Minecraft Wiki talk:Admin noticeboard

The Church page

The page is protected from creation. It should probably redirect to Village structures (which it didn't, according to the deletion log). Can an admin please create the page? If there is any further vandalism, it can be turned back into a redirect, then protected from editing, but not deleted. The Blobs 04:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

New launcher released

Both Main page Launcher info and text at Talk:Minecraft Wiki Page (here 5 New launcher released) are not actual. 2.0.847 is newer since April 10, 2017. Please, correct it. --HeruGil (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Again: New launcher released

Two points:

1. Both Main page Launcher info and text at Talk:Minecraft Wiki Page (here 5 New launcher released) are not actual. 2.0.1003 is newer since October, 2017. Please, correct it.

2. I tried to edit the Talk:Minecraft Wiki Page, but system stated an answer (same case as above on 23 April 2017):

Your action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed.

A brief description of the matched abuse rule for your action is: Extra protection for frequent spam targets

Can you explain why registered user (me) is not allowed to edit this page?

Thank you.

--HeruGil (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

1. Fixed.

2. Abuse filters are a bit harsh towards new users. Such problems with editing should stop once you make specified amount of contributions (~10?). piotrex43 (Talk page) 13:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

And again: New launcher released

On the Main page in Launcher section presented versions: 2.1.1351, 2.1.1350, 2.1.1349 are not actual since September 28, 2018. Win 2.1.1432, Mac OS 2.1.1433, Linux 2.1.1431 versions were released. Please, correct it. --HeruGil (talk) 09:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Updated. Frisk (Talk page) 14:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

New launcher released, now 2.1.1462

On the Main page in Launcher section presented version: Win 2.1.1432 is not actual. Win 2.1.1462 version were released. Please, correct it.
I have no info about Mac OS and Linux versions. --HeruGil (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

New launcher released, now 2.1.2481

On the Main page in Launcher section presented version: Win 2.1.1462 is not actual. Win 2.1.2481 version were released. Please, correct it.
--HeruGil (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Updated the Windows launcher version, thanks for the notice. –Sonicwave ^talk 17:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Icon for Curse staff?

We currently have icons identifying edits made by Mojang employees. I'm wondering if it would be worth adding a similar icon for Curse staff, as most of them are infrequent editors, so their usernames are not always recognized by other contributors. I see a few people have this in their personal CSS already; should we add it to the sitewide CSS? -- Orthotope^talk 23:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 Support – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 23:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 Also support The Blobs 01:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Support –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk
Contribs 13:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

 Support --Pokechu22 (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Done, since no one seems to have any objections. -- Orthotope^talk 18:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems like for Game widow it isn't showing up. See Special:Diff/1094509. Maybe use an underscore in the selector instead of a space? – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 22:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Curious, also, is there a reason for using the ~= to match in some cases, and the = in other cases? – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 22:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Should be fixed, you might have to clear your cache. I borrowed the code from Majr's personal css, not sure why he was using that (it matches anywhere in the string, rather than exactly). -- Orthotope^talk 00:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see it on Game widow now; thanks! – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 01:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

"~=" is preceding with instead of equals. It was used so redlinks would me matched, as we are searching by title and if the user's page did not exist, the title is "User:X (page does not exist)". I think it is no longer required since the user profile system makes the user page always exist. –KnightMiner · (t) 03:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Gray thing icon for ex-Mojang

What do we think about using a gray icon for wiki editors who were once at Mojang, but are no longer, as in how it's done on Reddit.

• David Marby (User:Neon Master)
• Nathan Gilbert (User:Tahg)
• Warren Loo (User:EvilSeph)

– Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 12:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Support The Blobs 13:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Support –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk
Contribs 13:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

 Support --Pokechu22 (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, we'd just need to upload an icon to use. -- Orthotope^talk 18:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

How about, – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 22:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

That looks like a good icon. Can an admin apply it? The Blobs 22:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks for supplying the image. -- Orthotope^talk 00:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 01:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Archiving

Please archive this page Minecraft Wiki:Admin noticeboard. — Ivan-r ru.Wiki Admin 19:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done: Talk page archived Archive 3: 2015 - 2016 and main page archived Archive 27: Nov - Dec 2016 – Nixinova • • 04:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Translate extension

It would be better if there will be an Extension:Translate installed in this wiki, rather than being individual projects, just like in the FTB Wiki (source). It will really help translators (like me) to translate pages into their own languages, without manually editing the pages and editing the corresponding language translation projects. I do not recommend installing it in interlanguages, as they are already translated into their own languages. – Dentedharp90041^tce 14:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Use of this extension was touched on at Minecraft Wiki talk:Community portal#Translation cleanup, though there wasn't really a proper discussion of its use per se. I am passingly familiar with its use on Mediawiki.org and Meta.Wikimedia.org, and have never been terribly impressed with its markup requirements, but I've never made use of it myself so I can't comment on anything else really. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 15:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The usage of Extension:Translate implies usage of special markup which may confuse newcomers. Also, as I have already noted in the linked discussion, VisualEditor apparently doesn’t understand such markup which may cause problems when using it. — BabylonAS (talk | ru.Wiki Admin) (fka NickTheRed37) 16:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Correction for Babylon: it doesn't confuse newcomers, it seems to confuse everyone. As translation administrator of the FTB Wiki, from what I've seen, every other editor can't seem to figure out to edit around it, even the editors that should know how to. IMO it's really not that complicated, but it's not intuitive at all.

Also, you'd have to apply markup to every article, template and module. And if you do it right (not just putting the entire page in a <translate>) that will take a long time, along with the pain of fixing it when others break it. -Xbony2 (FTB Wiki Admin) (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, even that. I think FTB Wiki had it installed when it wasn’t intended to be freely edited (until one of FTB Wiki’s prominent editors called for allowing open registration). On the other hand, MediaWiki and Wikimedia’s Meta wikis are open, yet have it installed. Is it more stable there — I don’t know.

By the way, new Wikimedia projects (like Wikipedia’s language sections) are actually started on Meta’s incubator. Gamepedia’s closest analog of Wikimedia’s Meta is Gamepedia Help Wiki, although it is primarily used only as a help wiki. If reorganized (and probably renamed to something like “Gamepedia Central Wiki”), it would be a better place to start wiki translation projects, rather than the specific English wikis.

Also, Extension:Translate wouldn’t eliminate the current project system: in fact, it will be best used if projects are adapted to it. — BabylonAS (talk | ru.Wiki Admin) (fka NickTheRed37) 16:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The wiki was freely editable at the point it was introduced, not really relevant though.

Stuff needs to be re-transferred if Extension:Translate is to be adapted to a page. For example, if we marked up Dirt, all of its subpages (like Dirt/ua) would be cleared away (like this) unless they were moved and then restored. That's been an issue on the FTB Wiki, since we want all translations to be through the interface so it can keep track of when its outdated and whatnot but we don't have the translators to move everything over to the new system. -Xbony2 (FTB Wiki Admin) (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

How to implement Sprite related modules/templates correctly?

We're having trouble with updating old and deprecated sprite modules and templates. How can I correctly implement those features, especially the "Edit Sprite"? --Alswo9628(4) — ko.Admin (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, moving to Directors Page. --Alswo9628(4) — ko.Admin (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Item durability Is outdated

[ https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/Item_durability ] ["Armor durability is based on the armor's type (head, torso, legs, feet) and material (leather, gold, chain mail, iron, diamond). Any time you take damage, each piece of armor you are wearing loses one point of durability."]

https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/Item_durability. The more damage you take, the more durability armor loses. I don't have enough info to update this, so I'm requesting an edit through here if someone can. I might edit it using https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/Armor#Durability 's info, which I actually just found

ぶらいあん (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Suggest using the article's talk page for this as it isn't an admin-specific issue. --Pcj (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The server has an internal image cache of 10 minutes.

Can someone confirm if the server still has an internal image cache of 10 minutes? It is currently stated at File:DataValuesBeta.png – ITechieGamer^tce 11:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It's probably more a day or two, but there's been a huge image infrastructure change recently, so it might be totally different. –Majr ᐸ Talk
Contribs 03:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

When I updated File:DataValuesBeta.png, thr updated version appeared as soon as the page loaded, however, I notice that some images didn't show the updated version until I purged them. – ITechieGamer^tce 13:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

New page for requesting page protection

Hello! I think to create a new page for requesting page protection, and this page may be used to only request page protection, like Wikipedia's requests for page protection page. Psl85 ^Talk 18:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Support. I've been thinking the same thing. The wiki is continuously growing, and pages keep getting vandalized. A lot of the time, requests for page protection aren't noticed for many weeks. (edit: see my comment below, I now oppose) --Madminecrafter12^{Talk • Contributions} 19:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I will go and create this page! Psl85 ^Talk 19:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

If these requests are pushed to a single dedicated page, it'd provide a greater overview and the related people will be able to find stuff quicker. Especially if that page also gets sorted in some convenient way. But then at least one admin should keep an eye on it, or it won't do anything. Sadly the page deletion system currently doesn't work like that yet... – Jack McKalling [ ] 19:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay! Psl85 ^Talk 20:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This probably should have been discussed more before being implemented, but uh, okay. -Xbony2 (GRASP) (FTB Wiki Admin) (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, such a page should be created by the administrators themselves once there has been enough discussion, not by any user who does not have the responsibility to monitor changes made on the page. TheLOLxd2 (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of this. In particular, it seems to me that the solution to one page not being monitored enough by admins is not to create an additional page that also has to be monitored by admins. Additionally, a discussion which is less than a day old, in which no admins commented, is not sufficient to determine that a new admin process page is wanted or needed. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 15:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Then what's your opinion on adding a new section to the admin noticeboard instead, for requests like page protection, urgent page deletion, user blocking etc? If you think a separate page is undesirable for this. Either one section for all acceptable admin action requests or one section for each type of request. Because this content is not relevant to regular editors unless they're making a request themselves, and isolating general issues from the common requests makes it easier for them to find what they're really looking for on a page that has the tendency to grow huge like this one. – Jack McKalling [ ] 20:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a solution. The problem is (lack of) admin attention, and the solution to that is not (and will never be) to further fragment that attention.

This page's primary purpose is to bring issues to the attention of admins; ensuring non-admins can find things relevant to them isn't a primary goal (though it will inevitably align pretty closely with keeping the page usable for admins as well). I've explained in the past that there's no reason for the page to grow unmanageably big when anyone can archive old/resolved discussions, so I don't view that as a valid problem here. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 23:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but after thinking about this more, I now  Oppose to this idea. The admin noticeboard isn't really getting that much traffic, and I don't think separating it will help anything. Particularly because page protections are really not done that often, more commonly blocking a user is necessary, and the last request for page protection (anywhere, including this page, the requests for page protection page, or an admin's talk page) was actually made several months ago. I don't see the requests for page protection page being useful in any way, and Dinoguy makes a good point about fragmenting admin attention unnecessarily.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 14:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

We could delete it, it is COMPLETELY useless, and users prefer using the admin noticeboard for protection requests, the requests for page protection page it could be deleted, psl85 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I also think we should just delete it and redirect to admin noticeboard just in case. But what about adding a new section to the admin noticeboard specifically for "protection change requests", and then just sort the relevant subjects under that heading instead? It would not "fragment" admin attention because it's still the same page, but it would organize the subjects better. That way both admins and requesting regular users alike can find (the place) that/what they're looking for easier. I'm also thinking the same way for "block requests" (excessive vandalism), but that may be just a different subject. – Jack McKalling [ ] 18:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

 Neutral. I'm not really sure how useful that would be, considering how little traffic the admin noticeboard has, particularly, as I mentioned, with page protection requests. It makes a bit more sense, imo, to have a separate section to report all kinds of vandalism/spam, regardless of how many users it is or if just one user needs to be blocked - this way requests like these won't be "cluttered" by reports of maintenance issues with the wiki, abuse filter problems, etc., but users wouldn't feel obliged to have to decide exactly what action an admin should perform and it would still get a fair amount of traffic. Still, I'm not sure even that would be necessary - I think it just makes things easier to have everything in one place, rather than in separate sections.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 18:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose. I don't think we need such a page. We don't have that many protection requests (mostly the admins do that on their own) and the admin noticeboard isn't used too much so a request there wouldn't get lost. So the admin noticeboard is a good place for such requests.   MarkusRost (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted it. There seems to be a consensus here that it's not necessary, and that it's much better to just post page protection requests on the admin noticeboard. Additionally, the user with the original idea for this, who was also the creator of the page, now supports deletion. I didn't turn it into a redirect, because I think it's confusing having MCW:Requests for page protection show up in the search suggestions and make people think that such a page exists. However, I would have no objections if someone else wants to make it a redirect, to do so, although I personally would disagree. Additionally, if someone wants to start a proposal to split the admin noticeboard into sections for different types of requests for admin attention, that would be fine as well, but can be discussed separately.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 13:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

User warnings to this wiki?

Hello. I uploaded newly a stop hand icon to use in some user warnings to this wiki. These user warnings can then be used to warn vandals, spammers, disruptive editors, and to use to warn vandals for risking being blocked from editing.--Psl85 ^Talk 17:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

We already have several warning templates: {{Uw-delete}}, {{Uw-test}}, and {{Uw-vandalism}}. -- Orthotope^talk 21:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

For a week ago, I have created four new templates, {{User warning1}}, {{User warning2}}, {{User warning3}} and {{User warning4}} to warn users of all bad actions. And a {{blocked}} template, to put on blocked users talk pages, and {{tl|unblock}} template. Two more templates is needed, {{tl|unblock reviewed}} (to use on declined unblock requests) and {{tl|unblocked}} (to use on accepted unblock requests), because I want Wikipedia's warning system.

Please start also a warning system, and I will shortly create a blocking policy, warning policy, and vandalism policy pages, and please add a notice to let all users to request page protection in the requests for page protection page instead of on the administrators' noticeboard.--Psl85 ^{Talk Contribs} 18:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, we already have templates for this, which aren't used very often as it is; how will having more templates improve things? This wiki is one-thousandth the size of Wikipedia (counting by pages or edits), so we don't have a need for some of the formal procedures they do. -- Orthotope^talk 01:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

While I think the user warning system of Wikipedia is a good idea, I think on this particular wiki, it's easy enough for admins to keep track of the relative amounts of vandalism by users. On average it seems that there are about 10 cases of vandalism a day on this wiki, but on Wikipedia, I've sometimes noticed about 15 per minute (that's no exaggeration; also that's 21600 vandalism edits a day if I did the math correctly, though I probably didn't :)). There hasn't really been any recent circumstances where a user has continuously vandalized pages and did not get blocked appropriately after a few days.-- Madminecrafter12^{T • C} 01:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Rename of 1.2.13/14 build x pages into 1.3 build x

I'm wondering why it's been chosen to rename pages like "Bedrock_Edition_1.3_build_1" (which has the actual build number 1.2.13.5 ) into "Bedrock Edition 1.3 build 2"? It doesn't reflect anything related to the actual build number reported by minecraft.net changelogs, nor the actual build number of the actual applications. The same pattern has been done throughout the entire 1.2.13 and 1.2.14 series. Holroy (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Although I personally am not sure if renaming it like this is the best option, Ff98sha had done this because of this tweet, and it was discussed at User talk:Ff98sha#1.3 builds don't exist (yet), so if you want to join that discussion you're welcome to.-- Madminecrafter12^{T • C} 22:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The new name is not referred to neither on Minecraft sites, like https://aka.ms/mcchangelogs, nor within the game files, so it's a strange rename. I've added some further notes in the mentioned user talk. --Holroy (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Deleting by replacing content and moving without redirect

MinecraftPhotos4U (contribs) is currently performing a large number of edits to old Pocket Edition Alpha pages [edit: and other pages] marked for deletion, replacing their content with #REDIRECTs and moving them to completely unrelated pages. Is this an acceptable technique? It seems to me it hides or distorts the wiki history and is very confusing. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 18:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because that fragments the edit history. (Minecraft Wiki's copyright license requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires.) But all the past edits made by MinecraftPhotos4U (contribs) is already done. So we may just leave it for now?--Skylord wars (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Redirects violating style guide

I've managed to dig up a few that can probably be deleted instantly:

• Dispencer
• Greifing
• Lapiz Lazuli

These all appear to violate the Style Guide section on redirects, since incorrect spellings are not allowed.

I've also marked numerous other most likely undesirable redirects for deletion, such as pages in the mainspace that redirect to user pages, unconventinal sentence formattings, and names for blocks and items which are most likely never used by anyone besides the redirect creator. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Create a "Help Desk" page where users can ask help and get answers

Hi! This wiki (and other Gamepedia Wikis) may need a "Help Desk" page (like Wikipedia's Village Pump) where users can ask questions, get answers, planned functions, and so instead of asking on this talk page, or other talk pages. The main reason for making that page is for this wiki have not yet a "Help Desk" or so talk page, users can ask questions there, get answers, and also plan some more functions on this wiki, and please add a link to the "Help Desk" in the sidebar so all users can quickly get there. --Psl85 ^Talk 16:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey there. While I get where you're trying to go with this, I think that the community portal talk page is sufficient enough for the time being. If you, or any other users, need help with something, you can ask at Minecraft Wiki talk:Community portal. The community portal talk page is not really getting cluttered with users asking for help, so I don't really see much benefit in creating a help desk. However, I do think that it would be nice to make it more clear that if new editors have a question, they should refer to the community portal talk page.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 16:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Putting it in the sidebar would also invite questions about the game instead of the wiki, as if we were a chat board. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 17:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

When categories are adjacent to links, they incorrectly delete paragraph breaks.

Issue

In the summary for Special:Diff/1206328, Madminecrafter12 was having a problem making the following paragraph break:

... taking a few seconds to become full.{{upcoming}}

[[Ladder]]s, [[sign]]s, [[fence]]s, ...

It was appearing like this:

... taking a few seconds to become full.‌

Ladders, signs, fences, ...

So the editor had to force a line break with a <br> tag.

The heart of the issue

As far as I can tell, this happens whenever line breaks are the only thing between a category and a link. In Madminecrafter12's situation, the last thing included from that {{upcoming}} template was a category, and that was next to a link to Ladder. You can see it in this generic example, the category seems to eat all paragraph breaks on both sides:

...[[Block]]



[[Category:Example]]






[[Block]]...

...Block

Block...

And as Madminecrafter12 noted: you can put as many line breaks in there as you want, and they will all get deleted.

– Sealbudsman talk | contribs 21:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I think an identical issue was discussed on Slack quite recently... --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 21:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a "feature" to stop category links creating unnecessary paragraphs, you'll note that categories will also eat any space above them, regardless of if it's after a link.

...Eat this:



[[Category:Example]]
But, [[Category:Example]]




don't eat this...

...Eat this: But,

don't eat this...

As such, categories need to not be at the start or end of templates that can be used within the flow of text. Simplest solution is to just stick a <nowiki/> at the end, which I made {{cat plug}} for, so someone doesn't go removing it thinking it was a mistake. –Majr ᐸ Talk
Contribs 04:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Aha, I getcha. That's a nice solution, thanks for putting that together. – Sealbudsman talk | contribs 11:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Policy pages

Hi! I have now planned to create some "policy" and "guideline" pages, and "help" pages (could be redirects to gphelp wiki) to use as guidelines for blocking, deleting, protecting, and vandalism, how to fight it. Planned pages are suggested to create:

• Minecraft Wiki:Blocking policy - blocking guidelines
• Minecraft Wiki:Deletion policy - deletion guidelines and a "criteria for speedy deletion" section in the page to use as deletion guidelines using the templates {{speedy delete}} and {{delete}}. It could also contain when the templates can be used.
• Minecraft Wiki:Protection policy - guidelines for page protection
• Minecraft Wiki:Vandalism - vandalism guidelines, how to revert and warn users using the templates {{User warning1}}, {{user warning2}}, {{user warning3}}, {{user warning4}} and/or {{uw-vandalism}}, the general vandalism warning.
• Minecraft Wiki:User pages - guidelines about use of user pages.

An template {{nutshell}} and a image File:Nutshell.svg is needed also to the template.

Any questions, ask below, and use {{ping}} to notify users in the discussion. If pages are ok, can I draft them using my draft page and please help clean up them if they are choosed to create them. Psl85 ^Talk 12:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Please don't. If these pages were needed at this time, there would either be editors asking about them, or they would have already been created. Any such pages, furthermore, should be purpose-written for this wiki rather than simply cribbing from some other wiki's guidelines. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 21:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose, and agreed with Dinoguy. We don't need these pages. The blocking, deletion and protection ones would be policies that admins and the like are following, but they obviously already know what they're doing and we won't be needing to tell them how to, unless it is to question an individual's action on a particular case. And vandalism and user pages are already covered by the MCW:Wiki rules. This wiki is small enough to not need any more than this. Unless you can convince me of particular situations where you think these policies are needed. – Jack McKalling [ ] 21:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Separate archive nav

I propose having the archive box that lists all the archives of the admin noticeboard to be separate from the header. So basically, we would create a page named MCW:Admin noticeboard/Archive nav, that lists all the archives in an {{archive box}}, like what we have right now in the header. Then we would transclude that page onto either this page or the header page. I personally like transcluding it onto this page better, but right now the archive box is on the header page, and there's probably a reason for that. The reasons for doing this are, A. so that normal users can add new archives, it's kind of a pain having to contact an admin every single time this page is archived, and B. (less important than A) it would be consistent with almost all other talk pages, including the community portal talk. Thoughts?-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 16:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Allowing more people to edit it would be good, though it would technically make the header editable as they can easily add content outside the box. I don't see that being too much of an issue though as its already possible below the header template, so overall I'm in favor of splitting it to a semi-protected page.

I think before we decide to transclude the header on to this page, we should better clarify the difference between this page and MCW:Admin noticeboard, as its a little vague what the difference is. I remember it stated before that the main page was for quick issues while this one was for longer discussions that require administrators, which I would agree to formalizing. –KnightMiner · (t) 16:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I think Madminecrafter12 means the main page that this is a talk page of, when saying "this page", not this actual talk page itself. You're starting an actual new subject, which in my opinion is also very much worth a discussion. This talk page could do with a header as well. But the subject here, is that it isn't possible for regular editors to edit the archives list of the main admin noticeboard, as it is included in the transcluded header, which is fully protected. If we want regular editors besides admins to archive the page, it would be convenient if the archive list on the page has it's own semi-protection separate from the header, by splitting that part of the subpage into another subpage. I think the header should still be the place where the new subpage is transcluded, because the transclusion of the archive subpage itself doesn't need to be semi-protected, just its contents. So I  Support the split. – Jack McKalling [ ] 09:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I just unprotected the header. If someone wants to vandalise the page, they can do so either way, so having the header protected doesn't accomplish anything. –Majr ᐸ Talk
Contribs 11:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, now that you've unprotected the header (which I support by the way), that was the primary reason why I wanted a separate archive nav - so I don't think having one is really necessary anymore.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 12:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

New username surname de-capitalized

Hi, I joined recently and when I typed in my name I capitalized my surname. The system has turned it into lowercase (on my userpage & its url [1], anyway; I've fixed it so that it's capitalized in my signature). Is there a way to change this (on my userpage and url)? (Also I wasn't sure where to ask this question so apologies if this is the wrong place for it.) --Philologia Archetypus (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

File a ticket at https://gamepedia.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/requests/new?ticket_form_id=235968 --Pcj (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Pcj! --Philologia Archetypus (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Change to when users have been blocked unfairly

"If you believe you have been wrongfully blocked, please visit an admin's userpage and send them an email using the left sidebar." First of all, and most importantly, most blocks are to IPs, which can't email users regardless of circumstances. Also, registered users may have email disabled, either voluntarily via preferences, or by the blocking administrator using block settings. Imo, it's better to discuss the block on the user's talk page, rather than via email. It allows for easier communication, it allows multiple admins to get involved much easier, and like mentioned before, most importantly, it would allow users who can't use the email feature to discuss their block.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 22:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Orthotope^talk 00:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It sounds also good, we could change this to that all blocked users could post a {{unblock}} request on their talk page OR send email to the blocking administrator, and {{unblock}} could notify all administrators on the wiki on the Category:Requests for unblock page, or send e-mail to the blocking administrator, and where should any appeal emails be sent if example: me getting blocked permanently with no talk page or no email, and the only appeal is through sending email to which email address? psl85 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

 Support from me. I don't understand why this hasn't been done sooner. In my opinion, a block should always be personally explained on the relevant talk page, optionally also mentioning their own access to their own talk page so they can reply (if relevant to the block). I don't necessarily believe we need a template for that, each block is handled on a case by case basis anyway, so a personalized approach seems fair to me. – Jack McKalling [ ] 08:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

 Definitely. – Sealbudsman talk | contribs 01:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

 Added. Special:Diff/1248651. Feel free to reword or tweak as needed. I might also add something like this to MediaWiki:blockedtext.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 00:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Make the YouTube filter so that it only tags edits rather than warns the user?

I would suggest modifying Special:AbuseFilter/10 so that it only tags any edits that get caught in it, rather than warns the user. I've observed quite a few of the edits that got caught in the filter, and from what I had observed, the ones that don't get caught in other filters (i.e. spam) seem to fall into the following three categories:

• False positives. The vast majority of the edits got caught in this filter have nothing to do with adding YouTube, but are instead adding stuff to a line that happens to have a YouTube link on it; in fact, almost all edits fall into this category. I'm not saying that every single one of these edits are constructive, but most of them are, and the ones that aren't... well, that's not the responsibility of this filter. So, what happens here, is a user makes a constructive edit, receives some bitey false warning, and is sometimes too scared to proceed any further.
• Not false positives, but incorrect catches; i.e., someone adds a YouTube link which is correct, but gets warned about it. Again, what happens here, is a user makes a constructive edit, received some bitey false warning, and is sometimes too scared to proceed any further.
• The edit in question is pure vandalism or spam. However, most of the time, the user in question doesn't care about some "stupid warning" if their intend is to spam or vandalize; they'll just ignore it and make the edit anyways. So here, it's not really useful.

Based off of the above, I've come to the conclusion that making the filter warn users does more harm than it does good, so would suggest removing the "Warning" consequence from the filter, leaving it so that it only tags edits that come through this filter with "added youtube video." However, I'm not really sure how useful the tag even is, considering how almost all the catches are false positives.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 01:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Bump. Anyone want to comment on this?-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 14:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I think this does not need a discussion and should be done. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 14:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this wouldn't necessarily need a very thorough discussion/consensus and since there have been no objections, I've  Done this. Should we delete MediaWiki:Video-warning now or just keep it deprecated?-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 15:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd say keep it deprecated for some time (maybe 2 weeks), then we can really determine the impact of the filter change, and if we find out we shouldn't have changed the filter like this, it'll be easier for us to revert; if we find out the filter change helped, we should be able to delete the message as well. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 15:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Deleted.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 00:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Wrongly blocked unblock me

I want to be unblocked ,I was wrongly blocked . Gamingismlife1997 (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You aren't blocked...  MarkusRost (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Useless Content Blockage

I am a new subscriber who wrote a wikipage on Mariculture. There is so little out there on this mod, I thought this forum might benefit from a page on this mod. A search for that page told me you didnt have one.

Whats the rub? --Mm64cookies (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

We don't document mods anymore on this wiki. This is for the vanilla game only. I suggest you look into adding your page to the FTB wiki instead, which covers all mods. – Jack McKalling [ ] 08:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Confirmation on Ultra Hardcore Page relevance

Hi guys, can I get admin/mod confirmation on whether the Ultra Hardcore page should exist? It's not Minecraft content, and rule 6 clearly states fan-made community stuff does not belong on the primary pages of the wiki. Scimiguy (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This has been recognized and played by mojang employees (dinnerbone specifically), and led to changed in the vanilla game (gamerule naturalRegeneration for example); additionally minigame pages are allowed, just like Spleef. FVbico (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Not really sure what the relevance is of an employee having played it before.. Marc has played Hypixel, should we add Hypixel to this wiki as well? As for a minigame, it's pretty obvious that the implication of an 'ultra hardcore' difficulty would be received differently to an actual minigame. I'll leave it regardless, but it really seems like a bizarre policy Scimiguy (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

That notability guideline has existed on the wiki for quite awhile, I think originally to capture spleef. I will admit with the addition of Realms minigames it deserves a revisit, but whatever that revisit is I do believe the article is notable.

If you think this should be modified, I suggest opening a discussion on the community portal as its really a community decision to revisit it. –KnightMiner · (t) 00:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

villages section was edited incorrectly.

Someone edited the village page in the raids section to say "illagers" raid instead of the correct "pillagers" them someone fixed it then it got reverted to the wrong one again and now it cant be edited again except by an admin. Scully (talk) 05:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

"Illagers" is correct. Mobs other than pillagers can appear in raids. – Nixinova   05:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Minecraft: Earth Data

With the game's larger scale release being rolled out next month, should MCE data added to this wiki or is it too different from the core games and therefore need to be separate? --LuxFerre3141 (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Lower protection on navbox container templates

These templates:

• Template:Blocks
• Template:Items
• Template:Entities
• Template:Environment
• Template:Gameplay
• Template:Redstone

were protected to admin levels many years ago due to being "high traffic". I feel as though this protection is excessive, however; the actual meat of the template is at the /content subpage, which would certaintly be a much bigger target for vandalism. Also, there's other cases of these top level templates such as Template:Biomes which are designed in much the same way, yet have remained unprotected for a good chunk of a year (or possibly even more on ones I might not have checked yet) and have had no incidents requiring reversion. Could the protection on these templates therefore be lowered to autoconfirmed? - User-12316399 (talk) 07:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Those templates exist only for technical reasons to enable the actual content to be loaded, as such there's really nothing that needs editing on them. If something that were to come up that needed changing, it could easily be requested. Therefore, I don't see how having admin protection on heavily used templates that have very little need to ever be edited is excessive. The content pages aren't protected as high because they need to be edited a lot more often, making the risk of vandalism worthwhile compared to them frequently being out-of-date while waiting for admin requests to be fulfilled. –Majr ᐸ Talk
Contribs 06:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)