Talk:Mods

Version Marking
I'm not sure how to mark mod releases that don't specifically say they work with B1.2_02, for example some same B1.2 or B1.2_01+ does anyone have any ideas? Zman 13:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you mean? If you mean mods that say they're compatible with a version upwards, that's impossible because EVERY version (thus far) of Minecraft breaks mods. Regardless, it's best just to set it to their latest supported (existing) version. In this case, --Gnu32 13:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

SimpleMap
Would anyone be able to reupload SimpleMap v0.7? The thread got closed down due to some chaos or something, but the mod was still solid. -Serow 21:04, 10 October 2010 (CDT)
 * No. The person who wrote SimpleMap has requested that no-one makes it available for download. Notch has said that the mod violates his wish that alternative versions of Minecraft are not distributed by anyone else. (Threads on | Minecraft forum and | reddit) DannyF1966 09:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Halloween Compatibility
Anyone think it's a good idea to remove all of the non-halloween update compatible mods for clarity? Only add them as they are made halloween compatible. This would be both an incentive for the devs to update, and would prevent any issues for users with incompatible mods before they happen. I just suggest reducing the time for deletion to today instead of a weeks time, as this is when few mods have been updated and when the most users (both old and new) will be looking to mod their game. What do you guys think? --BroCookie 02:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Nah, just tag them with Halloween Incompatible GLaDOS 21:51, 31 October 2010 (CDT)


 * That works too ;) --BroCookie 02:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That said, doing it my way might require a not insignificant amount of editing of the involved pages and templates to get everything categorised properly. I'm not familiar with the current layout and I don't want to volunteer anyone for extra work just to satisfy my ideals on this subject. --XipXoom 22:01, 31 October 2010 (CDT)
 * My personal preference would be to have an 'up to date' tag in a mod template and any mod that doesn't have this at the current version would instead be set to an out of date category. I'm not a fan of deleting something as an incentive to get people to move faster, but I feel you are correct in that there could be confusion with how thing are now.


 * I agree with XipXoom's idea. now, anyone up for mod testing? :D GLaDOS 03:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * An out of date category would be good, as there are people who purposefully run out of date versions for whatever reason, and that category would be ideal for them to look for, without impacting general users who are up to date. --BroCookie 03:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Now I see what you're getting at: a part, that says the most recent version of the client it is compatible with, right? GLaDOS 22:12, 31 October 2010 (CDT)


 * Yes, though i suggest only in two sections, "up to date" and "not up to date", as it will get very messy if there is a section for each minecraft update. Obviously keep the latest version its compatible with in the table with each entry. (as is done with mod version now) So people know what version is usable, but without expanding the page massively. --BroCookie 03:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That was what I had in mind. And if the flag doesn't match the recent version its automatically tagged as incompatible until its tested and its page edited.  But as I said, its likely a lot of work to get the templates and all the pages edited properly and I just don't have the wiki-fu knowledge to manage it. It might even be overkill to have it automatic until the list of client mods and editors grows larger. Ultimately I think it will be up to whomever is able and willing to tackle this project first. --XipXoom 03:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Just overhauled the page, added two new columns, Latest Compatible Release, and Requires ModLoader. Should I add templates for the version numbers for the first column? CyborgDragon 19:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I decided to go ahead and add the templates. Page was severely reduced in size, and it's easier to update now. CyborgDragon 17:35, 2 November 2010 (CDT)

Multiplayer compatibility
I imagine many of these mods do not play well with multiplayer. Perhaps it's a good idea to add a column saying Yes/No for SMP compatibility? --Dutchy 00:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Layout
Would it be a good idea, to instead of having a column for the forum links, to make the name column link to the forums. It would save on space. --Azure 22:47, 5 November 2010 (CDT)


 * Having it link to the forums instead of the downloads would be better. Why'd you remove the forum links column instead of the download links column. At the moment I can't do much because my computer died, finally, and my parents' computer sucks. CyborgDragon - It&#39;s dangerous to go alone! Take this. 11:15, 6 November 2010 (CDT)


 * The mod name links to the forums. While there is one forum link, some mods have multiple download links, which is why that column was kept, and the forum column merged with the name column. -- Azure 07:44, 9 November 2010 (CST)


 * It is extremely bad form to link directly to a download off site without the express permission of the author and host. It encourages readers to skip the forum or website links that generally have far more up to date information on the topic than the wiki could provide.  Linking to the forum also makes sure the users are getting the most up to date version.  Finally, linking directly to a file on someone's website potentially keeps readers from visiting said site thereby stealing publicity and potential ad revenue.  They now have to foot the bandwidth cost without getting any of the benefit. --XipXoom 15:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Just changed the layout back to the 'old' style with a link to the forum instead of a direct download link. Please don't plainlinks links that go offsite.  The user needs clear indication that a link would take them off the wiki.  If the name column is to gain links, they should point to a wiki article about the mod.  Its unintuitive for that to point offsite.  This was a quick and dirty edit, so I may have made some mistakes with the links.  Proofreaders would earn much love and maybe even cookies.  --XipXoom 16:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Beta Version
Andythebomb 18:27, 20 December 2010 (CST)How should we deal with the change from alpha to beta? Should the alpha mods be removed or should the beta version number have a B in it ala B1.0_01? We should also change the template color for 1.2.6 the green falsely indicates that it is working.
 * I think we should have it marked with B, and have 1.2.6 marked as A1.2.6, and all mods should be removed. I'm back, with a new computer. :D CyborgDragon - It&#39;s dangerous to go alone! Take this. 10:53, 21 December 2010 (CST)
 * Andythebomb 23:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Well Beta 1.1 came out and broke all the mods... time o go back through. also renaming the version number for B1.0-1.0.2 to just B1.0 ......Andythebomb 17:51, 22 December 2010 (CST) Ok done i went through all beta and alph1.2.6 mods and updated their version compatibility.

singleplayer commands compatibility
hi. i have Minecraft Beta 1.2_02. inside of that table it says that it isnt compatible with this version, but i am using it without any problem. i dont know how to make that green backround in compatibility window, so can someone do it? because singleplayer comands ARE compatible with Beta 1.2_02. (sorry for my bad english)

Whipe?
it feels like the page is a bit... stuffed. i think all mods that aren't Beta compatible should be deleted from this page. it would really clean things up. --Miniguy 13:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)