User talk:Dinoguy1000

This is the community's main discussion page.
Talk about anything wiki-related here!

Template:Archive-box

English or American english?

We sorta need to get a uniformity going in the wiki. this is an issue in many wikis, and needs to be corrected.

What type of english do we use? American or English?

I personally, of course, choose British English, though I know the majority of readers are american. so it's an issue of origin versus popularity.

thoughts? votes? --Kizzycocoa 15:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

American English, because the majority of users are American, Curse is an American company and the servers are located in America. (as far as I know)--Quatroking - MCWiki Administrator 15:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I am going to vote for American English simply because it is easier for Firefox users. The default installed Firefox autocorrect dictionary prefers American English, even in the Great Britain version, or so I have read. Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Also voting American English - it's what the majority of people are used to and frankly, if you went British English people would just be correcting articles anyways (because no one bothers to read the rules :P) --Warlock 15:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I vote British English, simply because I automatically spell that way. Especially when describing the colour of things, or what behaviour they display. :D DreadLindwyrm 15:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There was already a discussion on the date format that should be used, and I believe whatever language that is used, it should be the same as that language's date format, or all dates are changed to an international standard, or at least an internationally readable format (DD Month-Name YYYY).

I, of course, will vote for British English, as this is a wiki, it is generally considered best to use the most formal language (even small things like saying it is instead of it's). Remember that "American English" is just a lazy version of British English. It is even slightly similar to txt speech, which while much more lazy and severe than what American English has done, American English is still removing letters from normal words with the only reason to make them quicker to type or write, which is the same and very popular concept of txt speech. –ultradude25 ^(T|C) at 19:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Note the vast, vast differences between the Wikipedia pages for American English and SMS Language or Internet Slang. American English is a dialect in its own right, containing a large amount of unique words (not abbreviated phrases). As far as calling British English the most formal language, I'm going to have to say:  :) Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is I'm extremely biased against American English, because I hate America for being childish with this whole "we have to be independent and not do anything the same as anyone else" nonsense (which is ironically making me be childish about it). Things would be a lot simpler if America just stuck with normal English, and didn't use outdated measurements like Fahrenheit. </stupid rant that everyone should hate me for, also scaler has a good point> –ultradude25 ^(T|C) at 17:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It makes discussions like these pop up on all of the wikis. :T And Scaler does have a good point. (Possibly a discussion-resolving point?) Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You realize Britian has its own crazy system of measurements too, right? --Warlock 17:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't like Britain's money system, I don't actually know what measurements they use, but at least they use normal temperatures. –ultradude25 ^(T|C) at 00:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Britain has the same 'money system' as america - we have 100p (uk cents) in one pound (UK dollar) and we have notes for £5 and up. The only differences are names, that america uses 25¢ coins instead of 20p coins, and that notes start with $1. We also do not have a crazy system - for distance we use miles and feet (in fact, this is the official standard but at home half of people use metres and km), but everything else (weight, volume, temp etc) is metric. What is crazy about that, after all you have units in groups of 12s or 3s or even 1760s! Jaredjeya 07:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't Minecraft using American English (gray instead of grey)? I think it could be confusing to have the games terms in American English and the rest of the page in British English. – Scaler (t) 20:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It may use American English but all measurements are metric Jaredjeya 07:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what that has to do with anything. Metric is not tied to one particular variant of English (it originated in France, not Britain, for that matter), and it's an international standard; using any other measurement system would only create ambiguity, at least in some situations for some people. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 13:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I vote for American English. Mainly because it's the english I learned and know how to write. Ok, you can say now, that you would correct it to British English. But thats a lot of work. But I know too, that there are people who have time to do such things. The other point is the thing Scaler highlighted. –The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freaktechnik ^{(Talk|Contribs)} . Please sign your posts with ~~~~

I think it does not matter as long as we don't use british terms like trolley or american terms like a la mode. not that anyone would really use either of those on the minecraft wiki, but most american people understand grey and colour and most british people understand gray and color. Also in terms of measurements we should use the metric system because minecraft uses meters. Also what is everyone talking about with the british being more formal? You guys use contractions too- right?

–The preceding unsigned comment was added by allenofdrum ^{(Talk|Contribs)} . Please sign your posts with ~~~~

"à la mode" is not american it's french ^^". I agree to use the metric system. – Scaler (t) 20:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

American English is the Curse standard. That being said however, British English is also acceptable, and not something that should be hunted down and changed, nor should any use be reprimanded or reverted for using it. -- Wynthyst talk 00:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I would !vote for American English, since that's what Minecraft seems to use, though I should also point out that I am American myself. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 13:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe American English for the main wiki, but possibly a translation subspace for British English? CosmoConsole my page! my talk! my contributions! 17:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I vote English; as in, the original one ;P But tbh, I don't think it's that big a deal which variant of the language we use, as long as we dont start writing pages in Punjabi or Jamaican English and *really* confuse readers :P Masked Turk 23:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, we should totally start using Lojban! =D 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 02:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"American English is the Curse standard." Well, that just answers it, doesn't it? - Apollyna ^(T|C) 19:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer British English, and heres why. Firstly, about 15% of the wiki is (and myself) british. If american british editors would like, they can still use, say, jello instead of jelly, but please just stick to it is instead of it's and that.. Jedi in, um, I forgot. 09:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem not to really know what you're saying... "American British editors"? And (at least to the best of my knowledge, having lived in America for the past 22.5 of my 23 years) no American uses "jelly" to refer to "Jello". Lastly, using the contraction "it's" or its expanded form "it is" is not a matter of American versus British English, but rather the formality of the context: in comments such as this, you can use contractions to your heart's content, but for articles, they should be avoided for many of the same reasons first- and second-person should be avoided. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 23:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Notch/Mojang Watch?

I think it's time to devise a new plan.... Not every little item mentioned by Notch or the rest of Mojang in tweets, and blogs will become a part of Minecraft, yet people seem to believe that everything needs a page. I suggest we create a single page where this stuff can be listed, and the links to the tweets and comments can be posted for future reference. If and when we have confirmation that an item is coming in a patch, or has actually been added to the game, THEN the information can be used to create a page.... Opinions? -- Wynthyst talk 00:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

A huge list of citations with the references along with it should be workable.--Quatroking - MCWiki Administrator 01:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

To quote my response two topics above:

The Upcoming Features article seems too definite for features that are so in development that they are very likely to change, so an article following the development of new things would help proliferate the knowledge of updates. I know quite a few people that are not able to follow the Twitter and Google+ accounts of developers but would still like to know what to expect in future patches. It is, after all, data that is contained in a version of Minecraft even if that version is only known to the developers.

--Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I follow Notch's Twitter feed religiously, and I have excellent bullshit sensors - I can almost always tell when he's just joking around about some feature or another (cue hotdog tweet) - so I could help out in that regard. Does anyone do the same for Jeb's Twitter feed? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 06:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Jeb knows about this particular issue since I told him about it once on the IRC. Either way I've got him followed too and it's pretty easy to filter out the jokes and stuff.

We can probably make a big page of references using grouped references; <references group="schwoopy" />. If we'd then just group a lot of twitter messages, Google+, /r/Minecraft and other links, we'd probably get a rather clear overview of all citations made by Mojang.--Quatroking - MCWiki Administrator 08:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we should make this happen... sooner rather than later??? -- Wynthyst talk 16:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Any suggestions for an article title? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 18:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm already working on a draft, I decided that Citations, references and sources would be a good title.--Quatroking - MCWiki Administrator 18:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

help with beta

i got beta about a week ago and i was trying to load it today and it wont load :( –The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jordan9839 ^{(Talk|Contribs)} . Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Please clarify. CosmoConsole my page! my talk! my contributions! 17:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Old articles lost in the wiki in bad quality

Some of the articles in the wiki are old, outdated, badly written and generally bad, for example: Chunk updates, Admin, Lua Scripting, Creation and saving class. Map Editing (hex) all of thous articles are from Category:Server and Category:Development, which contain many articles like thous, but I believe there are more categories like that! I have no idea what to do with them..delete? rewrite? merge? i really don't know...--Yurisho 15:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, a list of pages which have gone the longest without being edited can be found at Special:AncientPages. Interesting how many pages from translation projects are on that list... 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 17:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring the translation articles, the others should be tagged with a version of Template:Outdated that indicates they need to be updated/rewritten etc. -- Wynthyst talk 18:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? Template:Outdated?? It doesn't even makes sense...--Yurisho 19:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Template:Outdated refers to features that were once in normal Minecraft, but are no longer. I, personally, have been sorting through them to see what I can add to the articles, but most of them are translations. Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note my use of the words "a version of" I was not suggesting using that template as is, but something similar. -- Wynthyst talk 01:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Item naming proposal

Shouldn't we call all items that also have a block with a similar name similarly? Right now we have Diamond (Gem)), Iron (Ingot), and Gold (Ingot).

First of all, the ingame items are actually Diamond, Iron Ingot, and Gold Ingot, without parentheses, so the ingots should probably retain their ingame name.

But seeing as the Diamond page should be a disambiguation, calling all items that need the defining extension Name (Item) seems to make more sense to me, for example: Diamond (Item) Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your last point; we should only be adding bits to article names if it is necessary for disambiguation (e.g. if two blocks/items have identical names). I'm also not seeing why Diamond must be a disambiguation page; what does it do that an {{About}} hatnote at the top of the Diamond gem page with the pagename "Diamond" could not? Seriously, {{About|the gem|the ore|Diamond Ore|the block|Diamond Block}} would fill the role perfectly.

I have never been happy with the dabtext-in-titles craze here, though I've also never really voiced it before. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 05:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the about template would do perfectly in the Diamond page. My two basic points were that we should use ingame names and, if necessary, use (Item) or (Block) as the added text in the title. Really, though, if we use ingame names that there should be no problem. No two things are named the same. Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That's good to hear. I'd appreciate hearing the thoughts of others on this though (particularly admins/Curse staff); if this discussion will manage to get a change to happen, it should be sooner rather than later. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 13:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I have to add to this discussion is that any change of the naming convention needs to be agreed upon by more than just the two of you. This affects the entire wiki. So please plan on this being a very lengthy discussion... i.e. weeks, if not months before it is implemented. If you need to go to individual talk pages and point them at this discussion to get adequate participaction, I recommend you do so. Also, no renaming of base images is allowed, they can be reuploaded, but not moved as this affects the German and Dutch wiki as well. -- Wynthyst talk 14:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Why didn't we use the official ingame names in the first place? Was it just because because one person decided it to be so? Drenay 14:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I was hunkering down for a lengthy discussion beforehand.  :) I don't expect the way we create pages to change very quickly, as otherwise rash decisions could be made. I don't think that image renames would really be necessary, though. As long as the image looks right, its name doesn't really affect anything. Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I find it much easier to use the object(type) naming rather than the in-game name on several articles, the ores being a few of them. It's more efficient and it makes searching easier. I'm against changing the way we name our articles.--Quatroking - MCWiki Administrator 16:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:Drenay: The current naming scheme was used before official in-game naming existed. I don't care much either way (both make sense) but I suppose I lean a bit on the don't change side since that's the status quo. --JonTheMon 17:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, I would point out use of the about template as a good way to link together ores and their minerals. The only problem I can foresee is differentiating between Brick and Bricks, the brick block. Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I vote No, I like the way the wiki is set up. It makes things look more official or elegant. Cool12309^(T|C) 18:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't resort to "I like it"-style arguments, especially when there are quantifiably objective reasons to support one system over the other.

The current system is needlessly complicated and confusing - unless someone has taken the time to make the necessary redirects, a person cannot just come to the wiki and type an item's/block's in-game name into the URL bar or search bar and end up at the correct page (in the absolute best case, the proper redirect exists and points to the proper page; in the "good" case, the title they typed is a disambiguation page or redirects to one, meaning their intended target should be one click away; in the worst case, the title is a redlink or a redirect to an unrelated article). The current system does absolutely nothing that can't be done a million times better by judicious use of {{About}}. Wikipedia:Disambiguation is a very good read for those who are going to comment here. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 19:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me just provide an example for my point. Melon (Seed)s are melon seeds. They are not Melons of the type Seed. Redstone (Repeater)s are Redstone Repeaters. They are not Redstones of the type "Repeater". It is my personal belief that the title should say what the item actually is instead of putting a part of it needlessly into parentheses. Putting it in parentheses isolates the first word as the actual title of the article, such as the Redstone (Repeater), which seems to be called a Redstone. Such a thing is analogous to calling Experience Orbs Experience (Orb)s, or Fishing Rods Fishing (Rod)s. Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if this is relevant or not, @Verhalthur, but there are two items in the game with the same name. The two items, both named stone slabs, one created from 3 cobblestone blocks, the other from 3 stone blocks. Should there be a mix of the two formats? Or would that cause confusion? Like, the redstone, iron and gold formats are decent, but Diamond (Gem) should be renamed to Diamond (item) because the word "gem" isn't mentioned anywhere ingame nor by any of the staff. Diamond may not even be a "gem" in the game. (seeing as it's in a fictional universe) I see the issue arise with Brick Block and Brick (block) though. The item smelted from clay and it's block counterpart are called Clay Brick and Brick respectively, right? (sooo confusing) --HexZyle 14:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The Stone Slabs problem would be a case where I would title them something like Stone Slab and Stone Slab (Sandstone). The parentheses are being used to differentiate two ingame items of the same name, which works fine. I am not suggesting completely eliminating the format, just using it only when absolutely needed. Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I could see a good argument in that case for something along the lines of "Stone Slab" and "Smooth Stone Slab", or "Stone Slab" and "Cobblestone Slab" (or, as Verhalthur pointed out, this would also be one good case for part of the title in parentheses - something like "Stone Slab" and "Stone Slab (Cobblestone)"); no matter how it were done, though, a single {{About}} tag at the top of the article titled "Stone Slab" would immediately tell the reader which slab the article would discuss, and provide a link directly to the other article (all of this is only an example, though, since currently all the slabs are covered on one article). In general, using {{About}} on the page with the shorter, more general title should be enough to handle ambiguity (so, on such pages as "Diamond", "Brick" and "Clay", "Iron", etc.). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 16:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

 I agree. The about tag seems like the best way to deal with all this madness :D --HexZyle 16:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

 I agree We need to use official names, so pages should be named as they are named in-game, items with confusing titles such as the clay problem should have an about template instead of having a different name, blocks with the same name should have the page with this name redirect to a disambiguation page that links to the different blocks pages named with parenthesis containing the differentiating property between the different pages(block/item; stone/cobblestone; etc.)--Yurisho 17:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for redirects; just have the dabpage at the title needing disambiguated. This is another aspect of the current setup that makes absolutely no sense and is needlessly complicated. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 20:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

 I agree I changed my mind, I like this a lot better now that it is explained. If I got it right, the pages are to be named the ingame name, with the exception of Stone Slabs (with a solution of something like "Stone Slabs" be a disambig. page). If a block has a same name as an item, put (Block) or (Item) respectively. Is that how it was meant to be interpreted? Cool12309^(T|C) 21:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

More or less, yes (but note that we wouldn't actually have to do anything with slabs, since, as I said above, they're all covered on the one article). Also, this would be a good opportunity to discourage CamelCase in every single page title - "(item)" or "(block)" work just as well as "(Item)" or "(Block)", and neither "item" nor "block" is a proper noun, so there's no reason to require they be capitalized. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 21:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

 I agree, too. Only stuff that really goes by the same name should be named equally. and i can’t come up with a single example.

if it’s Pumpkin Seeds, why is it Melon (Seed)? Melon Seeds is much nicer and more logical, as you don’t say “melon” if you want to refer too melon seeds.

also, especially the redstone pages are silly:

• Redstone (Ore)
• Redstone (Dust)
• Redstone (Wire)
• Redstone (Torch)
• Redstone (Repeater)
• Redstone circuits

do you notice sth.? yes, we can completely drop the parentheses for all those items. – Flying sheep 14:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It's been a week since the last comment; does anyone else have anything to add? Quatroking, JonTheMon, do you remain unswayed, or has your opinion perhaps changed? 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 18:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

eh, It's not like I had a strong position to be swayed from, and I even said that both can work. It does seem that the consensus is towards the proposed system. --JonTheMon 18:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

i think that we’re going to implement it is relatively sure, as quite a few pro- but no contra-arguments arised. anyone against it should not take this as offense, because i just want to say the following: i’d like to start a sub-discussion about “Title Case” vs. “sentence case”, because there seems to be more disagreement. should we use a new section for this? – Flying sheep 12:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

here an overview. (possible) counterarguments added where applicable. new scheme means “use ingame names where appropriate, only use braces when necessary for disambiguition of identically named items”. example: diamond should mean only the diamond item as the “diamond ore” is called “diamond ore” and the “diamond block”, “diamond block” too. the only example that i can think of for identically-named items are the stone slabs, but they are together on one page, anyways.

If you feel it is biased, or have something to add, feel free to edit it. – Flying sheep 13:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Arguments for the new scheme

Argument	Counterargument
The new scheme matches the way the ingame items are named.	This may be irrelevant if all items can be found with their ingame names as well[are they?]
The old naming scheme was established before official naming existed, so there was never a decision between the two.
Complicated and confusing: Redirects have to be created manually, links have to be created like this: [[Diamond (Block)|diamond block]] instead of like this: [[diamond block]]
It’s more semantic/logical, e.g. Melon (Seed)s are melon seeds. They are not Melons of the type Seed, as the braces imply
The braces are superfluous, i.e. can be left out without any decrease in meaning, or unambiguity.
There are no counterarguments, i.e. everything except opinion and lazyness speaks for the new solution.

Arguments against the new scheme

Argument	Counterargument
It makes searching easier.	I find searching harder this way, which may imply that this is an opinon and no argument.
It’s the status quo, i.e. it would require a lengthy process to change everything.	We are many, and people who don’t like to don’t have to help.
It makes things look more official or elegant	Opinion. I disagree.
It's more efficient	This may be a valid argument, although I doubt it. But what do you mean by that?

Howdy. I have a vast history in Logic and Argumentation, (specifically Aristolian Formal Logic and Modern Informal Logic [Gauss, Gregor] and I can see with little doubt that the new proposal is vastly superior in logic to maintaining the current system. I understand that I am new here, and carry little weight, but I do strongly recommend the implementation of this new system. Cleverlynamed1 13:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

At this point, it would seem that this proposal has near-unanimous support. Wynthyst, is what we have so far enough to make it official? Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's fine to start implementing this change. -- Wynthyst talk 15:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Article Movement in Progress

Alright, here's a list of the articles I'm attempting to move. I don't have access to Minecraft at the moment, so some of these might be wrong. :T

Feel free to add to this list when you've put the move tags on pages that need them. Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Also feel free to cross out pages if you have moved them correctly. (Mod help moving these pages would be GREATLY appreciated) Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Brick (Block) --> Bricks
• Brick (Item) --> Brick
• Clay --> Clay (Item) /Sigh.
• Coal (Ore) --> Coal Ore Done.
• Coal (Item) --> Coal
• Diamond (Block) --> Block of Diamond
• Diamond (Gem) --> Diamond
• Diamond (Ore) --> Diamond Ore
• Glowstone (Block) --> Glowstone
• Glowstone (Dust) --> Glowstone Dust
• Gold (Block) --> Block of Gold
• Gold (Ingot) --> Gold Ingot Done.
• Gold (Ore) --> Gold Ore Done.
• Iron (Block) --> Block of Iron
• Iron (Ore) --> Iron Ore
• Lapis Lazuli (Block) --> Lapis Lazuli Block
• Lapis Lazuli (Dye) --> Lapis Lazuli
• Lapis Lazuli (Ore) --> Lapis Lazuli Ore
• Melon Slice --> Melon (Slice)
• Redstone Dust --> Redstone
• Redstone (Ore) --> Redstone Ore
• Redstone (Repeater) --> Redstone Repeater
• Redstone (Torch) --> Redstone Torch
• Redstone (Wire) --> Redstone Wire
• Snow (Block) --> Snow Block

If you want I can use my bot (R2-D2 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)) to change all the redirection links to normal links. – Scaler (t) 20:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Great idea! Only one has been moved so far, though, Redstone Dust. Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd probably have started moving pages myself, but i'm wanting to confirm the names in-game first (and I'm lazy =D ). 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 22:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Make sure when they're moved that you fix the image and invimage values. Most of them are automatic by the page name, and thus moving the page means they need to be manually specified, until the images themselves are moved, which requires updating the grid template and any pages that use the image, on all three shared languages; so it probably won't happen for a while, if at all. Don't upload a duplicate of the image under the new name either, that won't help anything and I'll just delete it. –ultradude25 ^(T|C) at 02:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. =) I wouldn't have uploaded duplicates anyways; at most, I might've created redirects to the original images (but more likely not, since that's more work than just editing the values on each page =D ). 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 03:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm ready to make the changes, can I make them now since there is already redirections on the target pages? – Scaler (t) 16:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as long as you use Special:MovePage instead of manually copy-pasting pages (there is a link to it at the top of every page; hover over the downward-pointing arrow immediately to the left of the search box and it's the "Move" option (and no, I'm not trying to talk down to you or anything; most of the editors here seem not to be aware of the move feature, so I figured I'd be better safe than sorry in explaining the proper method of moving pages ahead of time)). Also note that normal editors cannot move pages over redirects if the redirect has more than one edit in its history; these moves require administrator intervention. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 19:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about changing the links, not moving the pages (didn't even know normal users could do that… ^^"). – Scaler (t) 20:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The main problem at the moment is that we have to confirm the in-game names of blocks and items. Some of these might not be correct. I do know for sure, though, that the ores and the "Block of Iron/Gold/Diamond" are correct. Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I've gone in game and used the Too Many Items mod to verify the names. Here's the same list with my changes - - Apollyna ^(T|C) 20:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Brick (Block) --> Bricks
• Brick (Item) --> Brick
• Clay (Block) --> Clay Seems like this one will need the (Item) tag. The name is the same.
• Clay (Item) --> Clay See above.
• Coal (Ore) --> Coal Ore Done.
• Coal (Item) --> Coal
• Diamond (Block) --> Block of Diamond
• Diamond (Gem) --> Diamond
• Diamond (Ore) --> Diamond Ore
• Glowstone (Block) --> Glowstone
• Glowstone (Dust) --> Glowstone Dust
• Gold (Block) --> Block of Gold
• Gold (Ingot) --> Gold Ingot
• Gold (Ore) --> Gold Ore
• Iron (Block) --> Block of Iron
• Iron (Ore) --> Iron Ore
• Lapis Lazuli (Block) --> Lapis Lazuli Block
• Lapis Lazuli (Dye) --> Lapis Lazuli
• Lapis Lazuli (Ore) --> Lapis Lazuli Ore
• Melon (Block) --> Melon Melon slices are also simply called Melon.
• Redstone (Ore) --> Redstone Ore Redstone "Dust" is also only called "Redstone" in-game. Change?
• Redstone (Repeater) --> Redstone Repeater
• Redstone (Torch) --> Redstone Torch
• Redstone (Wire) --> Redstone Wire Too Many Items skips straight from Chest (54) to Diamond Ore (56). I can't confirm the name of on-the-ground wire.
• Snow (Block) --> Snow Block Both the thin layer of snow (78) and the snow block (80) are called "Snow"

Great, thanks! I've removed the move tags on the Clay pages and the Melon page, and added the move tag to the Redstone Dust page. If you happen to notice any other items or blocks ingame that don't match up to the article names, feel free to add 'em to the list. Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, quick replies make me happy ~ Anyways, if I get suspicious of anything, I'll check it. No prob. :'D - Apollyna ^(T|C) 21:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I also updated the other list to avoid any confusion. :T Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I've switched Gold (Ore) to Gold Ore as a test, If we are able to monitor what gets searched for more (Gold (Ore)/Gold Ore) then we can see if it worked. Theangryman ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I started a project yesterday. Minecraft Wiki:Projects/Moving Pages to In-Game Name Cool12309^(T|C) 01:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I keep forgetting, there is something that prevents, say me, from going and just doing all of this? It's because bla blah involves deletion blah blah no mod powers, right? I just forgot and it's bugging me. - Apollyna ^(T|C) 18:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuit

Should the lawsuit between Mojang and Bethesda have a page for it? Or at least mentioned in the Mojang AP page? It is an important part of Mojang history, you could say. | JSan 17:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not its own page. This is the Minecraft wiki, not the Scrolls wiki. I could see it fitting well on the Mojang page. Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. this is supost to be a page about minecraft, not mojang

-kekie

Added 1.8 stuff

…to {{ItemSprite}} and thus all dependant templates (such as {{Items}}). what do you think? – Flying sheep 13:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Once 1.8 is out and we know what's in it sure :D -- Wynthyst talk 13:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The mushroom blocks need to be added to Template:Blocks. Could someone please get around to that? Oh, and if the Huge Mushroom page looks ugly, that's my bad. I'm currently working on making the images 150px instead of 15px --HexZyle 14:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: oh wait, the block side textures are 16px. Do I just expand them to 160px? --HexZyle 14:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

@HexZyle: Someone needs to update File:BlockCSS.png first. (see link below) some genius has only added the cyan flower and left out the rest (though i don’t know how to deal with the new stuff at the bottom, where we already put out stuff. how about doubling the image height and putting everything which has to be edited (grass, leaves) in the bottom part, so one just has to replace the upper half when an update comes out?) – Flying sheep 14:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What the hell is a cyan flower? Is someone trolling? And no, I'm not talking about the terrain.png, the mushroom blocks from the huge mushrooms should be added into the Planned: section of the blocks template --HexZyle 14:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, didn’t read properly. of course they should be added, even if their textures aren’t there already :D – Flying sheep 14:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

@Wyn: or we could just do it now that we already know it, sice jeb has uploaded the new item and block sheets: https://imgur.com/a/0Dpgb d’Oh – Flying sheep 14:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

now i did the same with the blocks! – Flying sheep 15:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone should go through and update Melon, Melon_Seeds, Melon_(Slice), Pumpkin_Seeds, and Rotten_Flesh (did I forget any?) with the new sprites. --Warlock 16:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well I meant add the blocks and links, sorry i didn't explain it correctly. Like: Huge Mushroom (Red Cap | Brown Cap | Stalk) --HexZyle 23:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm just curious what part of “don't add these until the update comes out and we know for sure what's in it” wasn't clear in my original reply? -- Wynthyst talk 05:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see the need to delay, we already have plenty of info on upcoming items/blocks. Everything else is blatantly obvious. --HexZyle 06:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

what HexZyle said. there are the textures, the screenshots and the videos. we don’t need more to start pages. the blue Spider page is a good example, as it has loads of evidence: they are small, poison the player, spawn in abandoned mine shafts, their spawners are surrounded by cobwebs, poisoning makes your health bar yellow…

we don’t need to wait for 1.8 if we already know so much. and if something was changed from what we thought to know, we can still change it. – Flying sheep 20:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been too ambiguous. What I really mean is since all blocks are on the {block} template, regardless of if they have their own page, links have been added to them. The huge mushroom is not a block, neither is redstone. But they have categories that either take you to different sections of the page (if there is not enough info to have seperate pages, like lava bucket) or to different pages (if there is enough info, like for mossy cobble and redstone stuff) --HexZyle 01:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

you are right, only the parts are blocks, just like with trees – Flying sheep 14:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Opening the wiki to anon edits

Once again I am bringing this topic to the community for discussion. We have implemented a lot of really good tools to battle vandalism and spam (which has always been the primary reason for not allowing anon edits). Limiting participation to only registered users my reduce some of those issues, however, it causes others. Recently, a user had to jump through a gazillion hoops to try to contact someone at Curse because they had forgotten their wiki account password and didn't have email enabled to be able to reset it. Since he was unable to log on, he was also unable to contact any of the admins via their talk pages, or the noticeboard or anywhere else. This needs to not be the case. I want to enable anon editing, and quite simply, unless you, the community provide me with solid reasons to not do this, it's going to happen. Thanks! -- Wynthyst talk 05:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I support this whole-heartedly. Wikipedia has managed quite well with allowing anons to edit for a decade and counting; I don't see why we shouldn't be able to. Do you have any sort of timeline for how long the community has to comment on this issue? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 06:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 No

No

Nonononononononononnooo

No

Oh god, I can imagine it. We'll have aspergite weekly. We'll have articles about cars added daily. We'll be rolling around in nazi iconography and ascii art of various organs. the pages will constantly be vandalised to the point that no admin team can bear it.

and the pages they'll make. steve the slime will be up first. followed by god knows what. porky the pig? Geoffrey the Ghast?

this just cannot happen.

ever.

EVER. o_o --Kizzycocoa 06:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Enough drama Kizzy. It happens on every other wiki on the network every day without any of these dire consequences you are predicting. Through proper use of the tools that we have available most of what you describe will never see the light of day. -- Wynthyst talk 06:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 Agree While I personally don't like anon edits due to IP addresses being really hard to remember for me (maybe I should start writing them down...), I really think the abuse filter can handle them pretty well. Just seeing how well it has dealt with the constant spam we used to get before it was introduced (I wasn't even aware the automatic spam was still happening, until I opened the block log and found the abuse filter all over it) had really proved its effectiveness to me (although I wish I knew how it worked).

I would definitely like some limits set on them though, like only let them edit, maybe let them create pages, I'm not to sure on that one, no page moves (they can get really messy to undo), and either no image uploading or a limit on how many images they're able to upload per-day (although that's pretty easy to undo, so it might not be worth bothering with). –ultradude25 ^(T|C) at 07:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Things like page moves, and image uploads are restricted by default. We can add additional restrictions (within reason) as the community feels appropriate. -- Wynthyst talk 07:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have no complaints with anons not being allowed to create pages (though this should be limited to content namespaces; anons should be able to create talk pages for very obvious reasons). 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 08:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 I mostly agree I agree that anons should be able to edit, and I agree abuse filter is good enough to prevent spam, I do think the anons should have limited editing only. The reason for that is that anon editors are mostly in-experienced in editing, noted by the fact that they don't find it worthwhile to register, or even if they are good editors, they are certanlly do not know this wiki's specific cloture and customs(i.e titles like uses, trivial, etc.).

Therefore I suggest only allowing them to edit pages, and not creating them, I also think it will be a good idea to forbid big edits - let's say, an edit that will have a bold number at the "Recent changes" page(this will not apply in the admin noticeboard and admins talk pages). I also think they shouldn't be able to upload pictures, and if they will be able to, there will be a size limit.--Yurisho 07:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of people who are very experienced at editing wikis, who will not register an account here for a number of reasons - maybe they're just making a spelling or coding fix and don't want to go through the hassle of creating an account for such a simple edit, or maybe they genuinely do not want to create an account (I knew several such editors on Wikipedia). Conversely, a username does not mean an experienced editor, not by any means.

It's also not a good idea to limit edits solely by size; there are a number of situations where perfectly legitimate edits are accompanied by marked increases in bytecount. On the other hand, page blanking in content namespaces is rarely desirable, so that could be stopped without any trouble, I think. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 08:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Easily. -- Wynthyst talk 08:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 Don't have a problem with this as long as moving articles, creating new articles and uploading files will still require regular userrights. Wyn is bringing up a very good point and allowing anonymous readers to edit pages would boost support a lot, as well as small-time corrections.--Quatroking - MCWiki Administrator 09:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 Only if we restrict creating and moving moving pages, huge edits, and editing of template pages. (etc) Also, there are probably certain pages that would be best to be protected from anon edits. --{ Fishrock123 } ^(Talk) 14:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a good plan, especially since you're considering the exceptions needed to continue to keep the wiki safe, like restricting page moves and limiting uploads. I've used the abusefilter a bit, so I can give assistance/advice if needed. --JonTheMon 15:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 I don't like this Idea. As an Admin I need to contact the person maybe. But I can't talk with an IP. And I don't think the english Minecraftwiki team have enough admins to control all changes. -- Oliver Scholz de.Wiki Admin 15:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 No. Yes, see comment below. There already many one-off accounts that deposit spam or advertising or speculation that are not caught by the abuse filter. Many are dissuaded by the process of creating an account, and if we open the dam by allowing anonymous edits, they will pour in. Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 No! We would have to fight more vandalism, maybe around 10x or EVEN MORE. If admins are ready to take more vandalism and protect the wiki for it, my opinion would possibly be a bit more positive, but still, this considerably adds vandalism. EDIT 1: And it is super-easy to create an account, why we would need guest editing? CosmoConsole my page! my talk! my contributions! 17:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

In answer to your question Oliver, this will extend to the language wikis eventually. As for the rest, MCW is the only wiki on the Curse network that doesn't allow anon editing. We have already increased the number of administrators, and we will add more if the vandalism/spam is such a problem. -- Wynthyst talk 17:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

To everyone worried about anons moving pages or uploading images: these actions are restricted to the users group by default; allowing anon editing will not cause a flood of vandalistic page moves and file uploads.

To everyone worried about vandalism: the abuse filter is a very powerful tool for stopping broad categories of vandalism; a number of filters are already in place and more can be added as the need arises.

To Oliver: you *can* talk with anons, via their talk page, just the same as you can talk with any registered editor.

To Verhalthur: The majority of the spam is done via bot; an automated script can register any number of accounts within a very short period of time and immediately proceed to edit with them. The only people who are dissuaded by the requirement of registering an account are those who do not want to register for one reason or another.

To Cosmoconsole: 10x is a gross overestimation; I doubt the ratio of vandalism to good edits will change all that much if and when anon editing is enabled. There are a number of reasons someone would not want to register an account to edit; as I stated above, this hurdle actively dissuades people who only want to make a quick typo correction, and I know of several people who, despite being quite prolific and trusted editors, adamantly refuse to register an account for their own personal reasons. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 19:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we can add more filters when the need arises. The current ones did not catch the person spamming pages with swastikas a few days ago, but more can be implemented. Vote changed to yes. Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Filters will always be hard to adjust for intentional vandals (as opposed to bots). and wasn't that vandal doing edits on an account? --JonTheMon 19:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If someone is committed to getting around the filters and whatever other technical roadblocks are in their way just to vandalize, the software is ultimately ill-designed to stop them (particularly if they use an ISP that assigns a different IP address to a user every time they connect), and preventing IPs from editing will definitely not slow them down. Fortunately, though, most repeat vandals have some sort of theme to their vandalism (like the above-mentioned swastika vandal), making stopping them relatively straightforward. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 19:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm still for the 10-day rule. This is even worse. And what do I if the IP change? Sorry Wyn and Dinoguy1000 (your signature is strange), you're not convinced me yet. :) -- Oliver Scholz de.Wiki Admin 19:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There's really not anything you can do when the person's IP changes. Keep in mind, though, that Wikimedia has allowed anon editing for the entirety of its decade-long history (counting the days when it was just Wikipedia, back before WM was even founded), across all 800-plus wikis, and they've managed quite well insofar as talking with anons is concerned. I've had people say various things about my sig before, but I think you're the first one to call it "strange"... =D 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 19:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 No I don't see many advantages to it. There simply isn't enough content in the game that is appropriate for the wiki, and we already cover everything exhaustively. We don't need every article looking like this. On the other hand, pruning the pages and fighting vandalism is mostly the admins' jobs, and you do a fine job of it. So if you want to give it a try, go ahead. --Theothersteve7 19:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

For every "Toilet paper orientation" article on Wikipedia, there are hundreds of articles only a fraction of its size. Articles on Wikipedia tend to grow to that size when their subject is a popular or controversial topic (which is why popular culture tends to be covered far more exhaustively than historically significant but somewhat obscure figures, for example). The fact that Wikipedia mainly covers real-world topics, which tend to be far more complicated than in-game topics, also contributes significantly. It is very difficult for an article to grow unboundedly when there's nothing else to be said about its subject, and that's close to the case for a lot of our articles. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 19:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

So, there are a number of ways to keep vandalism in check even if edits are open to anons, and several reasons to. Are these enough to persuade anyone to change their minds regarding this? --JonTheMon 18:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This isn't even required IMO. If people want to contribute, they will register. Anons will just make random changes of which we aren't even sure that they are true, and additionally, imagine loads of kids trying to edit pages then and most of attacking pages with vandalism especially on translated pages. However, if you really want to do that anon editing, do an 7 day trial of it, and you'll see how it will come out. Tom.K 19:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"If people want to contribute, they will register." - This is demonstrably false. I don't know about you, but if I'm reading a random page on a random wiki and notice a small typographical, grammatical, or factual error but have no intention of regularly contributing to that wiki, I am far more likely to edit the page to fix the problem if I'm not required to first register an account on that wiki. This isn't even specific to wikis; look at any website with some sort of public commenting system that requires registration, and you'll see (or rather won't see) plenty of people who do not post a comment because they would have to register an account to do so. Think about yourself for a moment - if you are surfing randomly one day and stumble across an interesting article somewhere, and you want to post a comment (but not very badly or urgently), but you have no intention of becoming a regular commenter and the site requires you to register to do so, how likely are you, really, to register just to post that one comment?

As far as the random vandalism/spam/test edits are concerned, I again point to Wikipedia and other Wikimedia wikis, all of which (all 800-plus of them) have allowed anon editing for the entirety of their history. Are any of these wikis a rules-free anarchy, a no-man's land of vandalism, a sea of unmitigated spam and "lol poop" edits? I challenge you - I challenge anyone reading this - to point to even a single one. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 00:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Does it count if I made the vandalism myself? :P –ultradude25 ^(T|C) at 02:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Trollface.png? 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 02:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nah trollface is too mainstream. /hipster –ultradude25 ^(T|C) at 05:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay then, do it if you want to... Tom.K 06:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Entities need treatment too!

O.K this issue has been burning for me for quite some time - entities have not been taken care of.

• Entities have no nevbox template and are instead divided to mobs who have a template, mobs and the player who are together at the environment template, and block entities and droped items/blocks who don't have a template at all!
• The entity template is a joke - it is meant only for blocks and items, and come to replace the item or block template that should be there!
• Some Entities like falling sand don't have their own section in their article.
• Entities have no entitySprite and EntityLink, and therefor no EntityCSS.
• Entities IDs can't be found at the Data Values

The reason I finally say this is because until now we could live with that, because except mobs, the average wiki user don't think of thous entities as different from their block/item counterpart, but now experience orbs are added and where will they go? only an entity template.

I can't do this alone - I can make the nevbox template and the CSS, but not anything else, so I need help, I shell learn how to make a project in the wiki, and by tomorrow I hope it will be up - please help!--Yurisho 04:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Project is GO! Minecraft Wiki:Projects/Entities! I am disappointing thou that no one commented on me...--Yurisho 17:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You gave it a day before being disappointed? For a project like this I wouldn't expect many strong opinions before a week (with prodding). As to the idea itself, I personally see it as adding to the complexity of the wiki rather than making it more complete, since many items/blocks have entities which would then have similar page names. A possibly better alternative would be to integrate entity information into existing pages. --JonTheMon 18:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

you know what, there is something in it, I'm just so used to quick responses around here, I didn't think the likes of this will get a different treatment. For your second point - never had I though otherwise, the main point of this project is to make the templates, but the info will stay at it's main page(i.e primed TNT will still be in the TNT page, but will have another template in it for the entity and another nevbox, for entities.--Yurisho 18:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

ArmorBar update for 1.8

Just bringing to attention, in 1.8, the armorbar's position will most likely be moved to the left hand side of the screen, and the armour images are flipped. http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/605483-18-updates-update-date-revised/ That means when the 1.8 update comes, Template:Armorbar and File:Half Armor.png will need to be reversed. I just thought this might be something so small it's likely to be missed, since i searched that forum entry and no-one had brought it up. --HexZyle 04:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

White pixels, what do we do with them?

Some sprites have white pixels in them, like the Fishing Rod, Feather and String. Until recently this was handled by making the white pixels more notable, by giving them depth. I don't like this solution because you alter the sprite itself, so I did something else - I gave it a squared background. This caused a few editing wars:

• Some people think the old version is better.
• Some think the background should circular.

After a while the sprites where reverted to their old format, and only now I saw it, so instead of opening ANOTHER editting war, I though I'll start a discussion on it - what version is better?--Yurisho 06:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

1.8 Bow and Arrow too. --HexZyle 06:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

how about editing the templates that use these sprites to give them an unified appearance? where are the sprites used at all? – Flying sheep 17:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

 Yes this is a brilliant idea I really like it,but what do you mean in you'r second question? they are used as the image in Template:Item--Yurisho 17:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Here are all the edits that contributers suggested:

• NO EDIT TO THE SPRITE

(+ No changes to the original sprite at all, maintained accuracy)

(- Difficult to see the white)

• EDITING THE WHITE:

(+ Much more visible with minimal edits to the whole image)

(- The sprite has been edited and is no longer original or perfectly accurate)

• The white has a black outline

(Personal Preference)

• The white is given "depth"

(Personal Preference)

• A GREY BACKGROUND

• Square Background

(+ Fits into the "theme" of minecraft, with everything being a perfect square)

(- Looks blocky and "old school", not as aesthetically pleasing as the other two options)

• Rounded square background

(+ Entire background looks neat with curves modernizing the appearance of the sprite)

(- Takes away the "blocky feel" of the minecraft "theme")

• Circle background

(+ Imitates the shadow of objects)

(- Apparently does not fit into minecraft due to it not being square)

Permission given to completely edit this comment and turn it into a table or something >>HexZyle<< ^TALK|CONT

Talk:Known bugs/Version 1.8 Page Clean Up

Currently, the 1.8 prerelease bug page is nearly impossible for someone with a bad computer to clean up. Unfortunately, I keep getting a 502 error every time I try to edit the page. It would be appreciated if we can get a few more people to help clean up the page. | JSan 15:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

What exactly did you want cleaned up? -- Wynthyst talk 17:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Basically I would like it a little more organized, and fewer unnecessary posts that clutter up the page. Call it OCD, if you will. | JSan 23:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Food changes

I know this is minor, but the pre-1.8 food "heals for" icons will need to be changed to "restores for". Get ready for mass edits for 1.8! Mccallister 02:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? We already have the hunger bar template or did you mean something else? --HexZyle 10:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

i think he means that the {{food}} template contains the key “heals”, which is on every food’s page. but it isn’t high priority. we can use the “heals” key as fallback for the new “restoresfor” key in the template, and use “restoresfor” in new pages. – Flying sheep 17:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• facepalm* What I mean is that the heart icons need to be replaced with the hunger icons. I know it's low priority; but it just bugs me. Mccallister 01:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That's already underway. Anyway, since the current "official" version of minecraft is still 1.7.3, we have to keep the heart icons. --HexZyle 04:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

/language

Should we divide the Wanted Pages list into language sections? Mccallister 02:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The Wanted Pages list is an build-in feature of media-wiki, it's not possible to change it. – Scaler (t) 06:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Changing Item/Block List

I would like to see a change in the item/block list that is under every item/block page. There a large amount of items/blocks in the game and it's making the list become an eyesore. Not to mention with future updates that there will be more stuff added. If possible we could code in a menu/drop down list. --Youassassin 16:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Mediawiki Pros: help me!

Look at this revision of {{BlockSprite}}. it works flawlessly, unless it is used in {{SpriteLink}}, in which case everything gets fucked up.

wtf is causing that‽ – Flying sheep 12:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The /positions link to xxx/position with xxx the page which call the template and not Template:BlockSprite/positions. I've fixed it. – Scaler (t) 12:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

oh. that explains why i thought it would work with pure BlockSprites. m(

thank you very much! – Flying sheep 13:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Lock page please

Can we get an admin to lock the Ender Pearl page? It is undergoing a serious amounts of edits per day, and they are all just random speculation. This is getting annoying because there is like, 50 edits per day >:( --HexZyle 20:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Trivia Sections

I feel like, in most cases, the addition of a trivia section is nothing but detrimental to the wiki. People seem to create one so that they don't have to figure out where the information they want to add belongs. It makes the information scattered and harder to find. What do you think we should do about this? Does anyone disagree? Cleverlynamed1 20:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk page rules / grounds for deletion.

Is there any thought as to what can and cannot be put in a talk page for the wiki? I find that many new sections, especially those on 1.8 are simple speculation or opinion. Can we institute a rule that if something is utter speculation or just a, "Boy I sure hope Notch does such and so..." that we can delete it from the talk page? Cleverlynamed1 19:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

So, it's kinda a pessimistic view, but a lot of the time such things get added to the articles themselves, and allowing it on the talk pages acts as sorta a pressure release. So, i say talk pages should mostly retain the freedom they've had thus far. --JonTheMon 19:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I hadn't thought about it that way. Thanks for the contribution. Anyone else? Cleverlynamed1 20:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I see the talk pages as a sort of free grounds, I don't really care a lot about them as long as they discuss the topics related to their articles and as long as the text isn't abusive.--Quatroking - MCWiki Administrator 20:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been operating under the assumption (when I can be bothered) that we don't want speculation and the like on talk pages, but if everyone else thinks this is fine, I have no problem changing my behavior. =) 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 01:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like we can delete anything besides abuse from talk pages. This might be something good to put in the rules - if it isn't already. Cleverlynamed1 19:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Advertising

I don't normally do the wiki thing, but I would like to point out that the advertising on this wiki is fucking terrible. I'll be in the middle of a game with this wiki open in the background, and suddenly a bunch of videos will play. I'll have no idea where it's coming from, and no idea how to turn it off. It will go away eventually only to come back with a different ad in 5 minutes. It's horrendous and I won't use the site until it's gone.--67.240.246.120 17:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I dislike the ads to, but I have uninstalled adobe flash player (but I still have some sort of flash player installed, maybe it's macromedia flash player or something because I can still watch some youtube videos) so now they no longer load. (I do it because they suck up bandwidth EVERY TIME I OPEN A NEW WIKI TAB) --HexZyle 06:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering Adobe Flash == Macromedia Flash, you're definitely not using that, then. --NightKev 05:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I just use the NotScripts extension on Google Chrome, and don't allow JS from ad sites to run - no ads, no autoplaying videos, no uninstalling software from my computer, no annoyance! 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 01:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

@Anon67.240: No kidding. What browser are you using? Opera has a built-in adblocking type feature (called 'content blocking'), and Firefox and Google Chrome/Chrome have the Adblock+ extension. If you're not using any of those browsers, your browser of choice probably has some sort of adblock extension/feature as well, though you'll have to look it up yourself. Sadly, it still won't remove the rest of that sidebar, the only way to do that is register an account account and use a custom vector.css, or use a custom user css file to apply this css to the wiki (I know Opera has that feature builtin as well, and Firefox/Chrome should have extensions that allow you to do it too). --NightKev 05:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Harder requirements for trivia?

I have been thinking about if we should have trivia guidelines similar to the Team fortress wiki to help remove cluttering of pages. What do you think of that? --Isakcool 08:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes! If I knew how to code it in wiki I would put one of those plus signs here and say  Agree. Some of our trivia sections are atrocious. We have got to have some rules on that. There is so much redundant/misplaced/irrelevant/contradictory waste in those sections, and it is getting hard to police. Cleverlynamed1 12:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A problem with trivia in this wiki is that people automatically put info in the trivia section, this is partly because there are no guild lines, and partly because there is no uniformed page template to follow(i.e for blocks: block template, description, behavior, crafting, smelting, history, future, trivia, references, blocks template, categories) I've been thinking of making a page to explain this, but didn't had the time...--Yurisho 15:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

 Agree I agree with what Yurisho said, and I'll even go so far as to say we almost do need a universal page template in general - not something overly strict but there should be uniformity in subsections like "Crafting," "History," etc. Or, at the very least, we need this for the "main" pages (ex: Mobs, Items, Blocks, etc)

 Agree Trivia section is terrible. Fixing it would be greatly appreciated --HexZyle 06:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Then, if nobody has any further comments, then I think we will start working on the style guide, Or? --Isakcool 11:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

 Agree Do it! Cleverlynamed1 13:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

But now we then have to decide what is allowed and what isn't allowed. Like, for example, do we allow speculation? (Of course we don't), do we allow X of Y trivia and so on. --Isakcool 15:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

A Unique Suggestion for the Wiki

A forum user by the name of Kilyle contacted me on the forums and proposed an interesting idea. At first I dismissed it, thinking it was unnessisary, but then I saw the usefulness. (and novelty in it) Here is the original message:

"On the Enderman page, I think that the Enderman pic would change to an animated angry Enderman pic (the "I'm shaking, gonna get you once you look away" pic) on mouseover. I know doing things on mouseover is pretty easy, but I'm not sure how the wiki handles it; maybe an admin would have to do special code or something. Maybe it's not even possible via the way the wiki base code for the pages works; I don't know.

But you gotta admit, mousing over the Enderman to get an angry shaking Enderman would be both useful (showing how it looks in-game) and startling. Which is mob-appropriate :)"

>>HexZyle<< ^TALK|CONT06:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't be impossible. But you'd have to have a special style for it, I can easily do that; however someone will have to make a render for it and animate it (I don't do mobs). Seems like too much effort for such a trivial thing. –ultradude25 ^(T|C) at 07:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point to this; it'd be just as good and a whole lot simpler just to link an animated GIF in the Enderman gallery or something. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 01:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

^^ I agree. Animated gifs are fairly easy to do using in game footage. -- Wynthyst talk 08:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Then should animated gifs be implemented now? And maybe the profile of the enderman "flashing" between states should be shown instead of from the diagonal viewpoint or both viewpoints can be shown. - Asterick6 08:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Template requests?

Is this where I would leave template requests? We'll need a new food related template for Potions, one that replaces "Heals for" with "Effect". I know how to build or modify one, but I don't think I have the permissions, so I'll just leave this here. --Ecksearoh 15:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No special permissions are required to create a template. I would suggest you request feedback before implementing it though. -- Wynthyst talk 15:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I'll try building a mockup first and then ask for feedback --Ecksearoh 17:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for merging/splitting pages

I've noticed that there are quite a few pages on items/blocks which have either requested to be split or merged. What is the criteria for this?

Pages that are merged/redirected:

• Coal and Charcoal
• All variations of Slabs
• All variations of Stairs
• All Wool colours
• All Wood types

Now, these are all merged because they are all different damage values of the same block and act exactly alike.

However, there are other pages that are split or merged for reasons other than the ones abovee and I would like to know why:

• All Dye colours (with Bonemeal and Cocoa Beans being a possible exception because they have other uses)
• The three Huge Mushroom Blocks
• Stone Brick, Cracked Stone Brick and Mossy Stone Brick

--HexZyle 03:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Because if they were separate pages, there would be about one line of information. (There's only two huge mushroom blocks, btw).

With the dyes, it's difficult. If you only have some of them split off onto separate pages, it would get confusing; so it's really all or nothing.

The stone bricks should be merged, but no one has gotten around to it yet. –ultradude25 ^(T|C) at 03:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Because wool colors are all one block, but with different meta data, and sow is slabs, stairs and wood, but I don't know about coal and charcoal, while all the dyes, huge mushrooms blocks and stone bricks all have different data values. So the real question is not why thous are merged and thous are not, but why tools and armors are merged! they have different data values and thus need to be split!--Yurisho 14:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

For the armor page, there is absolutely no reason at all to split it, we don't need 4 pages all saying the exact same thing except for one line out of 100 on each page. As for the tools... they already have their own pages, the "tools" page is merely to list them all. --NightKev 05:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization

Sorry for my frequent edits to this page, but has this capitalization issue been decided/sorted? I'm kind of sick of pages being edited from "An Enderman is tall" to "An enderman is tall" and then back again. All the time. Note that capitalization of mob species should be handled differently than capitalizing item/block names. --HexZyle 13:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A style guide has been talked about, but no one has formally started a project yet. Feel free to do so if you feel strongly about the issue. -- Wynthyst talk 17:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

How do I start a project? Link me to a few projects in the making, and I'll get the gist of it from there. I mean, is it like making a template? --HexZyle 19:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What about only capitalizing names of items/mobs that have a special name like Enderman, Pigman or Mooshroom, and only if they are not commonly found or used? And also, maybe they should be capitalized if they don't exist in the real world. - Asterick6 04:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not a very good way of differentiating between what should be capitalized and what shouldn't. If the wiki is referring to a real life cow, sure, use lowercase. However, a cow in minecraft is a completely different thing (being cubic and all to begin with, not to mention many other inaccuracies) and therefore the cow in minecraft is a seperate species of creature, and should be capitalized. because it doesn't exist in real life. EXAMPLE: The cubic Cow mob is based off the real life cow, which belongs to the bovine family. Mob names shouldn't be not capitalised just because a real life counterpart exists. The reverse is also true. If Notch added a NPC structure and called it an empire state building, it wouldn't need to be capitalised because it's not a proper noun and it's not its real-life counterpart. --HexZyle 04:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Lol I see the reasoning behind this... but would the average person really think in this way? It makes the description more confusing for people to understand, but isn't wrong... Yup, this wiki needs a style guide - Asterick6 04:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what the reasons and technicalities that underlies it, but rather its functuality. Who is sick of making links like [[Iron Bars|iron bars]]? I know I am. And the edit wars. You may not notice them. But if you flick through every single change to a page (like I do), you will notice "creeper" being changed to "Creeper" then back to "creeper". It's neverending. --HexZyle 05:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well all you have to do is make a redirect page... but the edit wars on proper capitalization do need to be addressed - with a proper style page hopefully, if people will actually read it... - Asterick6 05:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Make a redirect page for every multi word page? How painful :/ I will start on it right now though. Here is the link for the style guide on capitalisation project --HexZyle 05:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope, that's rediculous. (just saw how many there are) I'll just create redirect pages as I come across the need for them. (if i find [[Iron Bars|iron bars]], I'll create the page "iron bars" with a redirect, but if it's beast boy, then I'll change it to Beast Boy (proper noun, monster species) --HexZyle 06:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

May I lowercase every single instance on the wiki of any object in minecraft that isn't a proper noun/species of mob, then create redirect links to match? (I did a test run with the iron bars page) --HexZyle 06:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Top Contributors

Does this wiki have a Top Contributors page like Wikipedia does? I combed through the wiki with Google as an external search process but I couldn't find one. --HexZyle 13:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No we don't. -- Wynthyst talk 17:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope; it would require use of a database dump to generate such a list. It wouldn't do us any good, either; the only thing lists like that serve to do is to encourage an editcountitis mindset with certain editors. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 17:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles/ads/tweets overlaying pages

On some pages (seems completely random to me) the "recent articles" and the ads and the "mojang tweets" are displayed such that they are on top of some text. Ive been on this wiki for a while and it starts to bother me.

Usefull info: Google Chrome. Old fashioned 4:3 screen. Up to date software.

Does anyone has a idea? or tips and tricks to fix that? Swpe 19:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There was a huge string of complaints about this stuff but I don't think anything ever came of it. Do a search for "vector.css" (make sure you set content to "Everything" so it picks up user pages) and find someone's modified vector.css to remove the sidebar stuff. Then copy the contents to your userspace (User:Swpe/vector.css) and refresh. --Warlock 20:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.minecraftwiki.net/index.php?title=Minecraft_Wiki_talk:Community_portal&oldid=111468#Recent_appearance_hiccup.2FSidebar_feedback try there for complete instructions. -- Wynthyst talk 21:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Btw it doesn't only cover text, it covers all images too. When you click to view them on a separate page, the side boxes obscure around 25% of the picture. Maybe they should only show up on the main page or not on image view pages. - Asterick6 03:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this data, I`ll look at it. Swpe 07:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Users with the Greasemonkey or Stylish addons for Firefox can check [[1]] for a one-click solution. - Apollyna ^(T|C) 22:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Website Template

Not sure if this is the right place to put it, but I noticed there's no template / infobox for websites here. I think. I was wondering if someone with a bit more know-how than me could either link me to the template if we have one or somehow get this wikipedia:Template:Infobox website into our system.

That way, I figure we could pretty up / make uniform some pages on the wiki. These, specifically - Template:Mojang

What do you think? - Apollyna ^(T|C) 20:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why not. –ultradude25 ^(T|C) at 04:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Watch/Unwatch

Not sure this is where I should post it or not, but...Since the little problem Curse had earlier today with the navigation on the left not working I have noticed that the "star" to watch and unwatch a page has been moved to a little tab. That literally reads "Watch" and "Unwatch". Is this something they did to save room, or did I do it? --Throex 04:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not just you; it happened for everyone, and I suspect it's because of the upgrade to MediaWiki 1.17 rather than any problems Curse had. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 04:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It is likely that in the upgrade, $wgVectorUseIconWatch got reset to false, so it is no longer an image. I believe the wiki software automatically moves the watch button out of the drop-down and in to the tab area when it is an image, which is why it's moved now. –ultradude25 ^(T|C) at 04:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The entire Vector extension had to be replaced as the old one was part of the usability initiative, this is also what caused the nav bar to break for awhile. -- Wynthyst talk 06:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sliding Popups?

Whats with the new sliding from the top and left pop ups you have to close out..? Any way to stop that? --Throex 03:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of them. Please explain --HexZyle 04:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Next time it happens, I will take a screen shot and post it up for ya. Its not often that it happens, but ever so often a little pop ad appears. I know its not my browser and it only started happening yesterday after the Curse update and the watch/unwatch thing. --Throex 05:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I already blocked it using the vector.css configuration. Maybe it's time for you to do the same if it gets annoying :) - Asterick6 08:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have some type of section on some page about the rivalry between Roblox and Minecraft?

Title says it all --Sonicyay2 23:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary, even if I am interested in reading such an article. - Apollyna ^(T|C) 19:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Mob prevalence

While I understand the desire to make certain blocks/items more rare than others in the interest of making the game more exciting and challenging, some of the frequencies in which objects appear is downright frustrating. I have logged countless hours on countless maps in the game and have yet to acquire any slimeballs. I tried inputting the coordinate and seed data values in the 'slime-finder' tools, and they all say similar things, but I have yet to see a slime in my most recent map in any of the 'hot spots' the tools claim to detect. I refuse to mod or change code, but any help here would be hot.Rileyb65 17:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried multiple tools or just the one? Are the tools compatable with 1.8/whatever version you are using? And most importantly, are the slimes bugged in the newer versions?

I have tried all the tools on the wiki, I wasn't sure if there were others, and I haven't run a search to see. The tools all say they're updated for 1.8.1 so I don't know. I'm starting to think maybe slimes are bugged in 1.8.1, in which case how would one let Notch or Jeb know if they already don't? Rileyb65 17:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I found slimes with the 1.8.1, the main part is patience, they don't spawn very often. – Scaler (t) 18:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Pocket Edition

So with the release of pocket edition, are there new pages for each item and detailed thing in the game being added? Or should we go back to every page and add a pocket edition section for it? For example: Wooden Stairs, should there be a section the reads the trivia/function/bugs for it? So that there are not duplicate pages, one for PC and one for PE. --Throex ^TALK|CONT 04:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

After thinking over the options, I personally think any PE dealies should go in the main articles just above the trivia. So, near the end of the article in its own section. - Apollyna ^(T|C) 04:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Audio plugin-good or bad?

I woke up today, and had an idea for the wiki. we have many music discs, many mobs and even entitys that make sounds. so, I want to propose a MP3/OGG plugin that allows for music to be played in-browser.

what this could do, is have sound effects for each mob on their page. I imagibe 3 play buttons at the end of the mob template, stating 2 idle sounds, and 1 death sound (changable based on mob, of course)

this would also allow for us to host/play all music discs, which will stop forcing users to go to, say, youtube, so they can hear the discs on the page, which would definitely be used.

thoughts? comments? I myself am eager to get this due to the much wider applications I've bound to have missed. --Kizzycocoa 13:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey cool, I also had this idea two weeks ago.  Like -- Oliver Scholz de.Wiki Admin

 I Support. Yes please. I like using the audio files on wikipedia and find they are very informative and show what text cannot, and I would like to see them in use here as well. --HexZyle 14:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

 Audio good, players bad. Having game audio samples would be a fine addition, but just upload them as media files as MediaWiki already supports (I think) — don't use an extra player plugin. See how Team Fortress Wiki does it. —KPReid 17:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I would, but as of now, I cannot upload .mp3 files. nor .wav, .ogg or .mus. --Kizzycocoa 20:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That's just a simple matter of editing the config for what files are allowed to be uploaded. Help us out here Wyn? –ultradude25 ^(T|C) at 23:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

 Sure! What a wonderful idea. :'D - Apollyna ^(T|C) 14:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

 Go ahead. This would help people, and be more convenient. - Asterick6 09:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

 Yes, but only if you click on a button. I don't want to hear a ghast sound every time I go on the ghast page, only if I click the button "play sound". Calinou - talk × contribs » 09:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)