Minecraft Wiki talk:Style guide

Capitalization
I think we can all agree that the wiki should be consistent, but there's been debate over what should be capitalized, particularly blocks and items. Personally, I'm leaning toward capitalizing anything that's named in-game. To me, "a house made of Wood" means it's built of Wood (log) blocks, while "a house made of wood" implies any block made of wood (planks, slabs, etc.) could be used. That may just be my particular use of language, though. Any other arguments one way or another? -- Orthotope 09:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd have to disagree on this one. Apart from looking very odd, capitalizing every single in-game item is unnecessary and common sense dictates the opposite because they are not proper nouns. Mojang developers themselves have never capitalized item names because that makes no sense whatsoever. Official Minecraft Forum posts and any offical posting relating to Minecraft have never capitalized item names. Notch's blog posts or any of the Mojang tweets NEVER capitalize item names. Only proper nouns (e.g names of places like The Void or The Nether) should be capitalized in my opinion. Also a better solution to the wood dilemma is to specify exactly what type of wood you need to avoid ambiguity or by linking to the relevant article. The capitalization solution is a bit confusing unless you take a second look. Hower64 10:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Me too. If something is a sufficiently important in-game term, or the subject of the article, better practice is either to link to it or italicise it the first time it appears, thereafter treat it normally. I've written style guides before. I'll dig them up and see what areas of them may be relevant.--82.69.54.207 11:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Point taken; capitalizing every instance of an in-game term does look rather strange. (At least in English; it probably doesn't stand out so much in German.) -- Orthotope 08:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * All items/blocks should just be lowercase then, unless the name involves a proper noun such as Nether brick or End stone. - Asterick6 (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think fictional mobs should be capitalized and real mobs should be lowercase, so Mooshroom is capitalized and cow is not. Or all mobs can be capitalized. - Asterick6 (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of having fictional mobs capitalized and real animals lowercase, on the other hand, having all mobs capitalized sounds worse then having no mobs capitalized. Hower64 09:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Ha3 already started a style guideline at User:Ha3/Style. It might be helpful. - Asterick6 (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Date formatting
While not common in the US, I think YYYY-MM-DD (as used in Minecraft screenshots) is the most useful. The main advantage is that sorting dates as text (such as on the Programs and editors pages) also sorts them chronologically. -- Orthotope 09:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We discussed date formats a while back. No clear decision was really made though.
 * Here's some example date formats I've seen on the wiki:
 * 1st January 1994
 * 1st January, 1994
 * 1st of January 1994
 * 1st of January, 1994
 * 1 January 1994
 * 1 January, 1994
 * January 1st 1994
 * January 1st, 1994
 * January 1 1994
 * January 1, 1994


 * Personally, I think we should use the international standard (YYYY/MM/DD. Forward slashes or dashes, it really doesn't matter) for tabular data and cramped areas like the infobox, and use one of the first six date formats above for normal article text. –ultradude25 (T&#124;C) at 10:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

When writing a numbers-only date format, we should use YYYY-MM-DD, because it is the ISO standard. The ordering lets it sort nicely, and the dashes help distinguish it from the US date ordering which is nearly always written with slashes. I offer no opinion on long date formats. —kpreid 18:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * How about "month name" DD, YYYY (June 10, 2012) since this wiki is supposedly using AE? Or we could just use the wiki date format, DD "month name" YYYY. This can prevent confusion with using numbers for months. - Asterick6 (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Page organization
Many pages have Trivia, History, Bugs, Gallery, and/or See also sections, usually toward the end, but there doesn't seem to be any consistent ordering to them. It would be nice to have some guideline as to which order to put them in, though I don't have an opinion on what it should be. -- Orthotope 09:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This has definitely been bugging me a lot lately. I would say the most logical order and the one most wikis have would be: History -> Bugs -> Trivia -> Gallery then See also. Any opinions? Hower64 10:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I like that ordering. We should also specify where “Video” (bleh) goes; I would propose buried at the bottom, er, above History but below all current textual information. —kpreid 18:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This ordering is fine, but the video section should go after the history section and before gallery/trivia. - Asterick6 (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see a need to change every page just to put the video section after the history section :S. Hower64 09:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Course not, just remember to move them or fix the small things whenever you edit pages for vandalism, cleanup, or updates, etc. It's efficient to do edits along with other edits instead of editing a page only to move sections around. Every editor should remember to fix small things along with the intended edit whenever (they) update a page. - Asterick6 (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think each block/item article should be ordered like this: lede, Uses/Properties, Crafting, (additional sections), Video, History, Bugs, Trivia, Gallery, See also. For articles of mobs, it can be ordered like this: lede, (spawning, appearance,) behavior/AI, combat/breeding,, defense/strategies, video, history... For articles such as crafting with long crafting recipes/lists, I think the history section should be first since the crafting recipes section is very long. Since the history section is unrelated to the other sections, it can be placed first, then the related sections, and then the long crafting list. - Asterick6 (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Issues about history-cruft were brought up before at Minecraft Wiki talk:Community portal where editors should move history versions and the associated content (as of xxx, etc.) to the history section, (but I think the problem might be fixed now). - Asterick6 (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So many pages with that issue... Hower64 09:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

History sections
Should this be sorted with newer items at the top or bottom? Another one where I care more about consistency than which one we use. -- Orthotope 09:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We should implement a system similar to what the official TF Wiki uses in which all patch notes are organised in a consistent format with relevant links and a neat scroll bar to take up less space. Hower64 10:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We could implement that to template:history. - Asterick6 (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

They should have the newest items at the bottom; as each item will generally describe differences from the previous situation, this ordering creates a readable “story” and communicate the historical context of each change better. Also, I think most history sections are already in that order. —kpreid 15:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought all of them are in that order already. - Asterick6 (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What about the development versions? I think the update changes should retain the exact version of the update/change (e.g., 12w08a instead of 1.2), or we could just not document these changes (and save time) and only use the official release changelog. I kinda like having all the changes listed as they occur. - Asterick6 (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think we should keep the exact snapshot of change instead of merging it with the official release just because it saves time and is more accurate. Hower64 09:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

See also sections
Is there a point to these? Most of the time, all the listed pages are already linked to in the article. -- Orthotope 09:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think they should include things which are either not already linked, or are material which one might expect to find in the article (except that the wiki more finely divides things). For an example of the latter, I might put a link to Spawn from Mobs, because someone looking to thoroughly understand mobs is quite likely to want to know about their spawning as well. “See also” sections should not include merely related items; for example, I would remove the SA link to Gunpowder from Creeper, because it is already linked and the uses of gunpowder are not part of understanding creepers. —kpreid 18:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)