:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorta, except they all at least have the same name, which is the major issue with the console edition. Looking over the list of versions, the only real problems would be stating which versions it released for and separate release dates (which could be done together), and about five early versions where each platform got a slightly different version of the original version. It should be easy to cover though.
 * Goandgoo@undefined I'll start messing with the version nav template in my sandbox to see about adding support. – KnightMiner  · (t) 15:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * . Currently it is set up for the title format of "Pocket Edition ..." (which means the edition parameter should be set to "Pocket Edition"), but it could easily be changed to the format "Pocket ..." if desired. – KnightMiner  · (t) 18:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

IRC channel
The wiki's IRC channel needs to be refurbished. Really, it has no operators, it even isn't registered on EsperNet. Majr, Orthotope, Goandgoo, Dinoguy1000, KnightMiner? &mdash; <b style=color:green>NickTheRed37</b> (talk&#124;contributions) 09:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing the IRC channel predates Curse's involvement with the wiki; I never use IRC and personally am not interested in doing anything with it. Quatroking may be able to share more of the channel's history and provide a solution here, assuming anyone can finagle him into editing long enough to stop by and have a word. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 03:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have used the IRC for a bit, and while the recent changes channel is a bit useful, the actual discussion IRC does not have much activity. Since I started using it over a year ago, I have only seen four posts: one almost a year ago when Quatroking was asking about the broken unblock function related to an incident a few days earlier, one from Fenhl a while back asking why a user was not blocked on the channel, one german post asking for someone to play survival with, and the hello from you. In all four cases, I did not notice the posts while actually online, but rather when I looked over the scrollback. There were likely some other posts since then, such as there was an IRC event I missed, but I think the current preference is to use the wiki for discussion, such as this page.
 * Basically, I have not seen enough interested people to refurbish it, but I would likely use it if it there were a bit more activity. – KnightMiner  · (t) 16:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I only used the IRC because Wyn used it. –Majr ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:9px;vertical-align:-3px>Talk Contribs 07:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Bug descriptions controversy
Another edit war was sparked over 1.4.6 by BDJP007301, who is known for insisting on using terrible bug tracker titles over proper, human-readable bug descriptions. We really need to have the guideline to use the latter be added to the style guide to solve this long-lasting bacchanalia. — <b style=color:green>NickTheRed37</b> (talk&#124;contributions) 15:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * - Majr and Orthotope's statements in an eariler discussion regarding the style guide:






 * BDJP (t 15:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And what? It will still also provide guidance in creating future version articles. —  Grid Command Block.png <b style=color:green>NickTheRed37</b> (talk&#124;contributions) 15:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * But what I said directly argues against what you were doing... –Majr ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:9px;vertical-align:-3px>Talk Contribs 07:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This really isn't worth edit-warring over. Again, I don't think we need to rewrite every bug tracker title, but I have no objection to improving the ones that are unclear or have terrible grammar.
 * Nick, keep in mind rule 3; some of your comments have been very close to personal attacks. -- Orthotopetalk 17:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

New disambiguation icon
I recently uploaded an of the disambiguation icon. I think that the version I uploaded is more visible and not so old-fashioned as the former/current one was/is. My upload however has been reverted by User:NickTheRed37 because I had uploaded "a new version of a critical file without consensus". (He however reverted without consensus, so... whatever.) I don't see a point in discussing every single edit or change in a huge discussion. I agree that it is a file which is transcluded in many articles, but I don't think that it would overload the server if you change a single file. (Reverting an upload actually does not overload the server in any way, does it?) However, I don't want to start an upload war, so what do you guys think? | violine1101(Talk) 17:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think either one looks fine. The one you uploaded does have a bit better ratios between the shapes, and for the most part both colors look fine.
 * Since this is a minor change, I would say discussion is not required unless someone disagrees with the new version, it instead fits more under WP:BOLD. – KnightMiner  · (t) 21:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)