Template talk:Exclusive

A question
, Do I need a template variants showing "Console Edition only" and one showing "Education Edition only" in this template?-- 09:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by that? – •    • 04:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * -- 07:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay for some reason the template is broken at the moment... I will try to fix. – •    •  19:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm sorry that I increased your work.--/ 23:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Why is this 7 different templates
Why is this template currently 7 different templates? The whole point of parameters is so you don't need to recreate the same thing many different times, just pass along the two versions as parameters and have the template automatically add the text and images like all the other templates currently do. – undefined/undefined 19:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I did that because I didn't know how to make java launch a preset I am storing currently at . – •    •  20:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Preferably I would have  –  •    •  03:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You just set it to build dynamically from the names you give it. In this case, java needed a different image, but all edition pages are . I switched the template to support calling it like that, and remove the color properties as there is no reason one page should need a different color than the rest of the usages of this template. – undefined/undefined 22:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, still slightly confused, had the parameter in case you wanted the msgbox to be the usual yellow –     04:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * But why would one page want it yellow when the rest have it blue? I cannot think of a single reason one page should have it yellow unless we change it to have all be yellow. All our other message boxes are one color consistently, an individual article does not need to color it differently. – undefined/undefined 17:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * There was some talk about associating different colors with different versions, see . -- 17:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * In that case, the color should probably be predetermined based on the version and not provided by editors. -- 17:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I was just trying to explain why we might want different colors, not advocating for having color as a parameter (just to make things clear). -- 18:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I was just having a setting that could load the usual yellow msgbox template; I didn't know if we would be using the blue or not. –    05:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Repopulate categories
Could someone edit the template so categories like, , and  are repopulated when their respective exclusive templates are used? Perhaps ? – ᐸ  03:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * . To keep these categories and the ones related to information rather than whole features, I added a category for all of them called . – undefined/undefined 03:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for doing this, looking at I'm wondering why all the specific information categories have "edition" in lowercase - for consistency shouldn't these all be upper case, i.e.  instead of ?  – ᐸ   04:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That was me who did that, and I don't have a good reason why I made them lowercase. Looking at the history of only, I seem to have been having a bad day all around. : P – undefined/undefined 05:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * –    05:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Can someone figure out why pages are still populating the lower case categories, i.e. etc?  – ᐸ   06:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It was Drop, I fixed it. Now it's just gonna be a matter of either waiting until MediaWiki decides to refresh the categories, someone edits the pages, or someone makes null edits to the pages. I think I'll just null edit all of them. -- 10:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * . Most of them just needed a null edit, the dye pages needed a null edit on a template I think, and  have the categories manually assigned, so I changed that too. - 10:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for fixing it, I couldn't quite figure out what the problem was! – ᐸ   11:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Centering
Is there a way for infoboxes to change the position of the template? For example, the exclusive template shown below is not centered. –    05:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Majr@undefined do you know how to fix this? –    08:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * . – ᐸ  10:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Education Edition.png to Education Edition.svg
I've a question: How do I get this template to use instead of ? ( • • [ logs]) 🐷🥕☮️ 01:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed it for you. The long #if near the top has the purpose of substituting non-default image file names for each of the first three template arguments. As it's written now, this will only work for "education" if it's one of the first three arguments. The template should probably be revised since it could have more then three, but it should be good for the time being. – ( &middot; ) 02:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested updates
Would somebody be able to remove the pocket parameter, and also enable the console parameter to populate instead of ? – ᐸ  01:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I can fix the category population, but it doesn't actually have logic specific to a pocket parameter. Any parameter it doesn't recognize just generates " Edition only". Essentially, it assumes that we'll change pocket to bedrock. Do we need to short-circuit it, redirecting "pocket" to "bedrock"?--– ( &middot; ) 02:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Never mind. I the category population, and I don't think the pocket parameter was ever used with this template anyway. --–  ( &middot; ) 04:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * For some reason, on pages which have the exclusive template with only the Bedrock Edition (e.g. see and ), the category Edition only is being added and coming up with a redline down the bottom (also see  - a number of pages have populated this).  – ᐸ   10:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Looking into it.... My bad. It was a typo. Hope it didn't cause any maintenance headache! BTW, it would have affected any article that had Exclusive with only one argument, such as .--– ( &middot; ) 15:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Need a way to specify features exclusive to a platform for some Bedrock features
, for example, is a page that is about a feature which is available on Bedrock Edition, but only on Windows 10 & Gear VR. Currently, that page has this template saying that it is "Gear VR Edition & Windows 10 Edition only", but this doesn't really work anymore, since all the Bedrock editions have been merged under one title. There needs to be a way to show that a feature is exclusive to a particular edition on a particular platform. I don't really know what the best way to do this is. What do you folks think? 18:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

--– ( &middot; ) 03:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do we really we need a msgbox at the top of the page saying which platforms it applies to? Isn't it enough to say so in the text? That's our customary approach to such finely-divided cases.
 * It's hard to get the admins to support a template as a solution if the problem only occurs in a very limited number of pages. That's partly because template syntax is complex and most editors can't maintain it, and partly because some admins tend to view templates as a tool for maintaining categories, and they don't want a proliferation of categories that only have a couple of pages on them. (Note, for instance, that at the bottom of the page it's adding the page to two categories we haven't previously had. The links are red because no page has been created to say what the categories are for, but the categories are actually created anyway because that's how categories work. But we don't want categories for Gear VR only and Windows 10 only; we have no use for them.)
 * If there truly is a demonstrable need for what you want, the solution might be a new template (one that doesn't generate categories or generates new and useful categories). I'd suggest that you try to come up with a plan for what parameters it would need and what its output would look like, then create a mockup of it for discussion. (If you don't know how to use the template language, I can help.) When you have it ready, use the Community Portal to announce it, invite feedback and make your case.--– ( &middot; ) 20:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I overlooked what could be a simpler solution. If all you need is a message box at the top of the page, it's possible to use the Message box template. It has a lot of flexibility because it lets you specify CSS for styling. I can help you if you don't know how to use CSS.--– ( &middot; ) 20:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I know how to use CSS... how does this look?
 * 03:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty darn good, except I'd put in some nonbreaking spaces or something to separate the OS icons a little more. Also, if you want it to look a little more like Exclusive, try a horizontal rule and link the pages:
 * Looks pretty darn good, except I'd put in some nonbreaking spaces or something to separate the OS icons a little more. Also, if you want it to look a little more like Exclusive, try a horizontal rule and link the pages:
 * The links should point to Wikipedia pages for those platforms and not the old "___ Edition" pages, shouldn't they?
 * 04:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but I'd have to say no, for now. If we have Minecraft-specific pages, that's what we should link to. Those pages already link to WP, and if we decide to get rid of them later, then whoever does it will use "What links here" to find this template and point it to WP. --– ( &middot; ) 05:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "Minecraft-specific" pages?  23:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant that the sample pages you linked to aren't about Minecraft, while the ones on this wiki are. I think ours would be more useful to our readers, don't you?--– ( &middot; ) 23:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I get what you mean, but linking to pages that are intentionally about an older version of something doesn't seem right either. Right now it isn't much of a problem, but several updates down the road, the "___ Edition" pages are going to become increasingly outdated... they're not supposed to be used for current information.
 * Instead, what if there was a section on the page or a child page that listed all the platform-exclusive features, and the links would link to the part of the section/page relating to that particular platform? That would be a more future-proof way of doing it, and would also give a place to list all the little platform exclusives or features withheld from certain platforms that exist, like 3D export functionality for structure blocks in Win10, the inability to join non-featured servers on Xbox/Switch, and the pause button that's in the UI on iOS & Win10, but not Android since the back button fills that purpose.   23:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize those pages were what they are. I expected them to contain selected information from . In my opinion, they shouldn't even exist as they are, because they violate the guidelines on and . We don't keep articles for achiving, we move the info to the history lists or  pages.
 * I could see linking to sections on, or even to and  if those could be refactored into substantial articles on everything that's unique about them. (Note that we have that word "Edition" again, capitalized as if it were a proper noun.) There are other ways to do it, too: If there are a lot of differences, it might be better to list them together in a single table with a Yes/No column for each platform. That makes it easy to compare platforms globally, yet you can still sort on a platform column to get a list of what you have or don't have in that platform. It could be in  or in a separate "Comparison of Bedrock Edition platforms" article. Which way would work best will probably become clearer as you get a feel for how much information exists. And that in turn could depend on how fine a distinction you judge to be too trivial to list. --–  ( &middot; ) 04:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There aren't really that many differences between the various Bedrock platforms, so I think the "___ Edition" pages should be removed, and perhaps a history section should be added to to note the prior existence of the old editions. There probably isn't even enough differences between the platforms to warrant a dedicated article, so a table on  is probably the way to go.   15:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You do know that when the talks about "the History section" it means the version history list at the bottom, right? We should note the prior existence of old editions on the  page (which is itself historical). --–  ( &middot; ) 16:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. That's what I meant when I said "history section".  16:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, now I'm not sure I agree with what I wrote here. I keep forgetting that Bedrock Edition is Pocket Edition. (That's what making it a name instead of a description does. It makes it a new thing.) --– ( &middot; ) 16:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think it makes sense to use for anything anymore... it should be treated just like the other old "___ Edition" pages and be removed, and  should mention the old editions in a history section and list the platform exclusives in another section with a sortable table.   16:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have now added, and have filled in about as much info as I can at the moment... I'll ask around to find out about any other exclusive features and which features are available on which platforms.  15:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have now added, and have filled in about as much info as I can at the moment... I'll ask around to find out about any other exclusive features and which features are available on which platforms.  15:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest making footnotes for the long strings that make columns much wider than they need to be. (Wide tables don't adapt very well to phone browsers.) You might also want to check out tc to add color. --– ( &middot; ) 16:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 👍 I did what you suggested and used the tc template and notes to improve the table.  16:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks very nice. This discussion has wandered pretty far off what belongs on this template talk page. If you want to continue it I'd suggest we move it to our user talk pages.--– ( &middot; ) 16:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Remove image?
This was discussed on Discord earlier today: to remove the image animation from this template. Sometimes the image will take up so much space that it partially covers the text. It also makes the message box unnecessarily big and really adds no useful information to it. Quoted from Discord, "It's just bloat and actually harder to interpret than the very short text directly below". So, should we remove the image from the template altogether? If not, what other solution could there be? I would support simply removing it, but would appreciate further discussion.-- ( 13:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am the person who wrote the quote and I this. While it could be possible to have the template display a single static image (something which refers to editions, like a phone outline), the text of the template is so short I'm not sure this is necessary... although it may be necessary because of that, some might say. --  13:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I never liked cycling images used in that way. –  |  14:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As the person who initially comes up with the current template design. I with that, it looks even worse in mobile device. Considering it'll only left the text behind, might be good to take other suggestions in  or  into consideration. –  ⟨|⟩ 14:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ... oh wait, we have a message box template we made ourselves, with far more numerous problematic features the community seems to love! >_< -- 14:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would switching to amboxes. –    19:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried to make a mock-up at, I'm not particularly great with advanced templates so I may have messed something up. You can see a demonstration of what the new template would look like at .-- ( 14:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My opinion: that is actually very good. -- 14:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As the person who rewrote the template to generalize it when we started having so many new editions. I'm about keeping the images, but as info, the template is designed to prevent the text overwriting problem, which should only happen if the edition is unknown and the template call didn't override the default box height by including a logoheight parameter. It can easily be fixed by adding an edition name to the template or adding logoheight parameters to the template calls where the problem occurs. I'd be happy to fix that if somebody would point me to the affected pages. –  ( &middot; ) 14:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the discussion is very likely to be resolved in favor of removing the images, and the problematic image was for Pi Edition, I don't think this adjustment is necessary. -- 14:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the text overwriting was the first one cited and presumably the original motivation behind the suggestion, so if it's easily fixed people may want to reconsider. – ( &middot; ) 14:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really correct. The issues are separate, and the overwriting just reminded me I wanted for a long time to propose to make this template more space-efficient. -- 15:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a lot easier to make the image canvas resolution themshelves consistent. – ⟨|⟩ 15:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's decided to remove the images, I volunteer to update the template. Just let me know when it's considered decided. – ( &middot; ) 15:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The revised template and documentation are ready for review at . – ( &middot; ) 16:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer Madminecrafter's version: less padding, more text, larger font. -- 16:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Modified mine to match padding and font size. (What do you mean by "more text"?) My version also eliminates obsolete template code that would cause later confusion and revises the documentation. – ( &middot; ) 16:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * By "more text", I meant a higher fraction of the template's area occupied by text. Also, I'm not sure that minimum width is necessary, I think it looks weird for the JE only case in your sandbox. -- 16:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed minimum width. (I think it was a holdover from an older version of the template, intended to ensure the box didn't get too small to be noticed.) – ( &middot; ) 16:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no further suggestions. -- 16:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * end result of above conversation/suggestions. I would also like to see a generalized icon / pictogram at the left side of the message box, to show what kind of message it is. I thought something like, or  in case we choose an exclamation mark for it. Or we could use something that represents all platform types. –  [   ] 18:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would warning icons be appropriate here? This is an information message. -- 19:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No real reason, I'm not that good with icons. Just the idea of using an icon that counts. – [   ] 19:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I changed the template to use the Information.png icon. To review: –  ( &middot; ) 19:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think is much cleaner. --  19:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the icon used this way shifts the position of the text inside the box. If the image is set as a background image, it can be set to specifically position in the vertical center, and not affect the text in any way, as long as the box height takes the image height into account. Besides, the icon doesn't need the link, it is a repository file anyway. – [   ] 19:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Something needs to fill in the space. I already hate stub for being so small and space-wasting. (Can we switch to amboxes?) –    19:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything really needs to fill in the space, I'd say the smaller the better. I agree that amboxes would probably be better than message boxes.-- ( 00:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd mock up an ambox version, but ambox and its module don't seem to be available on this wiki and I don't know how to implement it. Is somebody planning to get amboxes implemented here? – ( &middot; ) 11:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a default Gamepedia version, but its styles will need adjustments. I have a test version . -- 11:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)