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 feedback site.

Cleanup disambig pages with only two things
Disambiguation pages with only two items is useless, such as speed and Wither Skull are useless, but some, like ingot and nugget are useful, I thinking that we could change disambiguation pages with two items only to be redirected to the thing that refer most to the title, and place about or redirect template on the page and link to the other page, what should we change with disambiguation pages with only two items? Here have I three suggestions:
 * 1) Keep them, they are useful
 * 2) Redirect them to the thing that refer mot to the title and place a about or redirect template that leads to the other thing
 * 3) Delete them

Any comments are welcome!  psl85  (talk • contribs) 11:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * They are useful if they are disambig from the title like your two examples. I see no problem with the user deciding what they mean by Wither Skull or Speed instead of deciding for them. – KnightMiner  · (t) 02:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The ingot, golem, and nugget disambiguation pages is useful, but I think less useful disambiguation pages, like speed, heart, and Wither Skull, should we redirect speed to example status effect and place "about" or "redirect" template on the speed section and link to the other use, or should we keep them?

(See Category:Disambiguation pages for a full list)  psl85  (talk • contribs) 04:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I just said I think we should keep them, why are you asking me again? Yes, you can redirect them and place an about, but that is only useful if one of them is the more likely target (which in both of your two original cases neither is, heart arguably is more useful as health but even that is a bit rough), plus sectional redirects are rough to add an about to.
 * I suggest you look at specific pages and give a clear opinion on what you want done, rather than stating in general disambig pages with 2 pages is bad. It could also be done on the dedicated talk pages instead of needing a community portal topic. – KnightMiner  · (t) 00:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * We could start here a community discussion where users can choose to keep or redirect disambiguation pages with only two items, here have i an example: speed, should i keep it, or redirect it to status_effect, or redirect it to the other use? Wikipedia-logo.png psl85  (talk • contribs) 03:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

What should we do of the "/video" subpages?
Hello everybody,

Recently, after discussing with CrsBenjamin, I was told that, contrary to what I (and others) thought, the Curse videos (from the "/video" subpages) are not subjected to the Curse video policy. They were not "placed at or near the top of a content page by staff members" and we can manage them ourselves, including removing them from the pages, unprotect these pages or even delete them.

I would like to hear what you think we should do with them now. Do you think we should include videos on the pages at all? On which pages? Do you think we should remove the current videos and replace them? Or simply remove the ones that are outdated and that's it?

In addition, do you think the protection should be lowered on these subpages to Auto-confirmed? We could also decide to include them directly on the pages instead, removing the need for the subpages entirely.

JSBM (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * For reference, list of all "/video" subpages


 * List of all "/Update Video" subpages


 * Many of the videos have been outdated for a long, long time, and all of them were created to describe Java Edition specifically, so they certainly wouldn't meet our standards if they were transcribed into prose. On the other hand, they're funny, entertaining, and most of the information in them is still accurate (since they're fairly general). They're better than nothing, I'd say. They were still valuable to me as a noob, and I feel a bit nostalgic about them. I'd be sad if we decided to delete most of them. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 21:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Technically most of them weren't created for an edition, since back then Java was the only platform for Minecraft. But back to the point at hand, if any of them are still relevant, they should just be included directly on the pages. If it's decided not to be used, either delete them, or use media links on a video archive page to keep them linked to something in case someone wants to find them. In either case, the video subpages themselves really don't have a practical use. DSquirrelGM &#120035;&#120031;&#120018; &#128504; 23:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I believe it would be best to remove them only when they are very overrated (few of the cases) - Iludido (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I believe the videos are useful (mostly due to what Auldrick said), so I don't think we should delete all or most of them. However, I propose to remove videos that are very outdated and a lot of the information doesn't apply anymore, such as the video for Adventure. I also strongly support lowering the protection. Admin-only seems extreme. Maybe we could change the /video subpage abuse filter so that it only prevents the edit if the user has made less than 50 edits and lower the actual protection to semi. I'm not sure how much I like lowering it completely, as I could see IPs adding their own videos and such.-- Madminecrafter12 Orange Glazed Terracotta.png to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 00:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, we need to rewrite the video policy. The page is currently confusing and full of inconsistencies.-- Madminecrafter12 Orange Glazed Terracotta.png to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 00:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal
Given the few answers, I'm directly going to make a proposition instead.

I suggest that we do the following:
 * For articles that doesn't benefits from an additional visual explanation (for example, blocks like Dirt, Cobblestone or Wool; items like Apple or Gold Ingot), the videos should be simply removed. These pages are generally good with only text, and there is no reason to keep a video.
 * For articles that can be better understood with some visual content (for example, blocks like Comparator or Note Block; items like Eye of Ender; most mobs and biomes), the current videos should be kept only if they are still accurate and reasonably up to date. Videos that are too outdated should be removed. (For now, they would not be replaced, but see the next section for that.)
 * Snapshot and update articles should keep their videos. However, they should be put between  tags when necessary to prevent them from showing on pages like 1.13/Development versions.

In addition:
 * All "/video" (and "/Update Video") subpages should be removed, and videos should be directly inserted in the articles;
 * The abuse filter that prevent from creating or editing "/video" subpages should be removed;
 * We should start discussions to decide if we should encourage people to add new or more up to date video on pages where they could be useful. We should also discuss if we want to replace outdated video, and which video should replace them. Potentially update the Video policy too.

I think it would be a good start. We would already clean up a good part of the videos on the Wiki, and it would allow us to make a decision in the future on more complex or specific case, or about the future of videos on this Wiki. So, please share your opinion on this proposal, it would be greatly appreciated!

JSBM (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , I think the "/Update Video" subpages should be kept for their utility. - Hugman_76 [ Grid Book.png Grid Book and Quill.png Grid Diamond Pickaxe.png ] 16:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. FVbico (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , definitely. I like the idea (from point #1) that we might start only adding/keeping videos because they are useful because they convey ideas that are difficult in text. I notice that's already in the video policy, though, the first section. Definitely support weeding through them though. – Sealbudsman talk | contribs 21:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , I'm working on each of the videos. As I have mentioned several times, I would like to visually contribute some articles: first I am uploading right now a new tutorial video for the Beginner's Guide page. I would like to set up a small "media" team whose job would be to leave the site updated and expressed in harmony. For example, the x or y in-game server or minecraft news/foruns/etc. sites has a group of people focused mainly on the part of the presentation. -- Iludido (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

InvSprite vs ItemSprite
There are currently two templates that manage the display of item inventory sprites on the wiki: InvSprite and ItemSprite. Are there any known differences in the purposes of these templates? Could they be unified in some way? InvSprite has a more complete listing of sprites, but ItemSprite has a handy associated linking template in ItemLink. So far as I can tell though, the overlapping sprites between the two templates are the same. I believe somehow merging these templates would allow for easier maintenance of sprites going forward, but I am not sure as to the best way of doing this without having significant, site-wide consequences. Any ideas? — Bg samm (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The easiest way to merge the spritesheets would probably be to resize File:InvSprite.png and set a scale of 2 in Module:InvSprite. The hard part would be making the names consistent. The names from one or the other could be set to deprecated, or each template could use different names. It would be better to make all the names consistent. Unfortunately that would entail setting ~2,368 sprites names as deprecated. A solution to that could be to make Module:Sprite format names to lowercase and space replaced with -. It would need a parameter to turn that on/off. Jahunsbe (Talk) 23:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't assume all edits are vandalism
A friendly reminder to everyone - just because an edit changes factual information, comes from an IP, or is unexplained does not mean it's vandalism. I have seen this happen a lot - a user makes an edit, an experienced user just assumes it's bad and doesn't verify it, so they revert it, a lot of the time with no edit summary, and it turns out the user was correct. This seems to have occurred repeatedly within the past week or so. So I just thought it would be nice to remind all of you - before reverting an edit for being "vandalism," look over the edit and see if it seems probable that it's actually correct information rather than just assuming that it's vandalism. If you have the game, of course you can test it there - otherwise, we do have User:Jack McKalling/patroller-requests. I have noticed this happening more often after we started promoting a lot of patrollers - if a new user makes an edit, it's just assumed to be vandalism and rolled back without an explanatory edit summary, assuming that it's vandalism.

Do note that it is not at all one specific person doing this, or even a few specific people. And I do know everyone is trying to help the wiki, and all of your work is greatly appreciated. I've just seen this from many different users several times, so I just thought I would point this out. Remember, not all edits that look like vandalism are vandalism. Not all IP editors all vandals. Not all unexplained changes are incorrect. Just something to keep in mind.-- Madminecrafter12 Orange Glazed Terracotta.png to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 19:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Merge fish back together
The result of the discussion was do not merge.

I with the recent split up of the Fish (food) page. The split hasn't done away with parenthesized page names and has made things very inconsistent with the mob form, which is currently all merged. Therefore I propose that it be merged back together, but this time under the title Fish (item), which looks more natural. If this is done, people won't have to constantly switch between pages when they want to compare the items, and it also means there will be less pages to update and maintain. MarcelTheHippie (talk • contribs • logs&#32;• block log) 🐷🥕☮️ 05:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I severely for all reasons mentioned that are for splitting and the severe lack of opposing arguments that was provided during the time the split proposal was made in the first place. FVbico (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The opposing arguments simply failed to be mentioned. But now they're right above your very comment. MarcelTheHippie (talk • contribs • logs&#32;• block log) 🐷🥕☮️ 06:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * “during the time the split proposal was made in the first place.” This time spanned more than 2 weeks, there was no “failed to be mentioned”, there just wasn’t anyone (literally) opposing the split; and now there literally isn’t anybody supporting your merge request. As others have already stated, you can have several internet tabs open in order to compare, so that argument of yours is repelled. Additionally ALL other items have their own page, even cooked and raw food have their own pages, so if anything’s inconsistent right now, it’s the entity and block pages that (still) talk about several different entities/blocks.
 * As for the parenthesized names, that’s because item and entity are still on different pages; perhaps if the entity page got split, the cod mob and cod item page could be merged, the salmon mob and salmon one, pufferfish mob and pufferfish, and tropical fish mob and tropical fish, but for now it’s still better to have the parenthesized names until such time. FVbico (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There are hundreds of active editors on this wiki, and yet how many of them were aware of, let alone took part in, the splitting discussion? The opposing arguments simply failed to be mentioned, period. And have you ever tried switching between tabs on mobile? It's quite a frustrating and time-consuming process. Contrast that to when the different information is right next to each other in the same article, and the comparison can be made in literally no time at all. MarcelTheHippie (talk • contribs • logs&#32;• block log) 🐷🥕☮️ 16:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I switch/close tabs on mobile all the time, takes less than 2 seconds (1/2 second if you exclude looking which tab you need to select, that’s also an issue on pc/laptop), so again, that argument has been repelled.
 * After a being open for several weeks, it’s safe to assume that everybody who cares about the article saw it, and there’s been a lot of people who supported the split, even now; you don’t have a single person who supports merging it back together. It’s more than safe to say that nobody opposed (except for you). FVbico (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * merging fish item pages. They were split to separate the confusing mess of content. The same could be done for the fish mob page, if you so want consistency. The parenthesized names are fine, they make it clearer what the pages are about. – Jack McKalling [ Grid Book and Quill.png Grid Diamond Pickaxe.png ] 08:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, if we merge it again, we can take the opportunity to ensure that it's less confusing. Right Jack? MarcelTheHippie (talk • contribs • logs&#32;• block log) 🐷🥕☮️ 01:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * — I have taken a look at the fish mob article and noticed that its content is cluttered by the description of pufferfish’s poison-inflicting self-defense and tropical fish’s varieties. Their respective item forms are similarly outstanding: tropical fish cannot be cooked, and pufferfish is very poisonous (and nauseating), is used as a brewing ingredient, and can’t be cooked as well. Cod and salmon also have specific traits regarding areal, behavior, drops, saturation and nourishment of their respective item forms etc. This justifies not only the separation of fish items, but also a potential split of the fish mob article. —  BabylonAS (talk | ru.Wiki Admin) 16:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I also fail to see how “less pages to update and maintain” can be a viable argument. The effective amount of content remains the same, including overlapping text on multiple articles: if it is to be edited, then on all articles simultaneously, which might not be a problem if the edits and edited texts are identical. Regarding having multiple pages to compare against each other: with modern multi-tab and multi-window browsers it isn’t much of a problem either (and even initially console-only operating systems like FreeBSD feature multiple switchable consoles). —  BabylonAS (talk | ru.Wiki Admin) 16:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * . "(A) is done, but (B), which is similar to (A), isn't, therefore (A) should be reverted"? Uh... what? --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 16:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you have any better counterarguments than that? Just because it's been split doesn't mean it can't be merged back together! MarcelTheHippie (talk • contribs • logs&#32;• block log) 🐷🥕☮️ 01:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You have answered all replies except mine. Apparently you don't have patience to read my nice little wall of text. — BabylonAS (talk | ru.Wiki Admin) 05:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As per the wiki rules, please refrain from personal attacks against other users. -- Orthotopetalk 10:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Where do you see an attack? Or am I not allowed to use adverbs in discussions? At least thanks for not removing the comment. — BabylonAS (talk | ru.Wiki Admin) 12:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I addressed both of your arguments in favor of splitting in this proposal, and yet you still opposed. Since you haven't answered my above reply for almost a month, I'm going to assume you now . MarcelTheHippie (talk • contribs • logs&#32;• block log) 🐷🥕☮️ 23:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Do not speak for others. This is still considered an . --Pepijn (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * No, it's a . And please stop being mean. MarcelTheHippie <em class="plainlinks" style="margin-left: 0.5em; font-size: 90%;">(talk • contribs • logs&#32;• block log) 🐷🥕☮️ 02:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * . Merging is often not helpful to the reader. You mention having to switch tabs to compare items, but what things are you wanting to compare that aren't covered by comparison pages such as food? –Majr ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:9px;vertical-align:-3px>Talk Contribs 08:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It would obviously be information that isn't covered by those pages, such as obtaining and non-food usages. Now do you support? MarcelTheHippie <em class="plainlinks" style="margin-left: 0.5em; font-size: 90%;">(talk • contribs • logs&#32;• block log) 🐷🥕☮️ 20:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "What things are you wanting to compare not covered by those pages?" "Obviously info that isn't covered by those pages" is not an answer. The food page also does cover obtaining, and what non-food usages are you needing to compare for food? Data values? Advancements? Trading? All seem to have pages. Only notable thing I can see is usage, which could totally be covered on the food page (which also seems to need updating in general). –Majr ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:9px;vertical-align:-3px>Talk Contribs 04:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Judging by flaws in the proposer's argumentation, I suggest closing the fish item part of this discussion off, and switch exclusively to discussing splitting the fish mob article where it actually should be. &mdash; BabylonAS</b> (talk | ru.Wiki Admin) 07:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Considering this has gone absolutely nowhere, with a lot of opposition and no support, I would suggest to wrap this up for now. Things are just going in circles. In the end, it's just a page about virtual fish so no reason for people to take this so personal. This can always be brought up again in the future if people so desire but let it rest for now. --Pepijn (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Aboud "id", "id name", "data value", "name" and so on
Each one of the nouns above may have different meanings in different pages.

For example, wool. In the infobox, its "data value" is 35, and "name" is "minecraft: _wool". And in the section "wool", its "id" is "minecraft: _wool" and "data value" is an integer between 1 and 16 (in BE).

In the page advancements, the id names of advancements are called "interal id", for example, "minecraft:story/obtain_armor".

In the page Java Edition data values, those id names are called "IDs", but in the section Biome IDs, the IDs are called ID names. In the Enchantment IDs and Status effects section, those id names are called "Name". The whole page is names "data values", but includes id names and so on. "Block data further defines blocks placed, describing for example the height of water or the direction a torch points.", but "block data" means the NBT of block entityes (chests, signs etc).

So these concepts need clear names (see also zh:Minecraft Wiki:管理员告示板):


 * The id names of things with namespaces, all-lower cases and underlines, including blocks, entities, advancements, recipes, functions, advancement triggers, criteria, bossbars, effects, particles, loot tables, structures, biomes, dimensions, type of buffet and enchantments.
 * The number id of blocks, enchantments and so on before 1.13 and in BE.
 * The integer to specify the block's facing, color, variant and so on before 1.13 and in BE, for example, the "3" in.
 * The NBTs of blocks and entities, which can be modified with . --SolidBlock (not good at English!) 05:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * ID
 * Numeral ID
 * Metadata/block data/ item data item damage (Item data makes more sense for NBT)
 * NBT data/entity data/item data
 * These would be the most logical to use, and wouldn’t require changing most things. FVbico (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Several of these labels have now been changed to "Numeral ID", which I find quite jarring. I was taught "numeral" as a noun denoting the symbols "1", "2", "3", etc. (especially in the phrase "Roman numerals"), and I don't remember ever seeing the adjective used before this. It's in my dictionary, but I don't think it's in frequent use. I would use "numeric ID" or the synonymous "numerical ID", and I think other American English users would as well, but I can't speak for non-U.S. speakers. Do native English speakers in other countries and regions also find "numeral ID" awkward? – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 01:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Creating a template
Can I create a new template on this wiki? -- Lxazl5770 zh.admin （ 论 • 功 ） 10:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * What for? There’s no requirements AFAIK, but just to make sure no such template exists already. FVbico (talk) 10:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If you think that a new template could be helpful, I'd say go for it. But like FVbico said, make sure it doesn't exist already - if it does, though, it may make a good redirect.-- Madminecrafter12 Orange Glazed Terracotta.png to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 12:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Should ids in infoboxes appear with namespaces?
For example, in the section wool, Java Edition IDs may be "minecraft: _wool" (although namespaces can be removed almost everywhere in game); in the infobox of the page Snowy Tundra, the "Biome ID" can be "minecraft:snowy_tundra" rather than "snowy_tundra". I think ids with namespaces can be more scientific. --SolidBlock (not good at English!) 10:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think this matters much - firstly, if not specified, it defaults to . Secondly, this wiki focuses on vanilla Minecraft content, and mods (and possibly datapacks in the future, if that ever catches on), if documented here at all, are clearly marked as such. We can safely assume every registry name defaults to starting with  . --Hubry (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * We could add a hover text over the "nameid" label that says it's namespaced with, but as already stated, it doesn't matter if it's specified at all, and even worse: in bedrock the namespace has to be omitted (in commands at least). So I think namespace shouldn't be specified. (Though I do think mod pages should specify it, either in the value or hover text.) FVbico (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Use of Minecraft: Bedrock Edition
On this page, the term Minecraft: Bedrock Edition was used. This was never officially used by Mojang or Microsoft. Is there something to do with it?-- skylord_wars (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC) ''Edited on 08:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC) ''


 * It is officially used by Mojang now. What is your question? – Jack McKalling [ Grid Book and Quill.png Grid Diamond Pickaxe.png ] 12:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Navbar hollow's edge behind the search bar
Should this be retextured? Lê Duy Quang (Make some words | Contributions) 12:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)




 * I looked into it, and this isn't a texture. It's the solidly coloured border of an element, made to look like this specifically with the stylesheet. The dark background of the search bar is all style, no images here that overlay the page background. – Jack McKalling [ Grid Book and Quill.png Grid Diamond Pickaxe.png ] 13:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Then make a background image for it maybe? I made this image for that edge but didn't know exactly how to put it in...


 * Edge retextured.png


 * Lê Duy Quang (Make some words | Contributions)

Split different Minecraft versions
Pages are becoming increasingly cluttered and difficult to read as the different versions of Minecraft (e.g. Java Edition, Bedrock Edition, Education Edition, etc.) drift further apart. Currently, articles tend to describe all the different Minecraft versions in a very disorganised manner. It is frustrating trying to read an article when only a proportion of the information is relevant to the version you are using.

I propose splitting each page into a separate page for each version of Minecraft, as this will greatly improve readability. This could be done in a manner similar to the Star Wars Wiki: Many of their articles have separate pages for "Canon" and "Legends", with tabs at the top of the page to switch between the two. Minecraft Wiki articles could include similar tabs to switch between the different Mincraft versions.

--J p smith (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * . This would make the wiki way more confusing to navigate then before. -BDJP (t 16:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * on this implementation, the idea of somehow allowing readers to choose preferred editions, or otherwise allow them to find content relevant to a specific edition faster. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 16:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * creating new pages for everything. Creating new articles where most needed, and for finding better ways to organize editions. I agree that the split between editions is somewhat disorganized, but I think that creating a page for every article is too drastic. There's not too many edition differences other than little quirks and edition exclusive features. I would rather do something like the Terraria Wiki(literally just hit random page) where they use icons to show the differences between editions. Jahunsbe (Talk) 00:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * like the others above for splitting all pages. Please refer to these existing discussions instead: COMPORTAL:Archive20:Not in Pocket Edition, Template:Only:Adding a complementary template and Projects:Renaming:Opportunity for CSS stylesheets, and check out the project Highlighting Edition-Specific Information. This is a hot topic, different, more convenient approaches have been discussed in many places as you can see, even on this page's archives. – Jack McKalling [ Grid Book and Quill.png Grid Diamond Pickaxe.png ] 07:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Will make the pages even more confusing than they already are. – Nixinova Grid_Book_and_Quill.png Grid_Diamond_Pickaxe.png 08:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * This is not the way it should be done. Works well on Wookieepedia as things are often very different in Legends than Canon, but Minecraft has many editions and differences are smaller. - Erufailon4 (talk · contribs) 10:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not understand what would be the advantage of this, even with your explanation. But I agree that we should think of a better way to make the pages less confusing, according to the editions of the game Iludido (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I Believe that this will make the wiki a lot easier to read and acess, but it would take a LONG time to change everything. However, I still thing that thi is the best way to go. Thelarry79 (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

To everyone: Voting in discussions
There is this one issue with many editors' interpretations of discussion procedures which has the potential of being highly damaging to the project. It's that wiki discussions are votes. They are not, and are not supposed to be.

The wiki is a resource written for readers, almost none of whom are editors. According to the admin analytics dashboard, all Minecraft Wikis in total had more than 4.5 million visitors (you can safely assert that 3 million of them visited the English wiki) over the last 30 days, while during the same time period only 237 accounts have performed any actions at all on the English wiki, and if you exclude blocked accounts, known alts and bots, as well as users with less than 5 actions and without extended rights, this list gets down to 70 entries.

That is, out of every roughly 43 thousand visitors only one can very remotely (5 actions is an incredibly low bar) be considered an editor. And given the number of those who participate in discussions is even lower, we can with no hesitation assert we have not the slightest idea about the opinions of almost every visitor on matters which will almost definitely affect almost all of them. In other words, the set of people expressing their opinions in wiki discussions is an insignificant subset of the actual community affected by decisions made in these discussions.

And yet, I have seen many times that decisions have been made, or that it has been implied that a decision should be made, on the basis of the number of users who expressed their support or opposition to a proposal. In addition to the already stated misrepresentation issue, there are multiple others.

First, in a discussion it's meaningful not only to introduce a new viewpoint, whether entirely original or derived from an already stated one, but also to support an existing one. Just supporting an existing viewpoint is equivalent to saying "I have reviewed your proposal, haven't found substantial flaws in it, and would like to see it implemented". Just opposing it without any explanation is saying "I have found flaws in your proposal I'm not telling you which I think mean the proposal shouldn't be implemented". Do I need to tell you how constructive it is to be told there are significant errors in your work without a slightest hint at what these errors are? Yet I have seen editors rebuked for insisting raw opposition is meaningless. Just one example of a stated opinion which shouldn't affect the outcome.

Consider also this scenario which serves to demonstrate the nonuniformity of local and general competence among wiki editors. A proposal is made which is supported by ten users, yet an eleventh user comes and points out a significant and easily verifiable flaw in the proposal which means the proposal would be harmful if implemented. Do we need to delay dropping the proposal until either five of the supporters concede to Comrade Eleven, or twelve more users come and express their agreement with them? No, because the presented evidence takes priority over the number of initial supporters.

If you're going to go further, there's fact people are more likely to express discontent rather than content; I have been told by another prominent editor on the Russian wiki that they consider pure support unconstructive. I pointed out that this means a very good proposal won't receive any comments, rendering it unable to pass if the proponent wishes for a second user to review and support it before implementing it.

And that's not even considering arguments can be plain wrong. As a classic example, and one which I find very annoying, is this: Let's do X, like on Wikipedia! --User 1
 * Oppose. We're not Wikipedia. --User 2

Neither user really provides a point. There are many reasons why a procedure vital for Wikipedia could be highly detrimental to Minecraft Wiki. For one, we are a much smaller community with a significantly more narrow focus, and especially complicated procedures modelled after Wikipedia may backfire if implemented here, such as by exorbitantly draining the time and strength of our editors and administrators. Neither does User 1 in the example present issues on Minecraft Wiki their proposal is meant to mitigate, nor does User 2 properly analyze the proposal and present future readers of the conversation with the apparent intent and effects of the proposed procedure or action.

To summarize, counting opinions cannot be used as a substitute for analyzing arguments and evidence. Also, I'm very tired due to recent real-life events, so please forgive me for writing Frisk-sized walls of text with the clarity of a poorly constructed artificial intelligence. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 16:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Except that of those many many visitors, a large portion has no experience with this wiki or wikis in general. The people who are frequent editors are, in general, the people who have the most experience with the wiki. This is only a response to your first "point" about the significance of a vote in the grand scheme of the wiki and its users. --Pepijn (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It took your post, and some time during a sleepless night interspersed with thinking about legally privileged child abuse and nonprosecutability of obstruction of medical services with the intent to cause death of another, to conclude that the problem was way worse than I initially thought.
 * The problem isn't that most readers are not experienced enough to offer useful feedback in discussions. Users' experience is covered by the "10 vs. 1" point. The problem is that readers are affected by something they will not influence for several reasons.
 * First, it's that the fact the wiki has a metapedic component at all is obscure for most readers. The idea that every software product or a website has the work of people behind it is not one which occurs to most people when they use it. To read a wiki, it is "sufficient" to view it as a black box which typically provides useful information when a request is made.
 * Second, it's indeed that people often lack the experience to notice improvements can be made at all. Such inference requires familiarity with many more concepts than even your slightly above-average Alison or Solomon would know. "Not everyone is a web designer" is an understatement.
 * Third, it's that people are being purposefully conditioned by powerful entities such as governmental and religious institutions not to express any form of discontent, but rather to accept the world as it is made for them without questioning the actions or their "superiors", let alone trying to change anything.
 * Referencing the third point, during my high school years (not so long ago as some of you might think) I have noticed what seemed to be a misspelling in the history textbook. While the teacher (she was hardly less than 70 years old at that point) agreed, half the class started fervently convincing me there is no error (despite none of the actors having higher language grades than me). It shouldn't come as a surprise I spent some time in the evening trying to figure out which opinion is the right one. I determined that the form used in the textbook had only recently entered dictionaries as a valid alternative, and writing practices listed in some less widely known, yet authoritative sources prescribe using the new form only in some contexts the older form was used in; the example from the textbook wasn't one such context.
 * Summarizing: even though our decisions affect so many, so few of them will ever participate in our decision-making processes. This requires a reader to be familiar with the wiki (and/or wikis in general), being able to generate ideas they would consider useful, and willing to offer their suggestions to others. At this point, we most likely no longer have a reader, but an editor; and I listed the ratio of readers to editors in my previous post, which is sufficiently accurate even considering various errors and potentially inaccurate assumptions made when calculating it. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 06:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the fish
The fact that the splash message "Thanks for the fish" is a reference to Hitchhiker's Guide to Galaxy should be mentioned on the page about splash messages. I already posted a few comments about this topic on the Talk:Splash page, but no one seems to have noticed them, so I posted the issue here. 193.210.231.109 17:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The actual sentence in Hitchhiker's Guide is "So long, and thanks for all the fish", while "thanks for the fish" is an ordinary sentence that might be said spontaneously by any dolphin in the game if you imagine it could speak. What evidence is there that Mojang intended the splash to reference the book? I find it believable that they did, but I'd be more convinced if the splash included the word "all". – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 17:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Author rewards program
This page is not Minecraft-related in any way and sounds like blatant advertising. I think it doesn't belong to Minecraft wiki and should be deleted. 85.76.69.41 11:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Although this page was made by some of the hosting Gamepedia platform's staff members, and was legitimate back then, the page is old and I don't believe relevant anymore. It contains dead external links and mentions an "as of" date of over 5 years ago. The associated talk page also discusses whether or not to delete it. – Jack McKalling [ Grid Book and Quill.png Grid Diamond Pickaxe.png ] 11:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I asked on Slack what should be done with this page. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 12:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * by ATCN. I personally still don't necessarily like the idea of having a mainspace page that's not fit for mainspace, even if it is a soft redirect, but it's better than it was before.-- Madminecrafter12 Orange Glazed Terracotta.png to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 00:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion: Texture pack lists
The result of the discussion was delete. I'm going to be deleting the 3 subpages of Texture pack below, and am moving the Programs and editors/Inventory editors deletion discussion to a subsection and leave it open, so that the questions asked by asked can be addressed.-- Madminecrafter12 Orange Glazed Terracotta.png to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 01:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC).

Quoting myself from Discord, they are "unmaintainable collections with no definable inclusion/exclusion criteria". Another quote from Jack McKalling:
 * Texture pack/Low
 * Texture pack/Native
 * Texture pack/High
 * there is no reason to keep them anyway, it would just be another (set of 3) pages sitting and doing nothing
 * it's not there for people to refer to either, because they are not really linked to

Your thoughts? --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 17:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * for all reasons as stated above. -BDJP (t 17:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I these quotes. And deletion as well. – Jack McKalling [ Grid Book and Quill.png Grid Diamond Pickaxe.png ] 18:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , the lists are very incomplete and rarely updated, making them hardly useful for anyone. 46.132.188.174 04:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * . – Sonicwave talk  04:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion: Programs and editors/Inventory editors
I would also support the deletion of Programs and editors/Inventory editors (which is outdated and contains few items) under the same criteria. – Sonicwave talk  04:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * the deletion of Programs and editors/Inventory editors too. It seems to be incomplete and rarely updated, making it useless. 193.210.226.226 07:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just that subpage? You think some other subpages of Programs and editors (or that page itself) should be kept? If so, tell me why. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 19:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging . -- Madminecrafter12 Orange Glazed Terracotta.png to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 01:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't really mind the deletion of any of them (especially the list style articles or extreme stubs), though I think Programs and editors/Mod Coder Pack may still have some significance (partially since it was developed by Searge and ProfMobius). – Sonicwave talk  23:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * all. Every one of the lists seems to be rarely updated and almost every program listed on those pages is incompatible with the most recent versions of the game. I don't think these pages are useful for anybody. 46.132.190.234 05:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Create abuse filter for "Roblox" vandalism
I see that the "Roblox" word is often added to the pages by some IP users and is often added, should we create abuse filter for "Roblox" vandalism that does not allow inserting the word into pages?  psl85  (talk • contribs) 06:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , a filter like that would be very useful in preventing vandalism and won't create false positives, since there is no good reason why that word should be added to any page. 85.76.86.84 07:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Mob and Block Renders
Where exactly do the images of mc mobs and blocks come from? How are they made? Who makes them? –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Thelarry79 (talk • contribs) at 6:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC). Please sign your posts with


 * See MCW:Standardized views --Giorgosarv18 (talk/contribs) 08:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed 3DS version history split.
After that small edit war which sort of felt like that time in which the crown when to Henry VI and then to Edward IV in the War of the Roses that seemed to never end, we have a discussion woo.

Anyway, this discussion is in regards to the splitting of the New Nintendo 3DS Edition version history article into several version articles (example).

Personally, I do the split because I feel like the split is not really necessary and it would be better off if the version history stayed within the main article. -BDJP (t 22:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That's basically saying you oppose the split because you don't like it. I am towards the split because while that single history page is somewhat hard to read and navigate, it's also rather short. Also, that table layout makes me cringe. So much empty space. Maybe refactor it into sections of regular text? --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 22:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Well obviously I support this split as I already did it. There is literally no reason not to and all other versions that go by only one name get their own pages. And that table layout is horrendous especially on mobile. You have yet to really provide an actual argument against splitting, BDJP. – Nixinova Grid_Book_and_Quill.png Grid_Diamond_Pickaxe.png 22:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)