Minecraft Wiki talk:Projects/Renaming

Moving pages
I believe that we would need to move the PC version pages, since they do not currently specify a version. For example. 1.12 would be moved to "Java Edition 1.12", and Minecraft would need to be moved to "Java Edition". The BlobsPaper.png 13:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Before doing this we should have a working updated version of version link ready to go.
 * And a to-do list to work from.
 * And for the major versions, that idea works, but I suggest it's unnecessary for the snapshot pages, just because I don't anticipate snapshot names being duplicated or causing confusion, what do people think? – Sealbudsman talk/contr 14:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * We would need an admin to edit the page, since it is used on the main page. We may also want a bot to move the pages. Majr, can you do the task. The BlobsPaper.png 04:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The "standard"
So I saw this:


 * "Right now we have it so Java Minecraft is the standard, normal Minecraft, and everything that's on the MCPE game we're just calling Pocket, and marking those as exceptions. To match what Mojang/Microsoft are doing, we should change the language, I think, so that the MCPE game is just the normal Minecraft, and treat Java Edition differences as the exceptions. Of course I'm not suggesting a whitewashing; Java's historic precedence would be preserved in things like History sections, or articles that talk about the history of the game like Minecraft itself." – Sealbudsman talk/contr 00:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I can agree with not treating pocket or console editions like "exceptions" anymore, but I want to take it a step further and don't treat any edition as an exception or the "standard". Just always specifying what version you're talking about makes things so much easier IMO, for both the editors and the readers. It means that we should probably establish a standard order of editions though, which is a whole other topic. --Pepijn (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. As a user of Windows 10 Edition exclusively, I have often felt twice mildly snubbed when reading the wiki, first that Java Edition was the standard against which everything is compared, and second that the shortening to "Pocket Edition", while entirely reasonable for brevity, relegates W10 Edition to little brother status. I expect many Classic players will similarly take the rebranding of Classic to, in effect, the other Minecraft as a touch demeaning; we needn't rub their noses in it. But on the other hand, establishing a standard order of editions serves a useful purpose: Users can more quickly find the information they're looking for if the layout is conventional. The question is, is there a way to do this without implying a hierarchy of importance? I would suggest listing editions in audience size order in prose, and in alphabetical order in history sections, tables, infoboxes, and other non-prose areas. Assuming we adopt JE to replace PC, it would be listed before MC, which would help keep things balanced. It would also eliminate a lot of rearranging, especially of the bits that are hardest to edit (as in did I cut the "|-" before the table entry, or the one after it?). – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 16:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Well said, both of you.
 * I would even say that part of avoiding the "snub" might be, being thoughtful about how we rename the version pages (see discussion above). Does literally every PC version page need to have "Java Edition" on it, or just those particular ones where there could be a confusion? Does that create a hodgepodge, or is there a rhyme or reason to it? Something to explore I think ..
 * For the order of things, I like what you say, but, how about in history, what if we just did it in chronological order of which edition got which feature? So in Stone, it would be Java, Bedrock, Console, but in Observer, it would be Bedrock, Java, (eventually Console last), and in Fireworks it would be Java, Console, (eventually Bedrock last)?
 * Note on table rearranging: if you use Visual Editor, it's so much easier to manipulate tables -- though I would advise, first, always switch to edit source mode (for instance I did this here: Special:Diff/1109656) because Visual Edit will screw up lots of things if you're not careful. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 19:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have suggested the equality idea independently on the community portal yesterday, without being aware of this topic.
 * Sealbudsman, who said that we need to list editions exactly one after another? History section uses a table, why not compose it into three columns? Then we can place all versions with changes to the item chronologically; in beetroot’s case, for example, some parts of the history table related to PC/Java or console editions would be empty in places refering to the time when beetroot was only exclusive to Pocket (Portable) Edition. If you didn’t understand that messy speech above, here is what I mean:


 * But revising the History template should be discussed on that template’s talk page, of course. —  NickTheRed37 (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Not a good idea. The problem with listing everything chronologically is that currently there are no dates in the history sections, so the first step in replacing them would be to tag each entry with a date followed by marging them–manually–into chronological order. It would be a huge amount of work to do this to all the histories. Furthermore, the resulting table would have a lot of blank cells making it ugly in my opinion: There would be years of history for Java Edition before you started getting entries in other columns, and from there on it would only have one filled cell per row (a so-called 'sparse array'). Finally, I don't think many people would find it very useful. The only information it makes clearer is how features evolved in one edition with respect to another, which is more of a curiosity than the kind of information most readers would be searching for. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 04:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The history is already listed chronologically. You don't need specific dates to make something chronologically ordered, nor do we have to match the different columns by their dates (which would cause a lot of empty space on the top of the console and bedrock codebase editions). --Pepijn (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. What we currently have is three separate chronologies, listed serially in one table. We were discussing how to sequence those three chronologies. recommended a single merged chronology with all editions on a single timeline. His sample even shows the resulting empty space above the console and bedrock entries you object to. You certainly do need specific dates to merge a set of chronologies, although I guess it would make sense to start by making a merged timeline of the releases and builds and then using that to order the merged history. Even so, it would be a lot of work that adds no additional information and results in a table littered with blank cells. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 11:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I wasn't talking about what Nick meant, I was talking about how I think we should solve this: 3 separate chronologies in parallel to avoid putting one edition above another. I think we really have to stop working with a "standard" and "exceptions" when it comes to the different editions. We mostly have the Java edition as the main edition on this wiki and it's causing a lot of trouble now. If we make something else the main version, it can happen again. --Pepijn (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, your indentation made it look like you were replying to my comment. We're in complete agreement about not having a "standard" version. I do prefer to maintain the current sequence of the histories, though. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 11:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I can see that, I should have made it more clear. The main "fear" I have with listing the editions in serie is that for some pages the Java section of the history is going to become really long over time, pushing any editions beneath it very far down (which is kind of annoying for players who want to look up something in the history for those editions). Maybe we should add anchors to the history template? That way we can have links to the specific editions just in case the history table becomes really long. --Pepijn (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I was also thinking about the anchors. Another possibility would be collapsible sections, which would make finding the history for a particular codebase easier and would reduce the wiki server load for some pages. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 12:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

We seem to be in agreement that we don't want to suggest a supremacy of Minecraft over Minecraft: Java Edition. Unfortunately, I think the official names are going to make that troublesome in some cases. I'm specifically thinking about uses of the only template to generate or. Do we want those to read ? I'm not sure it's clear that the embedded use of italicized Minecraft will be clear enough, but what would be better? Would  work? How should the title text (hover hint) read? Keep in mind that this question's scope isn't limited to only; it applies to mentions of Pocket Edition etc. in straight prose as well. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 05:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I am opposed to the fact that the Java Edition will occupy the top position, even if they changed the main edition. I personally think the Java Edition history on the first place is better, but not that consistent. Sure, if we want all the editions to get their own pages, but the order must be changed independently.
 * The "Minecraft" is definitely not clear enough to be italicized, but I also disagree if the Unified Minecraft considered as an edition. By the fact that the new Unified Minecraft will not have a suffix, we can't deny that they are going to change the main edition. We can just have Console and Java for only, and the statement about "Minecraft" will be stayed without any tags or notes. – ItsPlantseed ⟨₰|₢⟩ 08:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand what you're trying to say in the first part, what top position? What first place? What order?
 * I can agree with Minecraft not being a good name for an edition on the wiki. The thing I can suggest is "Bedrock" (which has been suggested above already, which you apparently haven't read?), since that seems to be the name they gave the engine. --Pepijn (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * But will "Bedrock" be meaningful to our readers? It's a technical term that has only recently been used among the developers and those like us closely watching them. I'm not confident it will ever enter common use given that Microsoft and Mojang call it Minecraft, and that "bedrock" already has a firmly established denotation in the Minecraft context. Most of the wiki readers are still in grade school, after all. They take their usage from YouTube and Xbox Online, and so far those platforms are rarely using "Bedrock" to refer to the cross-platform version. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 11:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I prefer it over treating any edition as a "main" edition, and the other editions as exceptions. I understand that readers might not know what the term means initially, but the news outlets covering this topic also used this term (the ones I read anyway). If people don't understand it, they can click the link that comes with [Bedrock edition only] (or something like that). --Pepijn (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Forgive me if my wording was/(is) looked weird to you, at the first line I'm trying to say the history part. Secondly, I was telling about the "Minecraft" (bedrock-based editions), I just stated above that I kinda disagree if the bedrock engine edition is considered as an "edition", so we can only have Console and Java Editions for the only template, and any kind of statement about "Minecraft" will be stayed without any tags or notes. – ItsPlantseed ⟨₰|₢⟩ 13:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That would suggest that "Minecraft"/"Bedrock" is the standard and main Minecraft game, which I and most others here want to avoid. It creates confusion when people who are not familiar with this new way of handling information, read something that exists only in the Bedrock "edition" and they're going to assume that it exists in other editions as well because it's not stated specifically. Specifying exactly what is in what edition makes things so much easier for both the editors and the readers. --Pepijn (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Opportunity for CSS stylesheets
At the risk of being shot down in flames, let me mention an idea I've mulled over for some time. It closely parallels what we're undertaking in this project so it should take little additional effort, if any. The idea is this: Could we give edition-specific sections of articles different CSS classes, generated by whatever edition templates we finally settle on to mark the sections? Default stylesheets would produce the same style for each of them, preserving the current look, but users could use custom stylesheets to collapse out information for editions that don't interest them. Maybe we could even let logged-in users choose such a stylesheet in their preferences. With irrelevant editions suppressed, readers would enjoy a smoother reading experience. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 17:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Interesting, is this something you'd be able to demo somehow? Or is this existing on some other wiki? – Sealbudsman talk/contr 18:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It's been a very long time since I did any CSS, but I'll try to work up something. If there are any CSS gurus reading, hints would be more than welcome. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 18:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, the infrastructure for this is already present. You can see it in your Preferences, at the top of the Appearance tab. There seem to be two levels of stylesheet customization, one for Hydra and a global one. I'll have to research how these are supposed to interact. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 18:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Gamepedia has now confirmed to me that this is permitted and should be possible. (In fact, they're discussing whether they should try to come up with a more elegant solution, though of course they can't give a timetable for it.) So I'll start working on a demo page now. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 16:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Exclusive features pages
What should happen to the Pocket Edition exclusive features page? What about a Java Edition exclusive features page? I think both should still exist in some form. –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk Contribs 05:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Well since PE is now the main version *sigh* I think Pocket Edition exclusive features should be removed and Java Edition exclusive features should be created. – Nixinova • Grid_Book_and_Quill.png Grid_Diamond_Pickaxe.png Grid_Map.png • 05:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * , nothing is the "main version". See this discussion. IMO, we should have a Minecraft (PE, Win10, new Xbox/Switch), Java Edition and Console edition (Playstation for now atleast and the old console editions) exclusive features page. --Pepijn (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * . I see the way you were saying, but is it needed anyway? Currently, the wiki doesn't have exclusive features page for Java Edition, and almost the features that were listed on Pocket Edition exclusive page are not transferred yet onto the related page. So I think the same thing should happen for Java Edition after the Better Together Update was released. – ItsPlantseed ⟨₰|₢⟩ 14:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I meant that we shouldn't see anything as the main edition anymore, so I'm fine with no "exclusive features" pages at all. But if we make/have one for one edition, we should have them for all the others. --Pepijn (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There are always going to be features that only appear in one version. One example is putting potions in cauldrons. The BlobsPaper.png 01:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * True, but the question is if we want/need a separate page for them. --Pepijn (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * What about a single Exclusive features page, with sections for all three? – Sealbudsman talk/contr 14:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That would make the page too complicated. The BlobsPaper.png 14:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That's fair, I could see that. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 21:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Exclusive template
I made a template in my userspace for exclusive features, based off User:ItsPlantseed's on Template talk:Desktop: User:Nixinova/Sandbox/Exclusive. Example of the template:

– Nixinova •   • 05:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)