Minecraft Wiki talk:Community portal/Archive 34

Template:Unreleased feature

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Discussion has remained dormant for a few months, yet there is a consensus to delete the template, which has been performed. BDJP ^(t|c) 10:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

---

{{Unreleased feature}} leaves a bad taste. To me, it looks like its trying to circumvent article notability. If people want to create articles for unreleased features, why not use MCW:Sandbox? I don't like the idea of articles under redirect, both because its bad for usability, and because it brings back the exact same problem the original articles had which was a lack of proper article content. Warden is an example of that template's usage.

Alternatively, if people you want to keep using {{Unreleased feature}}, let make a proposal to amend the style guide to allow those articles to exist and remove the redirect. For instance, I'd be a lot more likely to support such an article if you had a clear expiration date before an unreleased feature gets downgraded to a section on mentioned features, along with some notability for which "unreleased features" are notable enough for their own article. We can discuss that under this topic if anyone has clear ideas.

From my point of view, {{Unreleased feature}} in its current form violates the style guide, so we need to either amend the style guide to state when its allowed or remove the usages. KnightMiner ^(t/c) 06:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

 Support deleting the template outright. As for the proposal to amend the style guide to accept unreleased feature - there is too little information. What info is there on Warden that warrants its own page? With the exception of Warden, there are too little details on Caves & Cliffs to warrant an entire page. I would like {{unreleased feature}} to be in the {{redr}} template.Humiebee^{talk contribs} 23:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Deleting it - If we deleted this template, use of {{redr}} won't be enough, and we won't be able to create these pages, as it would be violating much more, than it does now. We would have to say to people who do so "sorry, but you are directly violating our style guide". --TreeIsLife (talk) 07:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

That is exactly the point. If it is violating the style guide, why does adding a template make it not in violation? If you think using that template should be allowed, the style guide should be amended to say "articles about unreleased features are fine as long as they are marked with {{Unreleased feature}} and hidden by a redirect".

As it stands, the current wording of the style guide means if someone wants to create an article for an unreleased feature, you tell them it violates the style guide. You dislike telling people that? Make a proposal or agree with one to change the style guide. We could change the style guide to describe when unreleased articles are allowed, instead of circumventing it with secret articles. KnightMiner ^(t/c) 02:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I am oppose of this due it will just start a domino effect. You will change this, style guide will probably change too, and based on how those changes will be (i saw more strict idea of style guide), it may even mean page like Warden won't exist, even when announced, but unreleased. Also, even when not in style guide, it became as a "hidden point", and if this template would be deleted, it would probably mean that point won't apply any longer.--TreeIsLife (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, you think we should leave this template (which violates the style guide) alone because you think the style guide is too strict, and yet do not want to change the style guide to be less strict to make the template be allowed? KnightMiner ^(t/c) 17:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. But probably when I see how other people are voting, i will probably have to accept its removation, and also style guide changes--TreeIsLife (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

 Support deletion, and making the style guide more strict; these pages might just as well first be made in the userspace, rather than under the redirect. We have a bunch of stuff in the style guide that goes ignored, including the "page titles should be singular", which was brought up as adiscussion point on discord several times too. I'm getting tired of it just being me who follows the style guide more directly. Dhranios (talk) (Join the wiki videos project!) 09:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

 Support deletion of the template. TheGreatSpring (talk | contribs) (Tagalog translation) 11:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

How exactly does this template violate the style guide? Fadyblok240 (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The template is to be added to articles that are disallowed under the style guide, using the logic that since the article has a redirect making it hard to get to its okay. Its still an article, it is still about unreleased features, its just that most people won't find it. So maybe its better to say the template itself is not a violation, but using the template for its indented use is a violation. KnightMiner ^(t/c) 02:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

 Support deletion: We already have various templates for marking new and changed behavior and items of upcoming versions, for example Drowned's upcoming switch from dropping gold to dropping copper. Currently the changing drops for Drowned are simply noted within their page, and the Skulk Sensor has a page, but the Warden links to a paragraph in the upcoming version page. I see no reason we shouldn't simply have properly-hatted articles (with whatever information is available) for items and/or mobs that have been confirmed as "upcoming". --MentalMouse42 (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC: More admins?

Currently, there are 5 admins with only 2 truly active (AttemptToCallNil (talk • contribs • logs) and Nixinova (talk • contribs • logs)), Sonicwave mentioned in a comment that he wanted to reduce activity on the wiki, KnightMiner and Madminecrafter12 don't edit that much). I think we need more admins (For example, I noticed that Category:Pending deletion has more than 300 pages/files in it and Category:Pending speedy deletion even has more than 3 pages in it). Currently, there are 8 9 active patrollers (TheGreatFall, Magiczocker, PancakeIdentity, Amatulic, HaydenBobMutthew, NineTreyBlud, BDJP007301, and User-12316399) with 6 7 registering (shown in bold) before 2020 and one who is already a director (shown in italics). I also made this post because there has been a decrease in 2 admins within the past 7 months (Majr exactly 7 months ago and Dhranios about 2 ¹⁄₂ months ago). I am no expert in this and I just created this because the amount of clutter in the wiki (pending deletion files and other things) were increasing a lot and I was worried that too little admins would result in a decrease in moderation and an increase in vandalism (yes, there is no vandalism that remains on the wiki today but it often takes days to weeks for an admin to respond in the Block requests and Protection requests). I also recall Skylord wars in the RfC: Appoint a new bureaucrat discussion said that 9 admins was too little. If 9 admins is too little, than 5 admins (and especially 2 active admins) is far too little.

Update, Auldrick is also in the list now bringing the total from 8 to 9. Also changed 6 mo to 7 mo Humiebee^{talk contribs} 01:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

All in all,

1. Do we need a new admin? (I feel that we do)
2. If so, how many? (Probably 2 to replace the 2 that were demoted/self-demoted in the past 2 months)
3. And who should it be? (A patroller, probably someone in bold)

Humiebee^{talk contribs} 17:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

We have 6 admins from Fandom's original MCW, so there is no need to do this, until we will know their decision to become admin. --TreeIsLife (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

And don't forget that Majr has been completely inactive for over a year now, it was only 6 months ago that they finally got demoted, thanks to my AN post. James Haydon (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned that... (the past 6 months (Majr exactly 6 months ago and Dhranios about 1 ¹⁄₂ months ago).) Humiebee^{talk contribs} 21:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

1. Who are they?
2. Have they even made an edit on the wiki?
3. The original fandom mc wiki was a LOT different than this wiki (it was less popular so less moderating needed, protection needed if it was low-traffic, did the MediaWiki: namespace exist?

Humiebee^{talk contribs} 21:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: I would like to comment something. While it is true that some editors you mentioned have been editing for many time and they may be very trustable, I'm not sure if more admins is the solution. Of course more admins mean more maintenance, but they would have acces also to some special tools, and I don't know what can happen.
So I propose this: Giving some of them the content moderator user group. I can say that as a content moderator on the Spanish wiki I can delete and protect and unprotect pages, and do the same things that patrollers, but I can't edit some pages and I can't give user rights to other people as they are locked for me since I don't have complete admin rights.
I think that giving some people the content moderator role would make more sense since we can get more moderation on the things that need moderation, but also making sure that private admin-only pages are protected. What do you think about this? Thejoaqui777 (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

For main-space maintenance work (which is mostly what is needed), I think that's a perfect solution. Amatulic (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Weak support content moderator role and 1 - 2 new admins. Content moderator would take load off of admins (and solve the pending deletion and protection requests problem) and 1 - 2 new admins would replace the -2 in the past 7 mo. Humiebee^{talk contribs} 20:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Update, see my comment below. Humiebee^{talk contribs} 13:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I've been an admin on the English Wikipedia since 2010 (can't believe it's been over a decade). I could probably do the job here too if needed, although I suspect there are a number of features on this wiki that I have no knowledge about. But for general "janitorial" work (protection, deletion, blocking), it's no problem. On the other hand, I've been quite happy as a regular contributor here, and I enjoy not doing admin work for a change. Once you're an admin, you find there's no end of cleanup work to do (especially on en-wiki) and you hardly have time anymore to contribute content. Amatulic (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the wiki needs more higher level users. Content moderator sounds like a good tool to hand out to a few people but we also need a new admin or too as there's not too many active.  Nixinova   T   C   04:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I think all of the users Humiebee listed in boldface above, as well as Humiebee, can be trusted with the content moderator role, if any of them are willing to take it on. Speaking for myself, I'm more willing to serve as a content moderator than an admin at this time. More content moderators would take some load off admins, reducing the load to more serious duties such as blocking and page protection. What's the process here for making it happen? Amatulic (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the wiki needs more people to handle daily requests like page deletion, block users and revert vandalism. I can also act as content moderator if needed. MysticNebula70 _T  05:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

As for admin roles, I don't think I have that much time to do it since I'm also admin on zh wiki (and helper on Fandom, which takes even more time). But I can give some advice though. MysticNebula70 _T  05:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I would also really want to have the content moderator role for myself even though I'm a new user. It would help a lot with handling all the speculation pages that get created on the MCD side of the wiki, and the vandals here as well. James Haydon (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed that this discussion exists and I'm listed above in bold text. The content moderator role don't add anything new to my abilities. As example, I can protect pages for vandalism as SOAP and patrol pages as patroller. - Magiczocker (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there should be more admins and content moderators to handle vandalism and especially the deletion category, which tends to become massive often within days. I would like to note however that content moderators would be able to edit the main page, rules and other admin-protected pages/templates. This isn't necessarily a downside since they could respond to front page version syncing requests, but it's something that should be considered. –Sonicwave ^talk 19:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I know that content moderators would be able to edit the main page, but that's the same situation if we promote a new admin too. The reason of why content moderators can help us is that they would be able to handle page maintenance and vandalism with more measures than patrollers, but without access to some admin stuff that probably should be handled with caution. I also agree that maybe one or two new admins would be really welcomed too. Thejoaqui777 (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with need of another user group being used on Minecraft Wiki, I don't think it's necessary to employ a new group to do things that are being done today with other group.

I agree that Minecraft Wiki desperately needs more administrators, I think that's a fact, yet Minecraft Wiki already uses two roles that would be considered non-standard, such as Directors and Patrollers. I think adding more complexity to wiki group structure makes the wiki less clear on who is managing it, what are their roles and what groups do. "Content moderator" in the name itself is better described than Directors but it's not perfect either, what is content and what isn't? Of course, I know what it does from Special:ListGroupRights but that's because I've been on wikis for 8 years or something. What I believe the wiki needs is administration. I don't think the problem should be resolved with yet another group, I think using existing groups for this purpose such as administrators (sysops) is just fine. If you trust someone enough to delete pages, edit protected pages, or read deleted content I think there is no reason not to give such a person an administrator. People mentioned above in bold have been on the wiki for a long time and are pretty known in the community for those who interact in it.

So I guess, my question is, why exactly do we need to utilize yet another group to do the same tasks that were previously handled fine by administrators? What exactly are the things that you define as "admin stuff that probably should be handled with caution"? Wikis are built with reversibility in mind, anything that is done by the user or an admin alike should be reversible. Unless you suggest that new Content Moderator candidates would be in the future working in bad faith I don't see a reason why not just use administrator group instead. Sometimes the real solution is simpler than needlessly adding more variables to (in my opinion) already bureaucratic and complex equation. Frisk (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Frisk: What is the difference between content moderator and administrator? They both can edit the main page, rules, protected templates, delete and restore pages, block and unblock people, what do content moderators not have that administrators have @Thejoaqui777:? Humiebee^{talk contribs} 13:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Humiebee: Content Moderators don't have as many permissions as admins. They can't block users and they can only edit some admin-only pages. They can still delete pages, restore pages and protect pages, and edit protected pages though. James Haydon (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Still, I feel like anyone who can be trusted with content moderator should be trusted with blocking (patrollers have experience with vandalism) and editing protected pages (like what happened with splash and human). I don't get how the current patrollers can't be trusted with 2 additional features. What I also noticed is that there are a lot of autopatrol people that can be trusted with admin/content mod such as Thejoaqui777 as well. Humiebee^{talk contribs} 13:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I do strongly agree that Content Moderator should come with the block permission. Would make it useful as a vandalism fighting role. James Haydon (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@NineTreyBlud:, then what would be the difference... Also, if content moderators can protect pages, why can't they edit those pages that were just protected??????????????????????????????????????????????? Humiebee^{talk contribs} 13:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

They can. Their editing permissions = admins, except they can't edit MW ns --TreeIsLife (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Well they still can't edit all protected pages then. James Haydon (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

If they can edit the rules, the only difference between content moderator and admin is that they can't edit MCW:About, MCW:Copyrights, MCW:Directors, MCW:General Disclaimer, and MCW:Issues subpages... Either downgrade content moderator (to the same rights as what MysticNebula70 said) or don't use it (like what Frisk said). They can't be trusted with editing MCW:Protected pages???? Humiebee^{talk contribs} 21:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

On zh wiki we just modified the Patroller's rights, so they can block users, delete pages, however they cannot edit fully-protected pages. MysticNebula70 _T  14:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel like there is enough support to promote at least 1 admin though content moderator still needs to be discussed. Humiebee^{talk contribs} 21:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Who?

Who should be the admin? Like I said above, it should be a patroller.

• Amatulic (talk • contribs • logs) did not want to be an admin.
• Madminecrafter12 (talk • contribs • logs) in Nixinova's talk page said this

“	Being an admin doesn't require being an autopatrol or patroller, nor does it require a certain number of edits or account tenure. It requires having demonstrated through lots of experience that you have a clear use for the administrative tools and that you would manage them well. If you really want to become an admin, I'd recommend forgetting that idea for a while and just keep editing as a user. It may turn out that the type of work you prefer to do on the wiki doesn't even require being an administrator.	„
	— Madminecrafter12

In my opinion, this is the person who should become the administrator (with 1. being my top choice and 8. being my botton choice)

1. TIED
2. See below
3. The rest of the names I did not mention - Longtime contributer, active patrollers, never blocked
4. User-12316399 - Was blocked from editing File: for several months but a very helpful longtime contributer.
5. TIED - see below
6. NineTreyBlud and Magiczocker - First became active in August 2020 so still somewhat new, Giving admin to second does not change their roles much.
7. TheGreatFall - Still quite new and not as active in the past month.
8. Amatulic - does not wish to be an admin.

Humiebee^{talk contribs} 21:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

How does being new hinder my chances at becoming an admin? I know I haven't been here for very long, but that doesn't mean I'm not a trustworthy person. James Haydon (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Didn't you say on User talk:Nixinova that an admin would need 2 - 4 years of editing? Humiebee^{talk contribs} 22:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Well that would be highly recommended but some people can prove themselves worthy in a year or two. I have been editing since June 2020, with me starting to become majorly active in August. Long term activity is a very good thing to have for such a role, but there are newer editors that have proven themselves trustworthy enough, like you. James Haydon (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

True though all the people on the lis can be trusted, we can only select a few (which is why I made a priority list). It would be cool to be an admin but I would probably want to keep editing until July 2021 (1 year editing mark), then I would consider requesting for admin. Instead, I want to be a patroller. Humiebee^{talk contribs} 22:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not wish to be an admin. TheGreatFall (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Might as well drop my eight cents here. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that we need more admins here, but we need to make sure to pick the right person/people to be given these responsibilities so we don't get someone who never does anything or possibly someone who doesn't have the best interests of the wiki in mind. I guess I'll just do what you did and rank each candidate by how much I support each one being given admin rights.

1. Amatulic - I know he said he didn't want to be an admin here at all. But he didn't necessarily say he'd oppose being given the content mod role, and if that becomes a thing, I'd definitely support him being given that given their nearly 11 years of admin experience on Wikipedia

   Oh, I'm willing to do the job if I'm called to it. On the English Wikipedia, there's such a huge backlog of admin work over there that an admin doesn't have time to do much else besides mop up messes. I can ignore the backlog and be a content editor but it's hard when there's so much to mop up. Thinking about it more, I suspect that wouldn't happen here here on this wiki, which is smaller and more laid-back. I expect I'd still be able to do constructive stuff with an occasional need to perform an administrative act. Amatulic (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

   @Amatulic:, the main reason why I created this post in the first place was because there was a backlog, of pages in Category:Pending deletion. Also, there seems to be an increasing number of unblocked vandals, just as I feared. Humiebee^{talk contribs} 21:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

   The backlogs are easy enough to clear out on a wiki this size. An admin just has to notice it and allocate some time to do it. Blocking users and protecting pages are reasonably quick operations. Where it gets painful on Wikipedia is that it's so vast, with millions of articles and thousands of editors and being one of the world's most-visited websites, even with hundreds of active administrators it's impossible to keep up with all that needs to get done. Here on this wiki, an admin's time and activities are more easily managed. Amatulic (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

2. BDJP007301 - definitely wouldn't have supported giving them admin when I first joined the wiki, but it's been like six years and I don't really see any reason to oppose giving 'em admin rights now. I feel like that came off kinda harsh. The point I'm tryin' to make here is that they've grown ever since they joined this place
3. NineTreyBlud - being a newer user hasn't stopped people from becoming admins on this wiki in the past - Kizzycocoa became an admin just 17 days after he created his account for example. 2010 was definitely a different time here, but still. If you can get that much experience in that little time, then I don't see a problem with going ahead and making you an admin. I personally have a couple of small nitpicks with NineTreyBlud's overall behavior here, but I can definitely see him becoming an admin in the future if he's still active
4. Magiczocker - no real reason to oppose giving 'em admin rights, but as you said, giving 'em admin rights wouldn't do too much since they're already a SOAP member
5. PancakeIdentity - active on discord, but her overall activity on the wiki itself appears to have been declining over the past year or so, meaning we could potentially just get another admin that barely does anything
6. HaydenBobMutthew - not much in the way of edits in the past few months; we don't need another inactive admin here
7. User-12316399 - has been blocked multiple times since 2018 for large-scale disruptive actions in the file namespace; can't really be trusted with page deletions as a result
8. TheGreatFall - along with what you said, their understanding of English isn't the greatest and they've since stated they don't want to be an admin anyway

If eight cents wasn't enough, I'll drop additional cents if needed – JEC _talk @ 06:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure the info about HaydenBobMutthew and PancakeIdentity should change my list so i'll make a new one.

1. BDJP007301 (talk • contribs • logs • block log) - active, long time contributer, never blocked.
2. NineTreyBlud (talk • contribs • logs • block log) - active, not a long time contributer, never blocked (though moderation for MCD would be helpful).
3. Magiczocker (talk • contribs • logs • block log) - same as BDJP but admin adds barely any new roles, just editing admin-protected pages/templates (can edit all director protected pages).
4. Auldrick (talk • contribs • logs • block log) - semi-active (comparable to Sonicwave), long time contributer, never blocked.
5. HaydenBobMutthew (talk • contribs • logs • block log) - semi-active (as of VERY recently), long time contributer, never blocked.
6. User-12316399 (talk • contribs • logs • block log) - active, long time contributer, blocked before.
7. PancakeIdentity (talk • contribs • logs • block log) - not active, long time contributer, never blocked.
8. Amatulic (talk • contribs • logs • block log) - same as BDJP but does not want to be admin.
9. TheGreatFall (talk • contribs • logs • block log) - same as NineTreyBlud but does not want to be admin.

Pretty much the same except that the semi-active patrollers were moved down and NineTreyBlud was moved up because of MCD. Humiebee^{talk contribs} 18:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@JEC6789:, Auldrick is now in the list of active patrollers. Humiebee^{talk contribs} 01:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Not enough for an outdent Humiebee^{talk contribs}

This discussion had been completely dormant for a few days. I'm curious to know what the final plan is going to be, and who will become admin/content moderator. James Haydon (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It generally seems that you and BDJP are the top canditates for admin followed by Magiczoker and Auldrick. I have no idea how promotion works though we need community consensus. I still don't like the idea of content mod as the only difference is not being able to block people as well as editing a few admin (not director) MCW: namespace protected pages. Humiebee^{talk contribs} 00:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, if the content mod role isn't desirable, I'm willing to do the admin job here. I'm listed above as stating I didn't want it, but after further reflection, I doubt the admin role here would be as "janitorial" and time-sucking as it is on the English Wikipedia. On the Minecraft Wiki, the informality and lack of bureaucratic process definitions to cover every single little aspect of the site is rather refreshing, actually. Amatulic (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Auldrick? I thought Aldrick is already an admin... or used to be. Auldrick is a moderator on the Mojang bug tracker and I consider Auldrick as something of a role model here. Amatulic (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Generally  Support for top candidates. TheGreatFall (talk | contribs) (Tagalog translation) 05:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I lost the track of this, but I  Support you if you decide to just promote admins. Thejoaqui777 (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I think maybe 3 new admins would be good, 2 to replace the previous 2 and 1 extra to have another active admin. It seems that we have a general consenus that someone who is experienced and most likely able to handle admin capabilities should be admin.

Amatuic can 100% handle admin capabilities as they have first-hand experience with it, BDJP as well (6 yrs of experience and can be easily trusted with admin (especially blocking) privilages. NineTreyBlud also has been on the wiki for more than a year and moderation for MCD would be nice (though a 13 day break is a little odd). Is he active on discord? Humiebee^{talk contribs} 21:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Going to drop in my views on what I see as the major points brought up in this discussion:

First of all, I want to apologize for not being very active on the wiki myself. I started becoming quite busy irl a year or so ago, and although I have a lot more free time now, I tend to not be as motivated when I haven't been active in a while. I'm definitely going to try to contribute more in the future, but please note that if I'm not responding to a notification on the wiki (which, to be clear, shouldn't be the case; I check the wiki quite often even if I don't edit very frequently), I can almost certainly be reached via Discord or email if I'm needed for some important admin-related task.

Regarding creating a new role, I agree with almost everything Frisk says; I do not think we need a content moderator role. I honestly don't see any use of it; if you can really be trusted to have all the rights content moderator gives, you are almost certainly trustworthy enough to become an admin. If you cannot be trusted with admin roles but want to help out with patrolling pages or reverting vandalism, that's what the custom patroller role is for. As he said, a new role that we hand out would just create more confusion.

Yes, I definitely think more admins would be useful. However, I would say the number is heavily dependent on the quality of the people interested in becoming admin (which I'll discuss in a bit), so I don't think we should say "we should definitely promote exactly 3 more admins!" or anything. If only just one decent candidate were to exist, I'd say just promote that one, while if five very good candidates exist, I don't see a problem with promoting all five.

For specific candidates, I think we should cross anyone off the list if they've made it clear that they don't want to be an admin under any condition as of now. Therefore, I don't think we should even consider TheGreatFall. I'd be very ok with Auldrick, Magiczocker, Amatulic, PancakeIdentity, and/or BDJP007301 as admin. They all seem to be very familiar with how the wiki works and would put the admin tools to good use. However, I wouldn't necessarily strongly oppose any of the candidates in the list, assuming 1. they actually want to be admin, 2. they explain what they would do as admin, and 3. there's a strong consensus among the community to promote them.

I would recommend reaching out to all of the candidates on this list who have not yet responded to the discussion, which I believe would be HaydenBobMutthew, PancakeIdentity, Magiczocker, User-12316399, Auldrick, and BDJP007301. For whichever ones are interested, open a new section on the community portal explaining why they should be admin and see what people think. Madminecrafter12 (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Replying them as pings do not work. TheGreatSpring (talk | contribs) (Tagalog translation) 00:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

As TheGreatFall mentioned, using the @ping template may not work. However, their talk pages may be able to trigger a notification, so that's another option too. Thejoaqui777 (talk) 01:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to TheGreatFall for messaging me on my talk page: I was unaware of this discussion until now. Thank you also to those of you who nominated me and spoke up for me. To be honest, I thought I was seen as a thorn in the wiki's side, so it's gratifying to learn that not everybody feels that way about me. Unfortunately, I don't think I have the right temperament to be an administrator. Instead, I would offer a suggestion: Don't be picky! We need to have as many admins as possible, at least while we have big backlogs, because even if a single admin could theoretically make progress by themself, you have to factor in the fact that there is no reward for this work and they'll eventually burn out. But they can't take a break, because then they'll lose the little bit of progress they made. This leads to feelings of inadequacy and hopelessness and being trapped in a job you hate, and the next thing you know you're looking for a new admin to replace them. I think the admin role should be granted to anybody who might do a halfway decent job, and we should trust the wiki to correct itself as was suggested above. That way admins might be more willing to take breaks when they need them, letting others pick up the slack. I also think it would be a good idea for the administrator role to be limited to a year or two, by definition, so that the admin can request reappointment if they feel up to it but can bow out gracefully with no shame or sense of failure if they don't. — Auldrick (talk · contribs) 04:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the ping, but I was already aware of this discussion going on. I didn't want to say anything until the discussion had died down (which it appears to have done so). I appreciate those that have considered me for admin, and to be honest, it would be an honor to become one, though of course I will leave it up to fellow editors and current administrators. I've been on this wiki for over seven years at this point, gradually rising and learning a lot. What I basically would do when I'm not busy typing up chapter summaries for Minecraft novels or creating an article about some other Minecraft product (I mean, we even got a special cereal) is clearing out maintenance categories, blocking disruptive editors, and protecting pages from vandalism, invalid page moves, etc.. BDJP ^(t|c) 14:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree that anybody who is eligable, wants to be admin, is trusted/has community approval, and is active. Since Auldrick doesn't want to be admin (and we need to have as many admins as possible). I just don't want to have more inactive admins as that's basically why I created this discussion in the first place. Humiebee^{talk contribs} 22:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Above, I said I didn't think I have the right temperament to be an administrator. I wish to amend and expand on that. When it comes to the many responsibilities of an administrator, it is specifically that of exercising judgment over vandals and trolls who play at the edges of what's permissible that I fear I would be too harsh, as that sort of deliberate annoyance triggers me to unreasoning anger. But on the other hand, I generally don't mind grindy work at all as long as I can see progress, so I feel I would be suitable for many of an administrator's duties at some point in the future, on condition that another admin handle the banning duties. Unfortunately, personal matters must take precedence in the near term, so I still wish to withdraw my name from consideration at this time. I just didn't want my statement above to be seen as presumptively rejecting a future invitation to serve. — Auldrick (talk · contribs) 09:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Generally I  Support all the candidates. I even will be back over this wiki. I am ok to be an admin there. I am ok on dealing vandalism and trolls. — HaydenBobMutthew ^{(talk|contributions)} 05:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Since BDJP has been promoted, things have been going really well with Category:Pending deletion rapidly emptying. Does anyone alse want to be an admin (I know Amatulic and HaydenBobMutthew are okay with being admin with no sub-section opening yet). Humiebee^{talk contribs} 20:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I think your top 10 numbering of users, that may became admins, is wrong. There should never be a top 10 list. If we want an administrator(s), content mod(s), thread mod(s) or patroler(s), just make a list of all people. From that number of people, make a vote for each person and editors will be able to promote people. --TreeIsLife (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Not really, content moderator has already been dismissed as another unneeded role, what on earth is thread moderator? Anyone who wants to be an admin can request it, no one else besides BDJP (promoted), Amatulic, HaydenBobMutthew, and Ninetreyblud requested admin (with the 2nd saying they were okay, not really a request.) This is also a request for more admins, not patrollers. Personally, I think MCW:Patroller requests should be change to MCW:Requests for user rights so people can request for autopatrol / patrollership / director. Humiebee^{talk contribs} 21:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thread moderator is a user group made for moderating discussions. So that user group isn't useful here. About changing Patroller requests, that page is for reporting pages that need to be verified, so it's like an admin noticeboard but for patrollers. Also, having a list of possible candidates is good, but a list which says why they are better or not than others isn't good. People are who need to decide and tell on their comments why they wouldn't be good options, or why they are a good candidate. Thejoaqui777 (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thread moderator isn' t patroling only discussions. If you ever visited the discussion moderator page, you know it has rights for deleting, editing, locking posts, comments (article comments) and messages (on message walls). While discussions won't be enabled on the wiki, we still have article comments (probably it is a-need, due talk pages became so unnoticeable with the new skin) and message walls (that may be enables too).

Regarding people requesting roles for themselves, I hugely oppose this. The current system of getting user rights is fine.

Of course, now the wiki has a big boom in many areas, due Minecraft living it's 2nd gold age. Minecraft Wiki is also living it's gold age, and there are many new people, who are viewing this wiki in a different perspective. I am not opposing changes to the wiki, it's nice that wiki is getting big changes, because that means the wiki has a big potentional for the growth. However, we should always have some "edges", because sometimes, we change some of those core parts of the wiki. --TreeIsLife (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Like content moderator, thread moderator is another unneeded role with anyone who can be trusted with it can be trusted with admin. Humiebee^{talk contribs} 19:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

BDJP007301 for admin

The following discussion of a proposed a promotion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

 Promoted by Madminecrafter12 Humiebee^{talk contribs} 20:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Following the above I would like to make some progress in this discussion and start by nominating BDJP007301 for adminship. He has been a very active contributor of this wiki for many years and is very quick to revert any vandalism that crops up and also performs many maintenance tasks and cleanup. Above he has stated his willingness to become an admin and said that he would clear maintenance categories (much needed) and be able to quell vandalism better using blocking and page protecting. He is a good fit for admin as he already focusus on protecting the wiki from vandalism and these tools will help him to do more effectively. BDJP would be a very welcome addition to the administrivate team.  Nixinova   T   C   04:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 Support. TheGreatSpring (talk | contribs) (Tagalog translation) 05:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 Support. He is an experienced editor and have done a great job over years. I appreciate all his participation for a better wiki Matyh ^talk 06:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 Support. BDJP would be exceptionally good at it. — Auldrick (talk · contribs) 08:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 Strong support per my comments in #Who?. Humiebee^{talk contribs} 14:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 Support. — HaydenBobMutthew ^{(talk|contributions)} 05:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Does this discussion became dormant again? TheGreatSpring (talk | contribs) (Tagalog translation) 07:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Not really, I think that maybe if we have 1 more support, we can promote BDJP. Humiebee^{talk contribs} 17:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Since there seems to be overwhelming support and no one's raised any objections, I've gone ahead and  Promoted BDJP007301 to administrator. Madminecrafter12 (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Agh. I missed this. I'd have given my support too. So, belated support.

I must say, the process here (such as it is) is so much nicer than WP:RFA on Wikipedia. Amatulic (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

When we should archive sections here

I want to discuss a thing of when to archive discussions on CP.

There are few possibilities

• Archiving based on when discussion ended
• Archiving based on when discussion started and "some" days/weeks passed since last comment
• Archiving, when the article has more then "number" KB of discussion
• Archiving, when there are "number" of sections
• Archiving based on 3 months cycle
• And different

Making it clear may help everybody to haave some rules about when we can close and archive the discussion --TreeIsLife (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Any one of these criteria alone is not always sufficient. The first point should apply only when related discussions no longer reference the discussion to be archived. The second choice might be done with a bot, but depending on the amount of activity, the time period might be different. Archiving based on page size is a good universal guideline, but would probably not be applied as often. Archiving based on number of sections is a problem when the sections are very short or very long. Periodic archiving would probably not work as intended, but we do partition archives based on set time periods. (Note that talk pages are not articles, and you misspelled "have".) Fadyblok240 (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Archival on MCW:AN is done by the second one where it is archived in order when the discussion started (so discussions on MCW:AN will look the same in archived). CP is a little different because discussion size varies a LOT unlike AN which is just short requests and questions. I like the 3 months cycle combined with the 2nd one so everything EXCEPT major discussions gets archived. Major discussions like the more admins post can be the first one. Humiebee^{talk contribs} 21:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Images for version pages instead of sprites

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

---

Currently, a lot of version pages are just a wall of text that doesn't show the actual items or blocks. There are multiple instances of using the sprite templates (e.g. {{BlockLink}}, {{ItemLink}}) to show these, however, these have been opposed and removed in the past multiple times because the templates show the latest textures, so the images would increasingly become less accurate for the version.

I propose just using the image revision system we already have. Here is an example for Java Edition 1.7.2:

; [[File:Packed Ice JE1 BE2.png|32px]] [[Packed ice]]

Packed ice

• When broken, it does not turn into water, like normal ice blocks do.
• Does not melt.
• Opaque, rather than translucent like normal ice.

This is not new by any means. Various version pages for Alpha and Beta and Java Edition 1.0.0 do this, as well as Caves & Cliffs. I can't see why this can't be done for all version pages.

Also, I'd like to address the capitalization inconsistency when listing block and item names. Sometimes they use sentence case (i.e. Java Edition 1.15, Java Edition 1.16), but other times they use in-game capitalization (i.e. Bedrock Edition 1.16.0, Java Edition 1.17) – Unavailablehoax (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm  Indecise about the image changes, because images are definitely more accurate than the sprites, but their problem is the space they take on desktop devices, and that on FandomDesktop/FandomMobile they might mess up galeries, though that doesn't happen usually. And sprites while being innacurate don't create those situations, so I don't know.
However,  Support following in-game capitalization, because that's the actual way of naming things on the games and we shouldn't change that. Thejoaqui777 (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I  Support about that, because the reader can see how that block/item looks like without clicking the link, bringing a convenientcy to the readers. Also, it is more consistent to do that with Alpha and Beta pages. HaydenBobMutthew ^{(talk|contributions)} 07:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

About the capitalization, we have a style guide for that, MCW:CAPS. It's pretty comprehensive, so there shouldn't be a question about how to capitalize things. Amatulic (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

 Support. BDJP ^(t|c) 20:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

 Strong support, there shouldn't even be a discussion, the wiki is all about being up to date and being accurate. I'll close this discussion if there are no objections in the next 24 hours. Humiebee^{talk contribs} 22:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)