Talk:Minecraft Wiki/editcopy

It says that the latest update for Xbox was in 2014!
Please change it! –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.119.16.131 (talk) at 9:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC). Please sign your posts with

Why do people never change the fact that minevpcraft is in 1.8.2- pre6!
It's pre-7 now! 37.123.181.63 19:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not the worst thing in the world if the wiki takes half a day to update the version. The version currently can only be updated by administrators, so it may take a bit before one logs on and changes it. – KnightMiner  (t·c) 19:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Outdated MediaWiki version
221.221.218.180 09:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC) about this wiki: Is this wiki's format of all the pages compatible with the latest MediaWiki? if it is, then update plz
 * Sign your comments after their contents.
 * You should've been asking it on the community portal's talk page.
 * Differences between 1.23's and 1.24's page formats are miniscule (notably ! being implemented into the core), there are mainly performance fixes in 1.24.
 * Ask a Curse employee (email support@curse.com) to get info on their plans on updating MediaWiki.
 * — NickTheRed37 t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) 10:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Gamepedia updates on every uneven release, wait for 1.25. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 11:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Outdated Snapshot Version
It's still got 15w32c as the 'most recent' snapshot, instead of 15w33b. I don't think it's due to the bugs supposedly present in 33b but not 32c, as it's meant to be 'most recent', not 'most bug-free'.

Link to 'correct' (as of 13 Aug 2015, 10:00 pm AEST) page: http://minecraft.gamepedia.com/15w33b 60.225.155.8 12:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The list has to be manually updated, and to reduce vandalism, an administrator has to do it. They are normally watching the main page talk pages, so one should update it shortly. (if not, feel free to post on Template talk:Version or the admin noticeboard.) – KnightMiner  t/c 14:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

New stone background headers
What is the consensus on the new stone background for the headers on the main page? It's been sitting around on the edit copy for a while, so if there is enough of a consensus from this discussion we can bring the changes over to the main page. Personally I am in favour of the new design. (see this discussion for the original discussion for this change) –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk Contribs 05:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Assuming votes are accepted: . --GreenStone (judge me) 08:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * For the most part, people were split between keeping the old blue and using a Minecraft texture for the boxes (other than stone; dirt, planks, and the Minecraft menu button texture were mentioned).
 * As for my opinion: after looking at it again, most grey textures make it a bit monochromatic (as the color provides a good focal point). I like the look of birch planks the best in that reguard, as they are both brightly colored and have a not too contrasting texture, though their color stands out a bit too much from the background and fixing that would require changing the page background color or using an unnatural plank color. The third texture to concider is the menu button when selected, which provides a nice blue color, though we would need to change the CSS a bit to get the shading on the bottom right, or else we would restrict the size of said headers. – KnightMiner  t/c 18:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at the Korean Minecraft Wiki, the grass block texture does not look too bad (the green grass part produces a lot less contrast with the blue, and makes the brown seem a bit lighter), though it is quite a bit darker than the current box which would require the font color to be changed to white. – KnightMiner  t/c 01:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I like the grass block better too. The random grays of the stone texture blur the text in my vision, and the grass block is the iconic Minecraft block. &mdash;munin &middot; Grid_Book_and_Quill.png Grid_Stone_Pickaxe.png &middot; 01:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I also think that the Korean header version is great. I don't see a reason not to use the grass block texture. Adapting the CSS should not be a big problem since there are only two lines of code needed to be changed. Using the blue Minecraft button is a good idea too, but would be way more difficult to implement using CSS. | violine1101(Talk) 20:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I just implemented the grass texture from the Korean wiki. What do you think? | violine1101(Talk) 16:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I like it, though the image will need to be made a bit taller to make it work with our usage on the community portal (basically just extending the dirt farther down, and possibly tweaking the black gradient) – KnightMiner  t/c 20:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Korean wiki admin Alswo96284‎ came up with a solution which he posted on the German wiki too. It uses "stacked" backgrounds. See here (latest posts are in English) for CSS and a browser compability check. | violine1101(Talk) 18:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comparison / diff between this and the main page
I saw that one editor had installed a diff between this and the main page in the header of this editcopy, but another editor reverted it several times, deeming it irrelevant, superfluous, unneeded...

I personally thought it was a helpful thing to have. It seemed very relevant, because part of maintaining an editcopy is to be aware of the difference. Also it wasn't superfluous in my mind because I hadn't seen such a thing on the page before. I would like to see it added if people don't mind. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 23:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

June 26, 2014
Why did you change the data in the historical record? 54 million copies have been sold as of June 26, 2014, and not 107 million. http://i.imgur.com/VPhQyEV.png http://i.imgur.com/E5xZVAt.png MailGik ([//minecraft.gamepedia.com/User_talk:MailGik   ]) 00:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The New Nintendo 3DS Edition
The Main page says that the New Nintendo 3DS Edition is on 1.12.2, but 1.12.2 is the Java Edition. Maybe adding a new version into the list. It will be something like Skylord wars (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Editions template
The editcopy looks very strange. There is no main version, and instead the original one looks better. It also consumes a lot of space.--Skylord wars (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * MS seems to consider bedrock to be the main version, and since it has the most platforms regardless, it makes sense to give it a full row. It also uses less space on larger screens, and is the same on smaller screens. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 13:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Just a note: Per, Microsoft's official position is that there is no "main version". And unofficially, they're working toward a more complete degree of parity between Java and Bedrock than we've seen so far, more than I think most people realize, so ultimately the hint of a distinction will all but vanish anyway. But I agree that the page's format is appropriate for the other reasons you cite. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 16:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I do have another suggestion. Since most users of Minecraft are mobile users, they are likely reading the mobile version of the wiki. Mobile view is different from desktop. Why don't we just use the original format, but instead switch places between Java and Mobile? Skylord wars (talk) 04:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Because then Java is taking up a whole line, or being squished by Bedrock, wasting space. It's also difficult to have different content on mobile without duplicating stuff, so it's not really practical. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 05:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I mean, the new Nintendo version can be placed with education edition since both of them takes less space. While Java Edition may have it's won space.--Skylord wars (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Giving Java its own space (presumably meaning a whole row) would just rearrange whitespace. I don't see how that's any improvement. In fact, I don't see why improvement is needed in the first place; if it were I'd expect to see more comments here, with stronger arguments than that it "looks very strange" (a matter of personal taste). How about we focus on improving informational content and organization rather than worry about picayune details of layout? – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 07:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)