David Marby[]
Hi! Am I correct in assuming this account belongs to David Marby? If so, could you confirm it by tweeting from your Twitter account with a link to this page in your tweet? Thanks! =) 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 23:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- I tweeted him and found that this is his wiki account. https://twitter.com/DMarby/status/466098352850239488 –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk
Contribs
Edits 06:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Awesome, thanks goo. ^^ 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 15:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Removal of content from Realms pages[]
Hi there, I'm not entirely sure I agree with your removal of content from the Realms page. The wiki aims to be a comprehensive guide of everything to do with Minecraft, and I don't see how Realms should be an exception. In regards to your first change getting rid of the Realms history table, I believe that the table should still be present on the page, as regardless of whether the table means anything to a user or whether they are internal or not, it still represents a development of the service and should be documented on the wiki. Users are also forced to update their launcher, but the wiki does store all information on the launcher versions. In addition, you state the table does "not provide anything useful to a user" - I would disagree, you could say that all of the history tables on the wiki are useless because it's irrelevant when something was added or not, but it provides important historical information.
In regards to your removal of the Realms mini games, I think this point is also rather moot - you state that "As minigames and world templates are continuously added, removed, and changed, it is detrimental to list these on the wiki as the wiki is not kept up to date with them." I disagree with this notion, the wiki is constantly evolving and players can update the lists when new games are removed/added/changed. You could say the same for other parts of the wiki which one might deem "detrimental" to maintain, e.g. the Splashes or other pages which take information from the constantly evolving game. If the wiki is not up to date on these areas, it really is not that much of an issue as other people can simply correct these and update them.
It is for these reasons that I propose that the history and mini games section be restored. –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk
Contribs 11:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- As for versions, they do not give a meaningful insight in how the service develops, as they are very arbitrary, and a lot of stuff that is changed is not clientside, as such it does not give a good overview of how Realms evolves, and because of that I would prefer that to not be on the wiki. As far as minigames and the like goes, the issue with it is that it is third party content and could be removed due to various reasons, for example due to an issue with the content at hand, and as previously displayed on the wiki, it is not updated very often, so it could still be on there for a long time. I am fine with that section being added back however, I am fairly indifferent in that matter -Neon Master (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- I feel like the consideration that "a lot of stuff that is changed is not clientside" is not really a criteria we use in history sections in general. On any given version page, for instance 14w02a, there are all kinds of things listed that is by no means exhaustive from the point of view of someone changelogging every little optimization and change done to the code, but the point is, it aims to be exhaustive and accurate as possible from what the player's point of view.
- So what if it were just specified at the head of the history section that due to the auto-updating nature of Realms, the changelog is necessarily incomplete, and furthermore, reflects only changes visible to the player, but anyway gives a sense of what player-visible improvement to Realms happened when.. ? In other words, being explicit about the limitations of this particular history section. There's precedent on this on Wikipedia; there, they mark lists up front as incomplete or necessarily incomplete, without it being a reason to not have the list in the first place. – Sealbudsman (Aaron)
T/C 13:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
