This is the community's main discussion page.
Talk about anything wiki-related here!
Sign your posts with ~~~~, add new posts below others, and click "Add topic" above for new topics.
Note that this page is NOT for suggesting new ideas about the game. That belongs on the feedback site.
This page is for community discussion; generally, wiki issue reports should go on the Admin's noticeboard and discussions about a single page do not belong here.
- July – Oct 2010
- Nov – Dec 2010
- Jan – Feb 2011
- Mar – Apr 2011
- May – Jun 2011
- Jul – Aug 2011
- Sep – Oct 2011
- Nov – Dec 2011
- Jan – May 2012
- Jun – Sep 2012
- Oct – Dec 2012
- Jan – Mar 2013
- Apr – Jul 2013
- Jul – Dec 2013
- Jan – Dec 2014
- Jan – Jun 2015
- Jul – Dec 2015
- Jan – Jun 2016
- Jul – Dec 2016
- Jan – Jun 2017
- Jul – Dec 2017
- Jan – Apr 2018
- May – Jun 2018
- Jul – Aug 2018
- Aug – Dec 2018
- Jan – Jun 2019
- Jul – Dec 2019
- Jan – Apr 2020
- May – Aug 2020
- Sep – Oct 2020
- Nov - Dec 2020
- Jan - Apr 2021
- May - Jun 2021
- Jul - Sep 2021
- Oct - Dec 2021
- Jan - Jun 2022
- Jul - Dec 2022
As you may know, FandomDesktop will use the same navigation, as Oasis, therefore we would have to change this one. Unfortunately, this type of navigation would mean the uncollapsed "navigation" would be gone, and we would have to rework it entirely. What are your opinions on this?
Note: It is possible to add 3 layers into navigation --TreeIsLife (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- I propose an idea to do this. We can just update MediaWiki:Wiki-navigation to make 4 custom sections. Note that I don't know if the "Explore" category can have many customizations like the others, but it can be modified I think, so I propose that we should update to this only after UCX (FandomDesktop) releases:
- What do you think of this? Thejoaqui777 (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Currently, it looks like:
- Minecraft
- Minecraft Earth
- Minecraft Dungeons
This should be changed to:
- Minecraft
- Minecraft Dungeons
- Minecraft Dungeons Arcade
Thank you. Humiebeetalk contribs 21:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'd do these changes to MediaWiki:Sidebar:
* Games ** Minecraft|Minecraft ** Minecraft Dungeons|Minecraft Dungeons ** MCD:Minecraft Dungeons Arcade|Minecraft Dungeons Arcade ** Minecraft: Story Mode|Minecraft: Story Mode ** Minecraft: Story Mode - Season Two|Minecraft: Story Mode - Season Two ** Minecraft Earth|Minecraft Earth
- Because all of those games are official (even Story Mode is official in its way), and people might be interested in seeing them.
- If we someday use MediaWiki:Wiki-navigation, I'd use on that page:
* Minecraft (games)|Games ** Minecraft|Minecraft *** Java Edition|Java Edition *** Bedrock Edition|Bedrock Edition *** Education Edition|Education Edition ** Minecraft Dungeons|Minecraft Dungeons *** MCD:Minecraft Dungeons Arcade|Minecraft Dungeons Arcade ** Minecraft: Story Mode|Minecraft: Story Mode *** Minecraft: Story Mode - Season Two|Minecraft: Story Mode - Season Two ** Minecraft Earth|Minecraft Earth
- To make it more useful on FandomDesktop. Both options work anyway. Thejoaqui777 (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- The first option is fine but in the second option, if you are going to put discontinued games, you have to put discontinued versions OR remove the discontinued games (3DS and Console) (like the original proposal I made). Humiebeetalk contribs 21:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think we should only have 3 links to 3 current games. After all, our wiki has content for all those games and readers may be interested. Sure, they are discontinued, but I wouldn't compare them to 3DS or Legacy Console, since games like Story Mode or Earth are their own games unlike 3DS and Legacy, which are just ports of regular Minecraft to other devices. Thejoaqui777 (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- If so, I prefer the 1st option because editions are NOT games. Humiebeetalk contribs 16:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- While I agree that editions aren't games, people searches them and they are enoughly relevant to be included there. That's a reason of why I didn't include editions like Legacy, Pi or 3DS. Also, note that Wiki-navigation only affects FandomDesktop, and on Hydra Sidebar takes its place. Thejoaqui777 (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC) (Edit: I moved Earth down since it was discontinued.)
- If so, I prefer the 1st option because editions are NOT games. Humiebeetalk contribs 16:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think we should only have 3 links to 3 current games. After all, our wiki has content for all those games and readers may be interested. Sure, they are discontinued, but I wouldn't compare them to 3DS or Legacy Console, since games like Story Mode or Earth are their own games unlike 3DS and Legacy, which are just ports of regular Minecraft to other devices. Thejoaqui777 (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- The first option is fine but in the second option, if you are going to put discontinued games, you have to put discontinued versions OR remove the discontinued games (3DS and Console) (like the original proposal I made). Humiebeetalk contribs 21:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Change the sidebar:
- Games*
- Minecraft
- Minecraft Dungeons
- Minecraft Dungeons Arcade
- Minecraft Earth
- Discontinued games*
- Minecraft: Story Mode
- Minecraft: Story Mode Season 2
- To this:
- Games*
- Minecraft
- Minecraft Dungeons
- Minecraft Dungeons Arcade
- Discontinued games*
- Minecraft: Story Mode
- Minecraft: Story Mode Season 2
- Minecraft Earth
- 111.88.70.70 13:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- For MediaWiki:Wiki-navigation I would suggest something like this:
* #|Games ** Minecraft *** Java Edition *** Bedrock Edition *** Education Edition ** Minecraft Dungeons ** MCD:Minecraft Dungeons Arcade|Minecraft Dungeons Arcade ** #|Discontinued games *** Minecraft Earth *** Minecraft: Story Mode *** Minecraft: Story Mode - Season Two
- --MarkusRost (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know, the reason of why I didn't add s discontinued games section was to make simpler for users to go to the pages. We already say that they are discontinued on both main page and their own pages, so for me it's kinda redundant. Also, I would make "Games" go to a disambiguation page or something like that, such a "Minecraft (games)" or "Minecraft (franchise)" page or something like that. Thejoaqui777 (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- This one includes different editions unlike the IP above. I don't think editions should be in "Games". Also, Arcade should be a subbullet of MCD and Story Mode Season 2 should be a sub-bullet of Story Mode. Humiebeetalk contribs 17:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- --MarkusRost (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- My overall request:
* #|Games ** Minecraft *** Java Edition *** Bedrock Edition *** Education Edition ** Minecraft Dungeons *** MCD:Minecraft Dungeons Arcade|Minecraft Dungeons Arcade ** #|Discontinued games *** Minecraft Earth *** Minecraft: Story Mode **** Minecraft: Story Mode - Season Two
- Humiebeetalk contribs 17:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not a big fan on the subsections for Story Mode and Dungeons. The subsections include only a single link which kinda defeats the point of of a subsection, specially as we aren't at the limit of links in the higher section. MarkusRost (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- I really don't like discontinued games either, they recieve too little traction, MCE is inaccessable and MC Story Mode is inaccessable if you did not download it before its discontinuation. I'm fine with no sub-bullets ifi there is only going to be 3 games (MC, MCD, and MCD: Arcade). I'm still not comfortable with editions as they are not games. (So I basically support my original proposal
- I'm not a big fan on the subsections for Story Mode and Dungeons. The subsections include only a single link which kinda defeats the point of of a subsection, specially as we aren't at the limit of links in the higher section. MarkusRost (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
* #|Games ** Minecraft ** Minecraft Dungeons ** MCD:Minecraft Dungeons Arcade|Minecraft Dungeons Arcade
To continue, I've made some significant changes to the navigation (for Fandom Desktop) and not just for the games section, feel free to add or suggest more things about it:
* Minecraft Wiki ** Special:RecentChanges|Recent changes ** MCW:Community portal|Community portal ** MCW:Admin noticeboard|Admin noticeboard ** MCW:Projects|Projects ** MCW:Wiki rules|Rules and guides *** MCW:Wiki rules/Video policy|Video policy *** MCW:Talk page guidelines|Talk page guidelines *** MCW:Style guide|Style guide *** MCW:Standardized views|Standardized views ** Help:Contents|Help *** https://help.fandom.com/wiki/|Fandom help *** Help:Official sources|Official sources *** MCW:How to help|How to help ** #|More *** MCW:Sandbox|Sandbox *** MCW:Directors|Directors page *** MCW:Discord|Wiki Discord * #|Games ** Minecraft *** Java Edition *** Bedrock Edition *** Education Edition *** Minecraft China ** Minecraft Dungeons *** Minecraft Dungeons Arcade ** Minecraft Earth ** Minecraft: Story Mode *** Minecraft: Story Mode - Season Two * #|Useful pages ** Minecraft *** Item|Items *** Block|Blocks *** Mob|Mobs *** Biome|Biomes *** Crafting *** Trading *** Brewing *** Redstone circuits *** Controls *** Tutorials ** Minecraft Dungeons *** MCD:Item|Items *** MCD:Enchantment|Enchantments *** MCD:Mob|Mobs *** MCD:Location|Locations *** MCD:Daily Trial|Daily Trials *** MCD:Ancient Hunts|Ancient Hunts *** MCD:Controls|Controls *** MCD:Tutorials|Tutorials ** Minecraft Earth *** MCE:Mob|Mobs *** MCE:Tappable|Tappables *** MCE:Journal|Journal *** MCE:Buildplate|Buildplates *** MCE:Challenges|Challenges *** MCE:Seasons|Seasons ** #|Technical pages *** Add-on|Add-ons *** Data pack|Data packs *** Resource pack|Resource packs *** Server|Servers *** Bedrock Dedicated Server|Bedrock Dedicated Servers *** Development resources ** Official pages * #|Minecraft links ** https://minecraft.net/|Website ** https://help.minecraft.net/|Support ** https://feedback.minecraft.net|Feedback ** https://bugs.mojang.com/|Bug tracker ** https://discord.gg/minecraft|Discord ** https://twitter.com/Minecraft|Twitter ** #|Other media *** https://www.facebook.com/minecraft|Facebook *** https://instagram.com/minecraft|Instagram *** https://www.youtube.com/minecraft|YouTube *** https://www.twitch.tv/minecraft|Twitch
Quick look: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/827172532917764161/865280880628465684/Navigation.gif – ItsPlantseed ⟨₰|₢⟩ 20:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- I really think that Realms and Commands should be moved to technical. I also think that a discontinued games sub-section should be added to separate old games and new, active games. Humiebeetalk contribs 21:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've updated the menus to show less items, since 4th layer menu doesn't really supported. – ItsPlantseed ⟨₰|₢⟩ 17:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Forgot to say, Support. Also, how would these apply to the hydra sidebar? (MediaWiki:Sidebar) Humiebeetalk contribs 21:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- As MediaWiki:Wiki-navigation doesn't affect the current hydra sidebar, I don't think it's possible to add multi-layered section with the sidebar. So hydra would almost likely to be unchanged. – ItsPlantseed ⟨₰|₢⟩ 21:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'd use something like this actually:
* Help:Contents|Wiki contents ** MCW:Wiki rules|Wiki rules *** MCW:Wiki rules/Video policy|Video policy *** MCW:Style guide|Style guide *** MCW:Talk page guidelines|Talk page guidelines *** MCW:Standardized views|Standardized views ** Special:RecentChanges|Recent changes ** MCW:Community portal|Community portal *** MCW:Admin noticeboard|Admin noticeboard *** MCW:Patroller requests|Patroller requests *** MCW:Projects|Projects *** MCW:Sandbox|Sandbox ** MCW:How to help|How to help *** Community:Help:Contents|Community central *** https://help.fandom.com/wiki/|Gamepedia help *** Help:Schematic|Schematics *** MCW:Templates|Templates ** MCW:Directors|Directors page ** #|Media *** MCW:Discord|Wiki Discord *** https://twitter.com/MinecraftWikiEN |Wiki Twitter *** https://youtube.com/channel/UCpGnHzJ6fquO_8vSmiA32yg|Wiki Youtube * #|Games ** Minecraft *** Java Edition *** Bedrock Edition *** Education Edition *** Minecraft China ** Minecraft Dungeons *** MCD:Minecraft Dungeons Arcade|Minecraft Dungeons Arcade ** Minecraft Earth ** Minecraft: Story Mode *** Minecraft: Story Mode - Season Two * Special:RandomRootpage|Useful pages ** Minecraft *** Item|Items *** Block|Blocks *** Mob|Mobs *** Biome|Biomes *** Gameplay **** Achievement|Achievements **** Advancement|Advancements **** Singleplayer **** Multiplayer **** Realms **** Difficulty|Difficulties **** Command|Commands **** Controls *** Mechanics **** Fishing **** Trading **** Crafting **** Smelting **** Brewing **** Enchanting **** Redstone circuits *** #|Technical **** Add-on|Add-ons **** Data pack|Data packs **** Resource pack|Resource packs **** Server|Servers **** Bedrock Dedicated Server|Bedrock Dedicated Servers **** Development resources **** Mods *** Tutorials|Tutorials ** Minecraft Dungeons|Minecraft Dungeons *** MCD:Item|Items **** MCD:Melee Weapon|Melee weapons **** MCD:Ranged Weapon|Ranged weapons **** MCD:Armor|Armor **** MCD:Artifact|Artifacts **** MCD:Consumable|Consumables **** MCD:Cosmetics|Cosmetics *** MCD:Enchantment|Enchantments *** MCD:Mob|Mobs *** MCD:Location|Locations *** MCD:Gameplay|Gameplay **** MCD:Story|Story **** MCD:Skin|Skins **** MCD:Achievement|Achievements **** MCD:Difficulty|Difficulties **** MCD:Controls|Controls *** #|Mechanics **** MCD:Souls|Souls **** MCD:Levels|Levels **** MCD:Enchanting|Enchanting **** MCD:Daily Trial|Daily Trials **** MCD:Ancient Hunts|Ancient Hunts *** MCD:Tutorials|Tutorials ** Minecraft Earth|Minecraft Earth *** MCE:Mob|Mobs *** MCE:Tappable|Tappables *** MCE:Gameplay|Gameplay **** MCE:Journal|Journal **** MCE:Make Stuff|Make Stuff **** MCE:Buildplate|Buildplates **** MCE:Challenges|Challenges **** MCE:Seasons|Seasons ** Official pages * Help:Official sources|Official links ** https://minecraft.net/|Website ** https://help.minecraft.net/|Support ** https://feedback.minecraft.net|Feedback ** https://bugs.mojang.com/|Bug tracker ** #|Discord *** https://discord.gg/minecraft|Minecraft *** https://discord.gg/minecraftdungeons|Minecraft Dungeons *** https://discord.gg/minecraftearth|Minecraft Earth ** #|Twitter *** https://twitter.com/Minecraft|Minecraft *** https://twitter.com/dungeonsgame|Minecraft Dungeons *** https://twitter.com/minecraftearth|Minecraft Earth ** #|Other media *** https://www.facebook.com/minecraft|Facebook *** https://instagram.com/minecraft|Instagram *** https://www.youtube.com/minecraft|YouTube *** https://www.twitch.tv/minecraft|Twitch
- That way we can include more useful links, also without being redundant on usage of many "something|something" (it does work). Thejoaqui777 (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- Does 4th layer even exist? I did not saw nothing about it?
- That way we can include more useful links, also without being redundant on usage of many "something|something" (it does work). Thejoaqui777 (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- But if you ask about my idea, it should be simple, so the idea for layer 1 would be:
* Minecraft * Minecraft Dungeons * #|Other * Minecraft Wiki
- --TreeIsLife (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- 4th layer does not exist so thejouqui777's idea can't work. Minecraft Wiki is not a game and you forgot MCD Arcade.Humiebeetalk contribs 22:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- MCD arcade goes into MCD layer. Minecraft Wiki lists wiki things. "Help:Contents" isn't even a in category of "wiki contents". --TreeIsLife (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- 4th layer does not exist so thejouqui777's idea can't work. Minecraft Wiki is not a game and you forgot MCD Arcade.Humiebeetalk contribs 22:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- --TreeIsLife (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
* Help:Contents|Wiki contents ** MCW:Wiki rules|Wiki rules *** MCW:Wiki rules/Video policy|Video policy *** MCW:Style guide|Style guide *** MCW:Talk page guidelines|Talk page guidelines *** MCW:Standardized views|Standardized views ** Special:RecentChanges|Recent changes ** MCW:Community portal|Community portal *** MCW:Admin noticeboard|Admin noticeboard *** MCW:Patroller requests|Patroller requests *** MCW:Projects|Projects *** MCW:Sandbox|Sandbox ** MCW:How to help|How to help *** Community:Help:Contents|Community central *** https://help.fandom.com/wiki/|Gamepedia help *** Help:Schematic|Schematics *** MCW:Templates|Templates ** MCW:Directors|Directors page ** #|Media *** MCW:Discord|Wiki Discord *** https://twitter.com/MinecraftWikiEN|Wiki Twitter *** https://youtube.com/channel/UCpGnHzJ6fquO_8vSmiA32yg|Wiki Youtube * #|Games ** Minecraft ** Minecraft Dungeons *** MCD:Minecraft Dungeons Arcade|Minecraft Dungeons Arcade ** Minecraft Earth ** Minecraft: Story Mode *** Minecraft: Story Mode - Season Two * #|Editions ** Java Edition *** Java Edition version history|Version history ** Bedrock Edition *** Bedrock Edition version history|Version history ** Education Edition ** Minecraft China ** #|Discontinued *** Legacy Console Edition *** New Nintendo 3DS Edition *** Pi Edition *** Minecraft 4K * Special:RandomRootpage|Useful pages ** #|Minecraft *** Item|Items *** Block|Blocks *** Mob|Mobs *** Biome|Biomes *** Gameplay *** Mechanics *** Add-on|Add-ons *** Data pack|Data packs *** Resource pack|Resource packs *** Server|Servers *** Bedrock Dedicated Server|Bedrock Dedicated Servers *** Development resources *** Mods *** Tutorials|Tutorials ** #|Minecraft Dungeons *** MCD:Item|Items *** MCD:Enchantment|Enchantments *** MCD:Mob|Mobs *** MCD:Location|Locations *** MCD:Gameplay|Gameplay *** MCD:Tutorials|Tutorials ** Official pages *** Official pages/Parity issue list|Parity *** Official pages/Bedrock Edition flattening|Bedrock Edition flattening * Help:Official sources|Official links ** https://minecraft.net/|Website ** https://help.minecraft.net/|Support ** https://feedback.minecraft.net|Feedback ** https://bugs.mojang.com/|Bug tracker ** #|Discord *** https://discord.gg/minecraft|Minecraft *** https://discord.gg/minecraftdungeons|Minecraft Dungeons ** #|Twitter *** https://twitter.com/Minecraft|Minecraft *** https://twitter.com/dungeonsgame|Minecraft Dungeons ** #|Other media *** https://www.facebook.com/minecraft|Facebook *** https://instagram.com/minecraft|Instagram *** https://www.youtube.com/minecraft|YouTube *** https://www.twitch.tv/minecraft|Twitch *** https://www.reddit.com/minecraft|Reddit
- Simply thejouqui777's idea without 4th headings (+ or - a few adjustments) Humiebeetalk contribs 22:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'd like to mention that 4th layers did exist before, but they now don't, so yeah the proposal may need to be tweaked. Thejoaqui777 (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
If you noticed a new Fandom blog, next week, the skin will officially be unchangeable from preferences and 2 weeks later, ?useskin will be removed too. So, it will become inaccessible. Because of this, we must to make a final decision for the skin. After some thinking, my final suggestion is:
* Help:Contents|Minecraft Wiki ** MCW:Wiki rules|Wiki's rules *** MCW:Style guide|Style guide *** MCW:Talk page guidelines|Talk page guidelines *** MCW:Wiki rules/Video policy|Video policy *** MCW:Standardized views|Standardized views ** MCW:Community portal|Community portal *** MCW:Admin noticeboard|Admin noticeboard *** MCW:Projects|Projects *** MCW:Sandbox|Sandbox ** Special:RecentChanges|Recent changes ** MCW:How to help|How to help ** #|Need a help *** Community:Help:Contents|Community central *** https://help.fandom.com/wiki/|Gamepedia help *** Help:Schematic|Schematics *** MCW:Templates|Templates ** MCW:Directors|Directors page ** #|Media *** MCW:Discord|Wiki Discord *** https://twitter.com/MinecraftWikiEN|Wiki Twitter *** https://youtube.com/channel/UCpGnHzJ6fquO_8vSmiA32yg|Wiki Youtube * #|Games ** Minecraft *** Java Edition *** Bedrock Edition *** Education Edition *** Minecraft China *** Legacy Console Edition|Legacy Console Edition (discontinued) *** New Nintendo 3DS Edition|New Nintendo 3DS Edition (discontinued) *** Pi Edition|Pi Edition (discontinued) *** Minecraft 4K|Minecraft 4K (discontinued) ** Minecraft Dungeons *** MCD:Minecraft Dungeons Arcade|Minecraft Dungeons Arcade ** Minecraft Earth ** Minecraft: Story Mode *** Minecraft: Story Mode - Season Two * Special:RandomRootpage|Useful pages ** #|Minecraft *** Item|Items *** Block|Blocks *** Mob|Mobs *** Biome|Biomes *** Gameplay *** Mechanics *** Add-on|Add-ons *** Data pack|Data packs *** Resource pack|Resource packs *** Server|Servers *** Bedrock Dedicated Server|Bedrock Dedicated Servers *** Development resources *** Mods *** Tutorials|Tutorials ** #|Minecraft Dungeons *** MCD:Item|Items *** MCD:Enchantment|Enchantments *** MCD:Mob|Mobs *** MCD:Location|Locations *** MCD:Gameplay|Gameplay *** MCD:Tutorials|Tutorials ** Official pages *** Official pages/Parity issue list|Parity *** Official pages/Bedrock Edition flattening|Bedrock Edition flattening * Help:Official sources|Official links ** https://minecraft.net/|Website ** https://help.minecraft.net/|Support ** https://feedback.minecraft.net|Feedback ** https://bugs.mojang.com/|Bug tracker ** #|Discord *** https://discord.gg/minecraft|Minecraft *** https://discord.gg/minecraftdungeons|Minecraft Dungeons ** #|Twitter *** https://twitter.com/Minecraft|Minecraft *** https://twitter.com/dungeonsgame|Minecraft Dungeons ** #|Other media *** https://www.facebook.com/minecraft|Facebook *** https://instagram.com/minecraft|Instagram *** https://www.youtube.com/minecraft|YouTube *** https://www.twitch.tv/minecraft|Twitch *** https://www.reddit.com/minecraft|Reddit
I decided to merge editions with the "Minecraft" on sublayer of Games. Few changes in "Minecraft Wiki" layer, but otherwise it is same. --TreeIsLife (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
2022 Update
Continuing the discussion, I proposed this for the new navigation:
* #|Minecraft Wiki ** Special:RecentChanges|Recent changes​ ** MCW:Community portal|Community portal ** MCW:Admin noticeboard|Admin noticeboard ** MCW:Projects|Projects ** MCW:Sandbox|Sandbox ** MCW:Wiki rules|Rules *** MCW:Wiki rules/Video policy|Video policy *** MCW:Standardized views|Standardized views *** MCW:Talk page guidelines|Talk page guidelines *** MCW:Style guide|Style guide ** #|More *** MCW:Directors|Directors *** MCW:Discord|Discord server * #|Gameplay ** Minecraft *** Tutorials *** Item|Items *** Block|Blocks *** Mob|Mobs *** Biome|Biomes *** Crafting *** Trading *** Brewing *** Enchanting *** Redstone circuits *** Controls ** Minecraft Dungeons *** MCD:Tutorials|Tutorials *** MCD:Item|Items *** MCD:Enchantment|Enchantments *** MCD:Mob|Mobs *** MCD:Location|Locations *** MCD:Daily Trial|Daily Trials *** MCD:Ancient Hunt|Ancient Hunts *** MCD:Controls|Controls ** Minecraft Earth *** MCE:Mob|Mobs *** MCE:Tappable|Tappables *** MCE:Journal|Journal *** MCE:Buildplate|Buildplates *** MCE:Challenges|Challenges *** MCE:Seasons|Seasons ** Minecraft Story Mode * #|Technical ** Command|Commands *** Data values ** Data pack|Data packs *** Function (Java Edition)|Functions *** Predicate|Predicates *** Tag|Tags​ ** Resource pack|Resource packs *** Textures ** Add-on|Add-ons *** Function (Bedrock Edition)|Functions ** Server|Servers *** Realms *** Realms Plus *** Bedrock Dedicated Server|Bedrock Dedicated Servers ** Development resources *** Level format *** Chunk format *** NBT format * #|Minecraft links ** https://minecraft.net/|Website ** https://help.minecraft.net/|Support ** https://feedback.minecraft.net|Feedback ** https://bugs.mojang.com/|Bug tracker ** https://discord.gg/minecraft|Discord ** https://twitter.com/Minecraft|Twitter ** #|More *** https://www.facebook.com/minecraft|Facebook *** https://instagram.com/minecraft|Instagram *** https://www.twitch.tv/minecraft|Twitch *** https://www.youtube.com/minecraft|YouTube
Preview on my test wiki: [1].
I've removed the Games section altogether and merged it with the Gameplay section (you can still click on the respective title), also added Technical section which contains several links to customization resources. I also noticed that moving from sidebar to wiki navigation means that we will lose the amount of maximum items in a single dropdown, so multilayered dropdown is needed to compensate some of the remaining links. – ItsPlantseed ⟨₰|₢⟩ 04:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Hydra
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This sub-section will be used to discuss the hydra sidebar. For games, MCE should be removed (no discontinued stuff) and MCD Arcade should be added. There is also a dungeons sidebar so the twitter and discord for dungeons can be done accordingly. Instagram should be added, Minecraft Twitch should be renamed to Twitch, all mechanics (trading, brewing, enchanting, crafting, smelting) in the hydra sidebar should be clumped into Mechanics. Technical stuff should not be added. Blocks, Items, and Mobs should be moved to the top and gameplay should be added. Humiebeetalk contribs 21:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know why we should discuss this. Soon in August, all wikis should be using FandomDesktop by default, and later, Hydra skin will be removed from options to switch. --TreeIsLife (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Logo?
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- --TreeIsLife (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Idk but sounds like we need to change the logo... maybe a cube wikipedia? Gugalcrom123 (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Which logo exactly? -- XZippy (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- See the Community Portal page (not this talk page) for an explanation. This wiki has been disallowed to display Microsoft-owned trademarks or logos. Amatulic (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, the wiki is no longer official. Microsoft terminated the agreement that allowed use of Minecraft trademarks on this wiki. This is no longer an official source. About that though, how will it affect the wiki's style guide? I doubt there would still be the same dedication to making this a complete, comprehensive source when there is no credibility status to live up to. As far as I can tell there is nothing to stop this wiki from becoming another one of the millions of fan-made nonsense that this site is full of. I'm really worried it won't be as reliable as before, even if only from a user perspective. Loss of an official status is no small thing and would definitely affect credibility.Theoratically, what can prevent this from becoming another trash can is if the strict style guide is never dropped or changed, as in for instance pages about features not in development versions are not allowed, so on and so forth. But even then would it be viewed and referred to by the community the same way as before? Anyone with information or even just an opinion about that matter as a whole? I'd really like to be wrong about where I think this wiki is going, but I also kind of like the drama ngl. Zegatrox (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- I do not believe this change is going to affect article quality or wiki policy. --AttemptToCallNil (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, the wiki is no longer official. Microsoft terminated the agreement that allowed use of Minecraft trademarks on this wiki. This is no longer an official source. About that though, how will it affect the wiki's style guide? I doubt there would still be the same dedication to making this a complete, comprehensive source when there is no credibility status to live up to. As far as I can tell there is nothing to stop this wiki from becoming another one of the millions of fan-made nonsense that this site is full of. I'm really worried it won't be as reliable as before, even if only from a user perspective. Loss of an official status is no small thing and would definitely affect credibility.Theoratically, what can prevent this from becoming another trash can is if the strict style guide is never dropped or changed, as in for instance pages about features not in development versions are not allowed, so on and so forth. But even then would it be viewed and referred to by the community the same way as before? Anyone with information or even just an opinion about that matter as a whole? I'd really like to be wrong about where I think this wiki is going, but I also kind of like the drama ngl. Zegatrox (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- See the Community Portal page (not this talk page) for an explanation. This wiki has been disallowed to display Microsoft-owned trademarks or logos. Amatulic (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- As a member of this community, I can say that we won't be different from what we've been all these years. A community like us isn't only defined by their rules, but also their members. All those users who make either small or big editions are appreciated. The logo may be different, yeah, but this doesn't mean we'll be different. Some things will change, but our core will remain the same. We've even been considered "unnoficial" from many years ago actually, and we all knew that someday something like this would happen. What we need to do is to not lose our dedication and inspiration, we need to continue doing what we've been doing for all these years, which is to document all the info about the franchise we love. Thejoaqui777 (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Without rules, the people start conflicting. As such, the rules actually do make or break a community. Be clear, be concise, and be comprehensive. That is why Fandom's wiki was listed as official for longer than anyone else's wiki. And, if we slack on the rules, then all the work that was poured into the Fandom wiki goes away. ... Yes, the people are important. Just make sure the rules last longer than the people will. :) 70.190.43.171 04:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! Your comment made my day! Ever since I discovered this place and the Nether Update was anounced I was so anticipating to see how the articles grow and keep documenting all of the cool new features so people who like me at the time were new to the community and didn't follow Minecraft on YouTube or Twitter could see all of these things. I had that same feeling once Caves & Cliffs was announced, and after what happened I worried this aspect of the wiki being so up to date and a comprehensive source to check out update news would be no more. But thinking about it again you are right. Ambition and dedication is what gave this wiki a place in the Minecraft community, not some status given or taken away by the all-great, all-powerful authorities (looking at you Microsoft). What they call it doesn't change its reality, and the reality is that this wiki has been documenting all information about Minecraft that is in reach since its release. Zegatrox (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't give a **** about the "official" designation when I got here, and I still don't. This is a wiki, people. A wiki consists of user-generated content, which cannot by any stretch be considered "official". It would be official if the content were curated by Microsoft or Mojang. But as a wiki, no way. It's an information resource, made reliable through the dedication of its contributors. Amatulic (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding the logo specifically, I have just updated to a new logo to fulfill the Microsoft requirements in a timely manner; though it's not necessarily final and I think some people wanted to discuss it further. –Sonicwave talk 18:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I like the new logo, but can we do it without text or with a plain font like Roboto? It looks like one of those cheap recreations from the internet. – Unsigned comment added by Gugalcrom123 (talk • contribs). Sign comments with ~~~~
Regarding the logo and header, I have a new proposition for the wiki header:
Let me know what do you think and if you support possible change to this revision.
Update: Changed logo perspective to more 3D look. Oakar567 (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Looks good! Cat201 (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I really like the idea of the new earth logo, it just needs to be improved upon. As for the header, I think the text should be tilted/pitched backwards and forwards similarly to how all the Minecraft update logos are. I made an example of this, but I don't know if I should upload it due to it using a CC BY-ND copyrighted font (idk how it works). The current header looks too flat in my opinion. Cat201 (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- We can definitely figure something out in terms of more 3D look, but I'm affraid then it would be called out as taking too much inspiration from official Minecraft logo, resulting in getting back to starting point and change request. Idk, maybe others have different opinion in this matter Oakar567 (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
A logo idea I made, which *technically* doesn't use the official minecraft logo.
Is this what you (Oakar567) meant by things possibly being called out for taking to much inspiration from the official one? (also sorry if I somehow break everything, I'm completely new to editing wikis) JakeThe28th (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think the "Unofficial" is unnecessary, and so it the emphasis on "Wiki". Also, I don't think there's an issue with having the wiki logo being inspired by the Minecraft logo as long as it's not the exact same one, but maybe using the same font design like you did here is too much. Cat201 (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Proposal about closing in 3 days
Since this discussion is nearly 14 months old, with no activity for those 14 months and as we've basically "adapted" the current logo (and ES wiki even modified it for their needs) and besides that logo, there was only one different logo submition, (which didn't get any support), I would like to close this discussion in 3 days (if nobody will oppose).
If the discussion will get closed, it will mean that current (Oakar's) logo will become the wiki's official one and we will finally be able to have this topic closed. --TreeIsLife (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Combat Tests
Proposal: Should we consider Combat Tests experimental snapshots? As of now, they're listed simply as snapshots, despite having everything in common with experimental snapshots: they're not found in the launcher, they need to be downloaded from minecraft.net, they're forks of existing versions, and are mostly not compatible with other releases.
Affected pages: Category:Java Edition Combat Tests snapshots.
Deadline: March 26, 2022. – Unsigned comment added by Spectrogram (talk • contribs) at 05:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC). Sign comments with ~~~~
- Oppose - they are explicitly not referred to as experimental snapshots. BDJP (t|c) 15:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Neutral They were never snapshots, but they are also not experimental snapshots. I would be More happy with putting them to "Tests" category.
- Additionally, Strong Support for removing their reference from main page's "Development versions" section (they seem to be long dead) and removing the section in
{{Java Edition versions}}. Instead, there should be a link to the general page at the top of the infobox.--TreeIsLife (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Additionally, Strong Support for removing their reference from main page's "Development versions" section (they seem to be long dead) and removing the section in
Separate Wikis for Legends and Dungeons
With Legends coming very soon, I wanted to open this discussion again.
I don't think this wiki should hold every game in the Minecraft franchise, right now I think it's okay to have all the games here, but with Legends and most likely more spin-offs in the future, this wiki is going to become incredibly cluttered with five different games in one wiki. All of these games are incredibly different from each other, the only similarity is that they are minecraft games.
This tweet by Marc Watson (a developer for Dungeons) is also pretty telling, even a developer has complained about it https://mobile.twitter.com/Marc_IRL/status/1425440132807680005. I understand this tweet is old, however nothing has changed since the tweet's creation, so it still applies.
I only mention Legends and Dungeons in the topic title as I believe they are top priority if we are to move other games to separate wikis. Ideally, all games should have their own wikis, but Earth and Story Mode are discontinued games, so I don't think they're as important to move. Also because I imagine it would be hard to find people to manage those two wikis, I very rarely see any edits on either of those namespaces. HMPilatus (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Support, but
- The new wiki has to have "Hydra features" enabled
- The new wiki should have dicussions turned off by default
- There should be some sort of "alliance" between MCW, MCD Wiki, MCL Wiki, FTB Wiki and MC Servers Wiki
- And of course, there should be some more promotion of MCSM and MCE subwikis here.
- --TreeIsLife (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Strong oppose:
- "this wiki is going to become incredibly cluttered with five different games in one wiki" -> What do you mean by "cluttered", and what actual problems does it cause?
- "This tweet by Marc Watson (a developer for Dungeons) is also pretty telling" -> On a single occasion, a developer tweeted that, using internal wiki search on default settings, Dungeons entries come second after main game entries. To my knowledge, this is a very uncommon use case; the primary navigation method for readers is external search. It hardly justifies an extensive effort such as a wiki split. As well, if such an issue with internal search is worthy of consideration, there is no state of a wiki, or a pair of wikis, where no such issue arises. On a united wiki, either Dungeons or main game results come first. In case the wikis get split, people might still expect to find spin-off game content here, but would either find non-functional soft redirects, or nothing at all.
- There are no other arguments presented in favor of an external wiki.
- I believe there is no way to enable any "Hydra features" on new wikis. I am also not sure these are relevant, given how it's likely further unification would erase all differences in software configuration between Gamepedia-original and other wikis.
- I am not sure a request to disable Discussions would be approved by staff. Please correct me if recent Discussions updates have changed things around this.
- I am not sure why any "alliance" is suggested, what kind of structure it is supposed to have, what problems it is supposed to address to justify its operational costs, and why it is believed an alliance is necessary and effective at solving these problems.
- I am not sure more promotion of abandonware is a useful idea, given the presumably lower reader interest in these topics; furthermore, I am not sure it is within the scope of this conversation, and regardless of that, without any specific ideas of "further promotion", no action can be taken.
- Points against a separate wiki:
- A separate wiki would require duplicating a significant part of the support structure (policies, admin and patrol teams, templates and modules, CSS and JS, abuse filters, and probably others). This would also require requests to staff to enable the relevant configuration (sitewide JS and abuse filters are disabled on new wikis by default; the future of mobile CSS is uncertain).
- A separate wiki would not carry the authority of a merged wiki.
- A unified wiki makes it easier for the editor community to be united and is less conducive to factionalism.
- In particular, the technical and SEO considerations of moving existing, maintained, and non-duplicative content to a separate wiki should be evaluated with staff assistance.
- --AttemptToCallNil (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment So few comments about your points
- 3 - So what will happen, if we keep adding new namespaces. You see, there'll eventually come a time, when we won't be able to create a new NS due to some reason. That means will have to either a) remove the old subwikis or b) make separate wikis anyway. I am sure this isn't the last discussion about this, whenever the separate wikis will be created or not.
- 4 - if you read a blog about FandomDesktop, you would find a section about the Gamepedia legacy badge, which "would be toggled by a staff setting". This staff setting actually does much more, than just add a badge. Thanks to it, this wiki can have FandomMobile.css to load at least, can have Gamepedia-specific extensions, user profiles and achievements.
- 6 - it would be some sort of cooperation on a much higher level, than the current MCW-FTB partnership (which is just Xbony, who is BTW not in MCW server any longer). That should solve your issues 8.1 and 8.2.
- 7 - for example, an anonnotice, which would list these wikis.
- Not sure about the 5th point though. I hope it would be possible.--TreeIsLife (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- 3 - I am not sure why you believe such a reason is more than hypothetical. As I understand, MediaWiki theoretically supports a lot more namespaces than we currently use; I suspect the most likely obstacle is Fandom staff choosing not to add further namespaces even upon our request, and even that seems very unlikely to me. As well, you're missing the option of using a non-namespace based content structure (such as a subpage-based one).
- 4 - I find it very unlikely the "Gamepedia-original" setting would be toggled for a new wiki, even if that new wiki is a split-off part of a Gamepedia-original wiki. As I understand, this setting wouldn't be toggled for a new non-English wiki, for example.
- 6 - I'm looking for a more detailed specification. Your baseline is "one person who isn't even in our Discord server anymore"; it's basically one step above "not even a concept we recognize". It wouldn't be hard to beat that.
- 7 - That appears possible to implement in theory, though I doubt a banner is as effective as one might think; its effectiveness is likely to be undermined by banner blindness. Good social network outreach might be a better option, but I'm not sure we even have social network outreach.
- --AttemptToCallNil (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Strong oppose per AttemptToCalNil. BDJP (t|c) 15:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Weak support From an outside perspective (as is probably demonstrated by the fact that this is my first post on a talk page), I've found it to be a bit annoying to use the wiki with all the different games on it. For a single page search it works wonderfully, but as soon as I start to search on fandom rather than from an outside search engine it becomes a bit of a drag to sort through which game I want or don't want. Now, I'm quite sure that there is a way to search better, but I don't know how and I can't imagine most users would either. Let's just say it isn't the best user experience when the best way to search the site is by opening a new tab and searching straight from a search engine. Another example is the "random page" function; if I want to just browse to try and find something new about the game it takes 4-5 tries before I get a page about the game I want (in this case, Minecraft java).
I won't pretend I know anything about the logistics of moving a bunch of stuff around (again, new here) but the way it is now the user experience is rather limited. Even if we don't actually split the wiki, I wonder if there is a way to separate the pages more cleanly. Ishbosheth (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- For internal search, if you're going to the separate search page rather than just using the search pop-up, you should be able to use namespace selection by selecting "Advanced" (right of the search bar on the page) to exclude/include specific game-associated namespaces. The random page feature is known to support rather limited configuration. There is no "random in namespace", so the best you can do is probably Special:RandomInCategory/Minecraft_Dungeons (which still isn't all MCD articles; it might be possible to include all MCD articles in a separate hidden category to allow that special page to work without that limitation).
- And yes, moving pages around en masse is rather discouraged, given how Google (and other external search engines) take their time to adapt to large-scale changes. --AttemptToCallNil (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is what I mean by the wiki becoming cluttered. As Ishbosheth said, and as the tweet I linked to said (and I'm sure there's more than just these two people that have had problems with it), the multiple namespaces make searching internally a pain. If searching is already a problem it will be a much bigger problem if there is then also a Legends namespace, or a sixth namespace. Advanced options exist but they're seemingly not being used. Separate wikis solve the search problem, search engines may take some time to adapt, but once they have the problem will be solved. Overall I think that the work required to separate the Wikis would be worth it, the purpose of a wiki is to provide information for readers, creating separate wikis benefits the readers. While yes you are correct some users may be confused that namespace pages are no longer present, that is a minor and temporary problem that will solve itself compared to the current more permanent problem.
- Also, in the case of Legends, we wouldn't have to move any pages if we were to create its own wiki now. It is inevitable that at least some separate wikis will have to be made in the future (putting an entire game under sub-pages doesn't sound like a good idea) as it is likely more spin-off games will be made in some years, so starting with Legends would be a good idea.
- I also don't think this wiki should be a franchise wiki in the first place, none of these games are anything like one another, if these games were Minecraft 1 Minecraft 2 Minecraft 3 then it would make sense to have them on one wiki but they are not. Also, separate wikis solves the issue of all namespace pages having Minecraft GameName: in front of their name, obviously this is not a main point its just something to note. --HMPilatus (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- I am not sure about the emphasis on internal search. Based on information I was previously presented by Fandom, it is mostly used by advanced users, and much less by regular readers. According to Fandom, most readers come from external search engines.
- I suspect if advanced options are not used, but would have helped, it's generally because it's not very apparent that they can be used for that purpose.
- For search engines, as I understand, the damage to rankings can be hard or impossible to reverse, especially given how association with an established wiki tends to contribute positively to rankings. (Conversely, lack of such association would contribute negatively.)
- Is there any other way separate wikis benefit the readers other than internal search difficulties and random page selection quirks? (Both cause problems mostly for rather advanced use cases.)
- I suspected the "lack of other-game pages" confusion to be permanent, rather than a short-term effect. As I thought, simply based on the idea that a "Minecraft" wiki would also cover spin-offs, people might reasonably expect to find spin-off content here, and if the wiki were to be split, that assumption would not hold.
- What makes you think it's "inevitable" that new wikis will actually be required? The scenarios previously presented are purely hypothetical; there is nothing that suggests any probable hard requirement to create new wikis in the future.
- Why do you call the namespace in front of the name an issue? --AttemptToCallNil (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Extra note for those who want random pages in a specific namespace: you can do this, somewhat, but it's a bit convoluted. See the code in Special:Diff/2215657? You could place something like that on a user subpage. However, it is cached internally, so refreshing the page will not change the list. If you, however, select the "Purge" option from the three-dot menu (on FandomDesktop) and confirm the page cache purge, you should see a new list. --AttemptToCallNil (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
1.20 Guide
Can anyone create a 1.20 guide sandbox?119.236.254.162 15:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Update to the wiki to comply with COPPA
We (at Fandom) have a backend setting to mark wikis as being Wikis Directed to Children. On the advice of our Legal team, we’re going to be marking the Minecraft wiki with that designation.
Why this is being done:
In the United States, case law around COPPA (the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act) is getting stricter and as a US-based company we’re required to periodically make changes to our policies to comply. In reviewing the reasons for the ruling, our Legal team determined that the Minecraft wiki would be marked as a WDTC. This includes all language variants, as we’re a US-based platform regardless of the language of any particular wiki.
So, what will happen?
There will pretty much be almost no change, as most of it is on our backend. But the one thing you will notice is that we have to disable anonymous editing. Anon editing is disabled on Wikis Directed to Children because it opens up the option for anyone of any age to contribute, whereas account registration has an age gate.
--
We're doing the best we can on our side to be compliant with the law. I hope this makes sense to the team here and apologies for any inconvenience this might cause.
Itsjieyang (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose, per the previous unusual IP disabling incident at Minecraft_Wiki:Admin_noticeboard/Archive_37#Where_did_the_anonymous_IPs_go??. LDM640145test (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- I doubt community opposition to the change can make them reverse it. Per the announcement, this was done by advice of their legal team. As I understand, the message was meant solely to notify, not provide an opportunity to dispute the change. --AttemptToCallNil (talk) 11:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Even if they wont undo it you guys should at least discuss moving to another service, not that you "have" to but this wiki was made years ago when the service was wikia and focused on that, now its fandom and full of those extreme restrictions and focus on anything but being a wiki, a proper transfer carries over all content so dont sit back and just let the site decay if you feel it, at least give it a good discussion amongst yourselves and consider it seriously, cause other game wikis changed not too long ago due the terrid state they got into Zooboomaafer (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wikia and Fandom is the same service. As people said, it is nearly inpossible, and Fandom knows this. No dev support, no community support and the support here isn't big either. --TreeIsLife (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Disabling anonymous editing will also cut down on vandalism and other persistent problems. I agree that users should log in or sign up if they wish to contribute to this wiki. Bianche2006 (My Messages My Edits) 01:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- I personally think we should wait until Simple English Wikipedia at least to disable anon editing before taking any action. McEndu (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Negative Gamepedia points?! 💀
Anyone know 'ow I somehow seem to have negative Gamepedia points? GK1H (P/T/C) 17:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Gamepedia points are a deprecated system. They're all but completely unmaintained by Fandom. I think negative points are a known issue, and I doubt Fandom will fix it in the foreseeable future. --AttemptToCallNil (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Entire CurseProfile is discontinued. Fandom is looking into replacing CurseProfile, since they have some problems with "Message walls" and "Blogs" tab. The points will lose its purporse, since logged-in users will soon have ad-free experiences, without need for Gamepedia PRO (which was granted for achieving 150 points in a month). Other things (like Gamepedia's notifications system) will get eventually merged with Fandom's one and achievements... nobody knows yet.--TreeIsLife (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Suggestion to your community
Hi, Im not an usual contributor of this wiki but would like to give a suggestion in case you guys are interested or unaware of the possibility: many other wikis have moved to other services over the last few years following wikias buyout and conversion into fandom, as it got much worse for the wiki side of things and they constantly get in the way or do extreme changes that users may not like, like the recent removal of anon editing etc. Maybe you guys dont want to or dont care but I think its important to at least discuss and be aware of how doable it is, since the community may want to at least discuss the possibility between yourselves, maybe vote or leave to mods consideration etc, as far as Im aware a proper transfer would keep all the content and allow more freedom to the userbase depending on which of the alternative services/sites/servers are chosen, I know many game related wikis moved on not too long ago and it was for the better, while other big ones have maintaned themselves off it from the start, so I dont think you should worry about losing functions etc as long as the move is well thought out, just think its REALLY worthy at least discussing it amongst yourselves as the service owner becomes less and less like wikipedia and more and more like some weird clickbait news site agregators who also censors everything. cheers Zooboomaafer (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think your perspective of this platform is unnecessarily negative. It's not as bad as people like to believe. Jack McKalling (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- There's a number of concerns with moving, mainly that the Fandom wiki will be kept open and receive better visibility in Google search results than the new wiki, splitting up the traffic from readers and editors. We are unlikely to receive official support to direct people to the new wiki (as Terraria has, for example), and we also barely have a presence in the community to do the same. –Sonicwave talk 22:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Portable infoboxes
It is has been some years already, since Portable Infobox (PI) was first introduced, but since then they'd matured and we've seen a big trend recently. It seems like we're entering an age of PIs and them being an actual replacement for the table one.
PIs are generally much more user-friendly. While the format of infoboxes may look weird, it is highly customisable. Additionally, thanks to the fact it is actually a separate extension, it should load a bit faster than other infobox types. The ultimate thing though is the fact it is portable. It will show well on desktop, mobile and even smartwatches, if some MLG person would want to be that type of expert. Also, I want to point out we're not talking just about Fandom as the main source of PIs campaign. Other wiki farms have a community-run version available, which is the fork of the Fandom's one, while it was an open-source software. So if somebody would actually fork the wiki, they won't have to deal vendor lock.
And examples: Spanish Minecraft Wiki has already experimented with the portable infobox (and they use it aleready) and using it here shouldn't be that hard either.
So with that being said I think it is time to start thinking about infoboxes again.
While this is just a start of the journey, I want to open this discussion. I am sure this discussion won't be used much and will definetely stay here for time being (likely few months at least, maybe even years), but I want to have a place, where people, who may have no Discord account, can talk about the infoboxes and theit future. --TreeIsLife (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Support
- I still have no idea how infoboxes work, if PIs would improve my experience with them then that would be great. I much prefer the designs of the infoboxes on the ES wiki, if those design elements can only be used with PIs then I'd much prefer using them as well. HMPilatus (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Support as well, as I'm the one that is making the PIs on the Spanish Minecraft Wikiiki. The reason of why I'm doing then is because they're easier to maintain, as they use XML tags which are similar to HTML tags used on wikitext, so newer users just need to read the guide on Community Central and they already have a solid source. Another pro about them is the fact that they're already styled for mobile, so we don't have to use CSS for them there. And about desktop, they're easier to modify, and even if this wiki decides a different design than the Spanish's, it would still not require too much effort. One downside is the fact that they shouldn't change their width, but we on Spanish MCW increased the font size to make them more readable, and overall doesn't look bad. So, this is my comment, and summarizing, I support them because customizatiom, editor maintaining, and because they're a standard thus giving users familiarity with other wikis. --Thejoaqui777 (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- No opinion, but will support this nonetheless.Drour1234 (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Request to allow strategy to be listed on MCD pages
I am requesting for it to be allowed that Minecraft Dungeons namespace pages can have tutorial information listed on them, without needing to be on a Tutorial subpage. As I understand, this is currently disallowed. This could be listed in a "Strategy" section of the page, however it could also be a sub-section of "Usage", I am unsure on it's location in the article currently. I only plan to add strategy information to item and enchantment pages. Please note that even if this is accepted, it will take me an incredibly long time to add all of this information. Of course, I hope others will help, but I find it likely that I'll end up doing this myself.
Reasoning:
- The official Minecraft Dungeons discord server is a better source of information for Dungeons than this wiki is, mostly. That is because in that server people can find out what enchantments they should put on their weapons, on this wiki, that information will never be found. A majority of the official discord and the MCD reddit is full of people asking what enchantments they should use, it is what people want to find out. If the Dungeons wiki is ever going to be good, it needs to have that information listed on it.
- Minecraft Dungeons functions very differently to regular Minecraft, there isn't much you can say about strategy for the netherite sword for example, but for Minecraft Dungeons, paragraphs can be written about recommended gear and strategies for just one item, and many people have done just that. The rules on tutorial information should be different for the two games as the games are very different.
The only rebuttal to this request I can think of is that the strategy information is subjective, and this wiki seems very against showing any hint of opinion on articles. I think my two points already explain why it should be allowed despite it being subjective. I will also note that I will not be getting this strategy information from purely my own experience, I will be getting this information from experienced community members. By that I mean, the strategy information listed will be as close to "objective" as it can get. HMPilatus (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I have my own set of issues with how tutorials themselves here are difficult to find, but in general, I Support this proposal. About being subjective, I agree it's difficult to find a balance on a strategy section, but we can ask players how they do something, what is the best results they got, and use that on the wiki, and thus it becomes less subjective and more objective, based on actual in-game results. --Thejoaqui777 (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Strong oppose, in fact. This wiki used to be considered "official" until Microsoft objected. However, I would like to see it continue to remain a source of verifiable factual information about the game, not tutorial advice because that goes down the slippery slope into subjective opinions rather than facts. Even in the base game tutorials I periodically have to pare down ridiculous opinions given to defeat a monument or whatever (no, you don't need a Netherite sword) and many tutorials are still full of such crap.
- The other problem with tutorials is that they tend to become a magnet for people who want to promote their YouTube channels by posting videos. We have stricter guidelines for videos in articles, but if we start allowing tutorial advice in MCD articles, again, we're sliding down a slippery slope to articles becoming nothing more than YouTube directories. A separate group of Tutorial pages would address the two points made in the proposal above.
- Relevant tutorials can always be linked from the information articles, as they are in the base game (for example, Tutorials/Iron golem farming is linked from Iron Ingot#Mob loot). Amatulic (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- I believe the problem of "becoming a magnet for people who want to promote their Youtube channels by posting videos" would be non-existent to be blunt, either that or it would be so easy to combat that it would be a non-issue. Same for "becoming nothing more than Youtube directories", that's a very vague phrase that doesn't mean much in reality. Do tutorials make things a Youtube directory?
- As I mentioned, and as you have not mentioned, Minecraft Dungeons is a wildly different game to Minecraft. When two games are extremely different, I think it makes sense for the policies on the information shown to be different between the games. Yes, information about needing a sword for a monument is quite silly and not needed, however Minecraft Dungeons is a game built on gear and strategy, so strategy information is more valuable for Minecraft Dungeons than it is for Minecraft. And the strategy listed would be far more detailed than your example.
- I see no need for all of the strategy information to go to tutorial subpages. That would mean hundred of pages would have to be created. If a reader wants to find out what gear works well with a certain enchantment, they're going to expect that information to be on the respective pages. The opinionated information would also be clearly marked in a section all about opinionated strategy, so its not going to get confused with facts. A lot of these MCD pages are also quite small, namely the enchantment pages, and could do with more information.
- The Minecraft Dungeons Wiki will continue to be a subpar source of information about the game unless strategy information is allowed. I say that as someone who's worked for months on the namespace, someone who is active in the community, and someone who has played the game for hundreds of hours. That opinion also comes from people in the community, namely some of the most experienced players of this game. - Harristic (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- To be blunt, I remain unconvinced that article pages won't start getting filled with subjective opinions rather than factual information about the game. The fact that Dungeons is different from the base game is immaterial. If the content of articles becomes becomes subjective advice and tips, that's a degradation of quality regardless of how different the games are.
- It is also surprising to me to claim that youtube video pollution would be a "non-issue", when it most certainly has been an issue that has not been easy to combat in the base game tutorial pages. I say this because I know, I've done my share of work cleaning up some pages. On the other hand, we do have a video policy for articles, which would help mitigate such problems in article space.
- I wouldn't object to starting out small, like you suggest having a section in gear and enchantment articles showing relationships between gear and enchantments. I would draw the line at advice on the "best" way to defeat a mob or complete a mission, however. Amatulic (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Weak support If it would increase wiki's usage, OK. But I still have my own feelings about quality of tutorials on wiki, but if somebody thinks he'll fix it (and he'll do so), then we may try. --TreeIsLife (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Response for Suggestion Request
Hello everyone, If you see a game suggestion in any talk page, you should respond by being polite, redirecting them, explaining why, and reminding them that this is a colabrative Community project and that mojang developers do not often go through this wiki and may not look or see your comment. Please be supportive and kind, no matter your opinion. An example of a correct response is:
"Hi there, if you would like a suggestion to be added to the game itself please go to to Mojang's official suggestions page here, continuing to make suggestions here is futile and unlikely to be heard, this wiki is not run by Mojang, Microsoft or Affiliates. The minecraft wiki is a collaborative community project."
You may copy the good example ^, don't get close to the incorrect response v.
A example of in incorrect response:
"I think you are stupid and this suggestion is horribly bad and I will delete all of this suggestion."
Or:
"Honestly this Idea would never survive and if it did it would be ignored by all of mojang"
Thanks, MinerMinerMain – Unsigned comment added by MinerMinerMain (talk • contribs). Sign comments with ~~~~
Add "Work in progress from split" template for pages that have been created from a split that need the Work In Progress note
This will help people know that they should grab more information to finalize the splitting.
Task in the Pending Tasks page --Ewrt1 (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- That can be accompished by
{{WIP|Clean up [[Talk:LINK TO A TALK PAGE|after an article split]]}}, no need for separate template. --TreeIsLife (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Suggestions for new bureaucrats
Due to Nixinova's recent retirement, and Madminecrafter12's inactivity, I believe it would be good to promote an admin (or two) to the role of bureaucrat. While I am creating this discussion mostly to allow others to give suggestions, I'd like to suggest Magiczocker to be promoted, I don't really have a list of reasons for this, I just think they deserve the role. - Harristic (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind a new bureaucrat. I wouldn't mind that bureaucrat to be Magiczocker. I'm open to other options as well. I'm not really saying "support", it's more "if you choose to go that way, you can have my opinion in advance". --AttemptToCallNil (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support as long as Magic is OK with that. I am generally very satisfied with his work, and I don't see any blocking factors for bureaucrat rights to be granted. --TreeIsLife (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have indeed been quite inactive and will probably end up resigning soon as well, and I definitely think that having at least one active bureaucrat would be a good idea. It would be better for more active users than me to decide who should be promoted, but if there is a consensus for it to be Magiczocker, that would certainly be fine with me. Madminecrafter12 (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you are also going to resign, I think a second admin should be promoted so that the responsibilities of bureaucrat is not placed on one person. But then the list of admins becomes quite small, although I'm not sure if that's really an issue. I am not sure. - Harristic (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for suggesting me as a future bureaucrat. I don't have a problem with it. – Magiczocker (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- I support Magiczocker as new bureaucrat as well and I would additionally also suggest Amatulic. Both are active and have previous experience with the RevDel tool due to being a member of SOAP or an administrator on Wikipedia respectively. - MarkusRost (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support Magic and Amatulic for bureaucrats. I haven't been active enough to have an opinion on Harristic's proposal for admin, but haven't seen anything so far that would cause me any concerns. The topic of promoting admins might require a separate (larger) discussion though. –Sonicwave talk 06:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Experimental snapshots and how to handle experimental data packs
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- Halting this project. Instead, I would like to take a time and talk about this in a more distant future (maybe in a year). Currently, I've already did point 2 and I'll change all Combat Tests pages and experimental snapshots to include this information, but the point 3 got reverted and point 1 requires more than a one vote here --TreeIsLife (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Since it is possible the wiki will become messy after Mojang's mysterious moves, I have few proposals and suggestions.
1) I think that instead of classifing experimental snapshots as experimantal snapshots, they should be classified as "Snapshots requiring manual installation". This is because I guess they won't release more of the experimental snapshots and we also need to solve issues with integrating it with Combat tests. So I propose to change their classification into "Snapshots" in infoboxes.
2) I would suggest creating a field in infobox, which will tell, if the version is installable from launcher.
3) My final proposal is that in "JE versions", we should include all versions, which have an enable-able experimental data packs. (3.5) We may also create a subpages to the versions with just experimental data packs additions/changes.
What do you think of it? --TreeIsLife (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support all of them. We need to clean up the wiki and make it less complex for regular user. --TreeIsLife (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Suggestions for new administrator
As discussed in #Suggestions_for_new_bureaucrats, we promote 1 or 2 admins to bureaucrat soon. All current admins don't know Minecraft Dungeons that well, and User:Amatulic suggested that we need a new admin on the admin noticeboard. I suggest User:Harristic as new administrator, because he has experience with the game and is the most active in the Minecraft Dungeons namespace. My only point against it is that he started on the wiki 5 months ago. – Magiczocker (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Weak oppose for admin rights. I would Support content moderator rights though. I am not sure, if you had any wiki experience beforehand, since 5 months is not that long of wiki experience for giving somebody admin rights, such as blocking, not at least on the 2nd biggest Fandom wiki. I know you do lot of edits, and generally active, but getting that many rights at once (considering you're not even a patroller) is much in my opinion, especially after my experience of getting admin rights and the issues I had to overcome. --TreeIsLife (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think not having patroller should be a blocking factor, considering that there's no formal process to obtain it and you have to be noticed and suggested by one of the admins or other editors (which might take a while – there haven't been any patroller promotions for more than 2 years). And we've argued against adding content mods (here and here, for reference) on the basis that it's similar enough to admin and would just add extra layers of bureaucracy. –Sonicwave talk 20:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- The links are the same though
- But my comment is basically that I think people shouldn't just jump off the cliff with admin rights and "manage the wiki". That's not the correct aproach. However, if Harristic would use it effectively and correctly (and I mean, I cannot say that he won't be a good admin because he joined 5 months), then I may rethink this decision in the future.
- Also, cms and admins are not that similar. Content mods can't view deleted revs, can't block people, can't edit interface and can't nuke pages (just to name a few). Actually, when you compare admins with content mods, content mods have a lot of lsss admin rights. But I respect the decision.--TreeIsLife (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- I was the last person promoted to patroller BTW, which was all the way back in January of 2021. I really never knew why we stopped doing patroller promotions anymore, seeing how it could serve as a junior admin role. I Support Harristic receving the patroller role, but he lacks the tenure (only started editing in late 2022) and potentially some moderation skills required for being an admin. Just want to point out that many of the people promoted to admin were patrollers at the time of their promotion. James Haydon (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- The main reason I’d want to receive admin rights, aside from having an admin with MCD experience, is so I could delete files. It would be massively helpful with my Minecraft Dungeons File Renaming project, due to the amount of duplicate files and unneeded redirects present. Of course, another admin can do this, but I think it’d be easier if a person who knows the context of these files were to do it. Also I think you being the last person to be promoted to patroller, two years ago, would explain why I’m not patroller.
- I was the last person promoted to patroller BTW, which was all the way back in January of 2021. I really never knew why we stopped doing patroller promotions anymore, seeing how it could serve as a junior admin role. I Support Harristic receving the patroller role, but he lacks the tenure (only started editing in late 2022) and potentially some moderation skills required for being an admin. Just want to point out that many of the people promoted to admin were patrollers at the time of their promotion. James Haydon (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think not having patroller should be a blocking factor, considering that there's no formal process to obtain it and you have to be noticed and suggested by one of the admins or other editors (which might take a while – there haven't been any patroller promotions for more than 2 years). And we've argued against adding content mods (here and here, for reference) on the basis that it's similar enough to admin and would just add extra layers of bureaucracy. –Sonicwave talk 20:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- However, I won’t push for a promotion if it’s not supported, and it doesn’t seem it is. Especially since, if I’m being honest, it feels like Magic suggested me as a “thank you” for me suggesting him as bureaucrat. I still appreciate the suggestion though of course. - Harristic (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- On the topic of patrollers, I was the first user who was granted the patroller role, actually. As a patroller you go through the content, and click a button to mark the revision as reviewed by you. And if it was a bad edit, you'd revert it or rollback the user (there's some criterias and guidelines I've used, but I don't know if these were substantiated anywhere). As a patroller you also get the autopatrol right, so others don't need to patrol you in return. It is along these lines that I've always interpreted the patroller role as a "content moderator" all along, because I moderate the content, as opposed to users. Therefor I also don't think there is a need for a new "content moderator" role, we already have this one. In fact, now that there are no IP edits anymore, I think the patroller role could get more effective use out of it. Because before, it was a daunting, tedious and overburdened task to go through and judge all IP edits, but now it could be more feasible to do. We need the patrollers to take away that burden from the admins, and I'm both proud that there were still more than a handful patrollers selected in the end, however also sad that this stopped a couple of years ago. Maybe we can get the role off the ground again with new admins promoting the best people for it.
- Personally I'm still not really active enough to consider myself a candidate for an admin role, and for the same reason I don't think I could give a useful opinion about other candidates. But I do believe a new one or two would be nice to have. Jack McKalling (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Italicize the "Bedrock Edition"
It is now the official name and should be changed.--Pneuma01 (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support changing the italicization site-wide. --TreeIsLife (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment In the edit page of Bedrock Edition, there is a comment stating that "Bedrock Edition should not be italicized unless logo subtitle is added." ManyOursOfFun (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support - it's a simple fix, just changing the
{{In}}and{{IN}}templates would fix most of the formatting across the wiki. We would have to change the style guide and the Bedrock Edition article too. Amatulic (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Should we archive MCW:TASK?
In my opinion, MCW:TASK seems to be a redundant page to other ways of doing things, such as CP, AN or Discord, where we have something similar as part of "wiki requests" channel. Also, it isn't that active and seeing how inactive the last year was (for the wiki as a whole), I don't think we should further split similar discussion to similar pages.
I would like this page to be archived, with a message box directing users to either CP, AN or talk pages. --TreeIsLife (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'd Support archiving it. While I don't have any strong opinions on the purpose of the page, all of the discussions on the page are in a white box, or a very light green. And all of the text is a very faint grey, instead of the black text you'd expect on a white background. I'm using dark mode. I'd prefer we archive it and have the discussions be on pages where reading isn't difficult and painful. - Harristic (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- The page wasn't designed with dark mode in mind, so I can understand why it doesn't look the best for those who use dark mode. To be fair, this is a styling problem and not a good argument against the whole usage of this page. If there are reasons why the page stays, then those styling problems need to be addressed separately. It was a lot of work to get it to this stage, there were several phases of development prior to what it is now, and together with others I've worked hard on making it work including even with the help of the wiki manager of the time. It's a shame it didn't get used so much while I became inactive. I'm aware that other platforms became more prominent such as discord's wiki requests. I would not know how they work, as it happened during my inactivity. Does it really cover everything that this page was meant to cover?
- The purpose of this page or its successive system, is that it becomes possible to delay or relay tasks to other people, that are too heavy or tedious for you. Tasks that you know need to be done but you don't know if you're the right one to do it. So other editors who are more capable and appropriate for it can choose to do it from a catalogue, without you having to find out first whom to relay the task to. Supposedly you notice a problem somewhere, and you know how that problem should be approached, but you need help in making it happen. Then this system is there so you can leave the task in a documented state, without having to go out and get into contact (or even find) the one who can take on the task. A sort of "leave it to others and forget" kind of deal. And as the other half of the cooperation, the system offers a way for people who don't know what to do but want to help, to find a task they might be interested in doing with instructions on how to do it. A kind of "what shall I do, oh this might be fun" deal.
- So the system takes care of both sides of the communication problems that would arise from endless wiki discussions or votes or ideas that get lost due to people becoming inactive, or stalling discussions because they don't get to a clear decision. If both of these two halves of the system are already entirely accomplished with the discord or other alternative systems for the wiki, then I guess the page indeed serves no purpose anymore. But I can't say or tell whether this is the case, so I wanted to explain in full here what the page really is for. It would be a shame if all my work on this gets wasted because people didn't understood the purpose. Or if some other system were used in its stead, which still not addressed all of these points. Jack McKalling (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- The styling has just been adjusted to be compatible with dark mode. Could you confirm this is indeed what you had in mind, Harristic? Jack McKalling (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
How'd I get so many negative wiki points?
I haven't looked at my own profile in at least a year or so. Today I looked at UserProfile:Amatulic and in the top right corner there's a huge negative number. Where did that come from? I recall I used to be up there among the top 10-20. Amatulic (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- That's a glitch that started occurring July of last year, where anyone who's reverted edits at any point would get a large decrease in their total WikiPoints. Fandom is aware of the issue, and there's currently no plans to fix it since the system that WikiPoints rely on is deprecated and will eventually be either removed or replaced – JEC talk @ 22:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- I see. So I guess I built up that large negative number by reverting a lot of unconstructive edits. Amatulic (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- That bug description is not fully correct. It is intended that the person being reverted loses the points for that edit again. However the bug is, that everyone who ever edited the page gets their points for their most recent edit on the page removed, instead of just the user actually being reverted. It also means that multiple reverts on the same page can cause you to lose the points for your edit on that page multiple times as well. That's why even long inactive users are getting a lot of negative points and why it's more noticeable for users who edited a lot of different pages with bigger edits worth more points. MarkusRost (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- I see. So I guess I built up that large negative number by reverting a lot of unconstructive edits. Amatulic (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)