Minecraft Wiki

The Minecraft Wiki has moved from Fandom; see the linked discussion page for details.

READ MORE

Minecraft Wiki
Advertisement

Packed galleries?

The style guide for features articles specifies (or at least implies) using the plain gallery tag. Are there any objections to allowing (or even changing to) "packed" galleries? Compare these:

Plain gallery
Packed gallery

munin · Grid Book and Quill Grid Stone Pickaxe · 18:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

 Neutral. I like the fact that the packed galleries make it easier to view the images, but they do appear a little bit messier due to the inconsistent widths. I would agree to testing it on a few articles and seeing how people like it from there. KnightMiner · (t) 21:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 Oppose. The inconsistent widths look very unprofessional to me, and I don't see any improvement to viewing the images. —Fenhl 12:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Video notes

I propose stating in the guide that {{video note}} should be above the video itself. As far as I can tell, this is how it is currently done in most articles, and it should be specified here for consistency. —Fenhl 12:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

 Agree. KnightMiner · (t) 14:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 Done. —Fenhl 15:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Double space

What is the intended meaning of “After references (double space) wil be […]”? Does it mean that there should be two newlines in the wikitext after the References section, generating a regular paragraph break? Or three newlines, generating a double paragraph break? In any case, I think this should be clarified, because this is currently very inconsistent among different articles. —Fenhl 12:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you use two empty lines after the references (or three newlines, double paragraph break), as to generate a visible line before the navbox, basically like used at the end this page. I am not sure if that was the original intention, but I do believe it looks better having that empty space before the navboxes start KnightMiner · (t) 14:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Personally I find it unusual and have “corrected” it in the past because most other wikis I read tend to use a single paragraph break here. —Fenhl 14:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
As did I. — Agent NickTheRed37 (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Can we change the style guide to remove the double space guideline? It is confusing, and if intended as you describe creates an arbitrary layout rule that I personally always forget, has no precedence that I know of in other wikis, is often mistaken by editors as a typo, and only helps readability in minor ways. If we don't remove it, it should definitely be reworded. —Fenhl 19:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 Support Remove the double-space guideline. I think this was originally intended to separate article content from meta-content (language links, categories, etc.). —munin · Grid Book and Quill Grid Stone Pickaxe · 15:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 Agree I like the double spaces as I mentioned above (assuming that is what it means) but I really don't see the point of enforcing something so minor as this, especially since so many editors here seem to find it as an error in articles (especially those who first started on another wiki). KnightMiner · (t) 16:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 Done. —Fenhl 18:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

History section

The history section in this page does not mention what belongs in the section. –LauraFi - talk 01:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I had the same idea... Have you been borrowing things from my to do list?
In any case, since I had that idea the only thing I thought of is stating that bugs are not history, though with exceptions if it lasts more than a couple versions and causes something on the wiki to otherwise be wrong (such as the wolves orange collar or a mob failing to attack the player properly). Also stating that changes reverted after a single version are subject to be removed unless a source is provided that it was an intended change. KnightMiner · (t) 20:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
;)
 Agree. –LauraFi - talk 05:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Update for advancements

Should we add the section "Advancements" or have information about advancements combined with the "Achievements" section and rename that section to "Achievements/Advancements"? Currently, this page mentions nothing about advancements on articles. I know that they function similar to achievements, but I still think the page should at least mention them.--Madminecrafter12 (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

 AgreedDelboyDylan (talk|contribs) 17:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Rule proposal on quotes in Feature articles

Recently, I've seen some articles such as Name Tag and Beacon with two quotes at the top of the article. I feel like having two quotes is a little cumbersome for the article, hence why I'm proposing something on this to be added to the Introduction section. An example is provided below, with my additions in bold italic.

“The very top of the article should start with applicable flags and templates, such as {{snapshot}} for anything not yet in the full release, {{Block}} for blocks, and so on.

The introduction section of an article is the section before the first heading. It should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, briefly describing its most important points.

The article's subject should be mentioned at the earliest natural point in the prose within the first sentence, and should appear in boldface. Only the first instance should be in boldface. For example:

Pickaxes are one of the most commonly used tools in the game, being required to mine all ores and many other types of blocks.

In addition, quotes pertaining to the article subject should be added above the introduction section, provided that the quote has general information about the subject matter and the quote is sourced from a Minecraft.net article or a Mojang employee. Up to two quotes are acceptable, though highly discouraged.

-BDJP (t|c) 15:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Bump. -BDJP (t|c) 18:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 Sure, this page currently doesn't mention anything about quotes and I agree that having multiple large quotes gets cumbersome. –Sonicwave talk 20:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 Agree. Usually just one quote is enough. – Nixinova Nixinova sig1 Nixinova sig2 20:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Structure of natural generation sections in block articles

Timeline of the edit war:

  1. November 19, 10:49, Gold Ore, edit #1460501: User-12316399 modifies the "Natural generation" section by enclosing it into a newly-added "Occurence" [sic] section.
  2. November 19, 10:49, Diamond Ore, edit #1460502: User-12316399 performs an almost identical edit on another ore article, this time with a major mistake that prevented the section from working properly.
  3. November 20, 23:06, Diamond Ore, edit #1461193: Nixinova effectively reverts edit #1460502 (point #2) with the comment: "?¿?".
  4. November 20, 23:12, Diamond Ore, edit #1461199: User-12316399 reverts edit #1461193 (point #3) with no explanation, but this time inserting correct formatting.
  5. November 20, 23:20, Minecraft Wiki:Style guide/Features, edit #1461216: Nixinova replaces the "Natural generation" header with "Occurance" [sic], with the comment: "user:user-12316399 can you layout your headings on here then".
  6. November 20, 23:40, Minecraft Wiki:Style guide/Features, edit #1461257: User-12316399 makes substantial changes to the style guide page; there was no prior discussion. The edit comment was "really need to look into this page and fix it".
  7. November 21, 05:40, Diamond Ore, edit #1461391: PancakeIdentity reverts edit #1461199 (point #4) with the comment: "Just leave it".
  8. November 21, 05:41, Diamond Ore, edit #1461393: User-12316399 effectively reverts edit #1461391 (point #7) with the comment: "no, i won't".
  9. November 21, 14:31, Diamond Ore, edit #1461797: BDJP007301 effectively reverts edit #1461393 (point #8) with no explanation.
  10. November 21, 14:33, Minecraft Wiki:Style guide/Features, edit #1461799: BDJP007301 removes the changed "Occurrence" section entirely with the comment: "Rmv "Occurrence" section; has not been previously discussed AFAIK".
  11. November 21, 15:08, Gold Ore, edit #1461822: BDJP007301 effectively reverts edit #1460501 (point #1) with no explanation.
  12. November 21, 15:10, Gold Ore, edit #1461824: User-12316399 reverts edit #1461822 (point #11) with the comment: "why is everyone removing these with little to no explanation?".
  13. November 21, 15:12, Minecraft Wiki:Style guide/Features, edit #1461826: User-12316399 reverts edit #1461799 (point #10) with the comment: "I was instructed to put it here, as can be seen in the previous edit summary".
  14. November 21, 15:12, Diamond Ore, edit #1461828: User-12316399 reverts edit #1461797 (point #9) with no explanation.
  15. November 21, 15:14, Diamond Ore, edit #1461829: PancakeIdentity reverts edit #1461828 (point #14) with no explanation.
  16. November 21, 15:15, Minecraft Wiki:Style guide/Features, edit #1461830: BDJP007301 reverts edit #1461826 (point #13) with the comment: "that someone clearly does not care about discussion; please discuss on the talk page first prior to adding it again".
  17. November 21, 15:16, Gold Ore, edit #1461831: BDJP007301 reverts edit #1461824 (point #12) with the comment: "see my previous edit summary".

I have no stance on these changes yet, but I think both sides of the disagreement should present their views here before any changes to the style guide or block articles could be made. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 16:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Both Nixinova and User-12316399 are at fault for changing the style guide page without any prior discussion. I  Oppose any change to the “Natural generation” section of the style guide. It is perfectly fine as is. -BDJP (t|c) 16:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Personally I wouldn't mind an improvement to these sections, but I don't like the "Occurence" style. It creates a set of three needless levels of headers in a sequence without an actual body in between. This section is called "Natural generation" for a reason, and that is because the blocks that have this section need to describe where in the world (and sometimes how) this block gets formed by the world generator, under natural circumstances. While in contrast, the block can also exist elsewhere by player placement, or by world map builders when playing an existing map, or even as loot in chests. This section differentiates between all of that, and focusses only on what is natural for this block, and specifically, during the generation phase of the game. "Occurence" (or its correct spelling occurrence), does not make this distinction, and is in this case in my opinion too generic. Because any other uses of the block beyond natural generation belong in the "Usage" section instead anyway. However, as I said, this does not mean I oppose to change, just, to this particular change in this case. I would be glad to see better solutions, if so something were wrong to begin with. – Jack McKalling [ Grid Book and Quill Grid Diamond Pickaxe ] 17:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Ditto to what Jack McKalling said. Maybe there is a better solution, but 3 needless headers isn't it. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Well this quickly got out of hand. I thought this had been discussed somewhere on the massive CP, apparently not. I do think "Occurrence" isn't a very good name for the heading, but "Natural generation" as an h2 seems fine (was that discussed anywhere?). User-12316399, please start actually discussing things instead of spamming everywhere.  Nixinova T  C  23:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
This comes as a result of the redefinition of the Obtaining section, as was proposed in the standardisation of loot table representation and the like on the community portal. Previously, the natural generation section was part of the obtaining section, which is clearly not accurate - you don't obtain blocks by having them generate in the world, you obtain them by breaking them and then picking them up. The section therefore needed moving, which is why it's now at the tops of pages. Of course, natural generation isn't the sole way a block can come to exist within the world, as there's also interactions between other blocks and items after world generation that causes them to come into existence, which also would be fitting for being under an Obtaining section.
Looking at the above comments, it seems as though all of the opposition to the addition of the section is rooted either in a perspective having not considered post-generational occurence of blocks, or solely due to the fact that its addition hadn't been discussed beforehand, neither of which are valid oppositions. Therefore, this section should be kept. - User-12316399 (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Add a textures tab

I feel like it'd be helpful to include a textures tab on each feature page including things such as item, block texture, and historical textures that pertain to the page. I can help access texture jars if nessecary, email me at tjnewbry@gmail.com (admins and mods only please) Shareyourhead (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Reworking the trivia section

Right now, the trivia section is generally very heavily restricted by the style guide, and many pages just straight up ignore what the style guide says. Most of these trivia points have been left as they are genuinely interesting, even if they break the style guide. These are usually points that break the "No comparison to other features; no saying something is the 'only' or 'first'" clause. So, I propose a rewrite of this to allow interesting points to stay but keep uninteresting or stretch points out.

Something along the lines of: "Trivia should only state how a characteristic of a block, item, mob, or other game element relates to the characteristics of others if this characteristic is surprising or unique, but not essential to the feature's function.

This includes [Things that should not be in trivia include], but is not limited to, listing other game elements that share a certain characteristic, listing items that do not share a certain characteristic, or stating that a game element is the first to have a certain characteristic."

Notably, I removed the mention of "only one to have a certain characteristic". To a point, I think these can be genuinely interesting. For the cases it's not; the general idea of keeping trivia sections interesting falls into play here and will likely be removed anyway. I've also reworded it to say this type of trivia should only be listed if "this characteristic is surprising or unique, but not essential to the mob's function." By this, I mean to prevent something boring like "phantoms are the only mobs that attack players based on sleep patterns." This is obvious and sort of the point of the phantom. On the other hand, you have something like hoglins, which you could say "hoglins are the only nether-native mob that doesn't spawn in the nether wastes biome." That's actually unique, interesting, and not something you'd realize right away.

I'd also like to propose removing the line about not including trivia based on game visuals. This doesn't really make sense; we shouldn't have to cater to resource packs. In addition, more and more of the game is becoming customizable with datapacks, yet we still let datapack-driven mechanics stay in trivia.

(Text in [] was added in an edit.) -PancakeIdentity (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't really think lists of things with common characteristics are good trivia. They all need to be updated every time a new such thing is released, and they may grow without end.
Generally agree on the rest of your changes. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 03:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh whoops, I realized I'd left the second sentence more unmodified to accomadate the changes to the first. I've attempted to fix it. I agree common characteristics should not be listed; they should be generally unique to the feature. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
So basically the main changes you're suggesting are to remove the points that restrict trivia points that state a feature is the only one to have a certain quality as well as that disallowing game visuals trivia. I would definitely support removing the "only feature to have a certain quality" restriction, as I've seen many trivia points falling under this category that are genuinely interesting. As far as not including trivia based on game visuals, honestly I can't think of many scenarios where this would be useful. Important game visuals are usually shown in an obvious place, such as the infobox, so in many cases they don't necessarily need to be repeated in the trivia. I guess they could be used to clarify a certain visual aspect that may be hard to make out in the image. I'm not necessarily opposed to removing this, however, because we would still have the point about trivia having to be interesting.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me | View what I've done) 13:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about the visual point. I can't think of specific examples of good trivia, but I don't think removing the point would do any harm, especially since its inclusion doesn't really make sense for how we run the wiki and when considering other customizable game aspects. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't have much to add, but I  Agree with those points (including removing the line disallowing visual-related trivia). –Sonicwave talk 19:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Advertisement