Talk: Community portal

This is the community's main discussion page.
Talk about anything wiki-related here!

Template:Archive-box

English or American english?

We sorta need to get a uniformity going in the wiki. this is an issue in many wikis, and needs to be corrected.

What type of english do we use? American or English?

I personally, of course, choose British English, though I know the majority of readers are american. so it's an issue of origin versus popularity.

thoughts? votes? --Kizzycocoa 15:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

American English, because the majority of users are American, Curse is an American company and the servers are located in America. (as far as I know)--Quatroking - MCWiki Administrator 15:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I am going to vote for American English simply because it is easier for Firefox users. The default installed Firefox autocorrect dictionary prefers American English, even in the Great Britain version, or so I have read. Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Also voting American English - it's what the majority of people are used to and frankly, if you went British English people would just be correcting articles anyways (because no one bothers to read the rules :P) --Warlock 15:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I vote British English, simply because I automatically spell that way. Especially when describing the colour of things, or what behaviour they display. :D DreadLindwyrm 15:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There was already a discussion on the date format that should be used, and I believe whatever language that is used, it should be the same as that language's date format, or all dates are changed to an international standard, or at least an internationally readable format (DD Month-Name YYYY).

I, of course, will vote for British English, as this is a wiki, it is generally considered best to use the most formal language (even small things like saying it is instead of it's). Remember that "American English" is just a lazy version of British English. It is even slightly similar to txt speech, which while much more lazy and severe than what American English has done, American English is still removing letters from normal words with the only reason to make them quicker to type or write, which is the same and very popular concept of txt speech. –ultradude25 ^(T|C) at 19:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Note the vast, vast differences between the Wikipedia pages for American English and SMS Language or Internet Slang. American English is a dialect in its own right, containing a large amount of unique words (not abbreviated phrases). As far as calling British English the most formal language, I'm going to have to say: ^{[citation needed]} :) Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is I'm extremely biased against American English, because I hate America for being childish with this whole "we have to be independent and not do anything the same as anyone else" nonsense (which is ironically making me be childish about it). Things would be a lot simpler if America just stuck with normal English, and didn't use outdated measurements like Fahrenheit. </stupid rant that everyone should hate me for, also scaler has a good point> –ultradude25 ^(T|C) at 17:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It makes discussions like these pop up on all of the wikis. :T And Scaler does have a good point. (Possibly a discussion-resolving point?) Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You realize Britian has its own crazy system of measurements too, right? --Warlock 17:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't like Britain's money system, I don't actually know what measurements they use, but at least they use normal temperatures. –ultradude25 ^(T|C) at 00:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Britain has the same 'money system' as america - we have 100p (uk cents) in one pound (UK dollar) and we have notes for £5 and up. The only differences are names, that america uses 25¢ coins instead of 20p coins, and that notes start with $1. We also do not have a crazy system - for distance we use miles and feet (in fact, this is the official standard but at home half of people use metres and km), but everything else (weight, volume, temp etc) is metric. What is crazy about that, after all you have units in groups of 12s or 3s or even 1760s! Jaredjeya 07:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't Minecraft using American English (gray instead of grey)? I think it could be confusing to have the games terms in American English and the rest of the page in British English. – Scaler (t) 20:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It may use American English but all measurements are metric Jaredjeya 07:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what that has to do with anything. Metric is not tied to one particular variant of English (it originated in France, not Britain, for that matter), and it's an international standard; using any other measurement system would only create ambiguity, at least in some situations for some people. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 13:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I vote for American English. Mainly because it's the english I learned and know how to write. Ok, you can say now, that you would correct it to British English. But thats a lot of work. But I know too, that there are people who have time to do such things. The other point is the thing Scaler highlighted. –The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freaktechnik ^{(Talk|Contribs)} . Please sign your posts with ~~~~

I think it does not matter as long as we don't use british terms like trolley or american terms like a la mode. not that anyone would really use either of those on the minecraft wiki, but most american people understand grey and colour and most british people understand gray and color. Also in terms of measurements we should use the metric system because minecraft uses meters. Also what is everyone talking about with the british being more formal? You guys use contractions too- right?

–The preceding unsigned comment was added by allenofdrum ^{(Talk|Contribs)} . Please sign your posts with ~~~~

"à la mode" is not american it's french ^^". I agree to use the metric system. – Scaler (t) 20:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

American English is the Curse standard. That being said however, British English is also acceptable, and not something that should be hunted down and changed, nor should any use be reprimanded or reverted for using it. -- Wynthyst

talk 00:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I would !vote for American English, since that's what Minecraft seems to use, though I should also point out that I am American myself. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 13:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe American English for the main wiki, but possibly a translation subspace for British English? CosmoConsole my page! my talk! my contributions! 17:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Notch/Mojang Watch?

I think it's time to devise a new plan.... Not every little item mentioned by Notch or the rest of Mojang in tweets, and blogs will become a part of Minecraft, yet people seem to believe that everything needs a page. I suggest we create a single page where this stuff can be listed, and the links to the tweets and comments can be posted for future reference. If and when we have confirmation that an item is coming in a patch, or has actually been added to the game, THEN the information can be used to create a page.... Opinions? -- Wynthyst talk 00:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

A huge list of citations with the references along with it should be workable.--Quatroking - MCWiki Administrator 01:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

To quote my response two topics above:

The Upcoming Features article seems too definite for features that are so in development that they are very likely to change, so an article following the development of new things would help proliferate the knowledge of updates. I know quite a few people that are not able to follow the Twitter and Google+ accounts of developers but would still like to know what to expect in future patches. It is, after all, data that is contained in a version of Minecraft even if that version is only known to the developers.

--Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I follow Notch's Twitter feed religiously, and I have excellent bullshit sensors - I can almost always tell when he's just joking around about some feature or another (cue hotdog tweet) - so I could help out in that regard. Does anyone do the same for Jeb's Twitter feed? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 06:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Jeb knows about this particular issue since I told him about it once on the IRC. Either way I've got him followed too and it's pretty easy to filter out the jokes and stuff.

We can probably make a big page of references using grouped references; <references group="schwoopy" />. If we'd then just group a lot of twitter messages, Google+, /r/Minecraft and other links, we'd probably get a rather clear overview of all citations made by Mojang.--Quatroking - MCWiki Administrator 08:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we should make this happen... sooner rather than later??? -- Wynthyst

talk 16:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Any suggestions for an article title? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 18:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm already working on a draft, I decided that Citations, references and sources would be a good title.--Quatroking - MCWiki Administrator 18:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

help with beta

i got beta about a week ago and i was trying to load it today and it wont load :( –The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jordan9839 ^{(Talk|Contribs)} . Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Please clarify. CosmoConsole my page! my talk! my contributions! 17:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Old articles lost in the wiki in bad quality

Some of the articles in the wiki are old, outdated, badly written and generally bad, for example: Chunk updates, Admin, Lua Scripting, Creation and saving class. Map Editing (hex) all of thous articles are from Category:Server and Category:Development, which contain many articles like thous, but I believe there are more categories like that! I have no idea what to do with them..delete? rewrite? merge? i really don't know...--Yurisho 15:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, a list of pages which have gone the longest without being edited can be found at Special:AncientPages. Interesting how many pages from translation projects are on that list... 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 17:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring the translation articles, the others should be tagged with a version of Template:Outdated that indicates they need to be updated/rewritten etc. -- Wynthyst

talk 18:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? Template:Outdated?? It doesn't even makes sense...--Yurisho 19:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Template:Outdated refers to features that were once in normal Minecraft, but are no longer. I, personally, have been sorting through them to see what I can add to the articles, but most of them are translations. Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Item naming proposal

Shouldn't we call all items that also have a block with a similar name similarly? Right now we have Diamond (Gem)), Iron (Ingot), and Gold (Ingot).

First of all, the ingame items are actually Diamond, Iron Ingot, and Gold Ingot, without parentheses, so the ingots should probably retain their ingame name.

But seeing as the Diamond page should be a disambiguation, calling all items that need the defining extension Name (Item) seems to make more sense to me, for example: Diamond (Item) Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your last point; we should only be adding bits to article names if it is necessary for disambiguation (e.g. if two blocks/items have identical names). I'm also not seeing why Diamond must be a disambiguation page; what does it do that an {{About}} hatnote at the top of the Diamond gem page with the pagename "Diamond" could not? Seriously, {{About|the gem|the ore|Diamond Ore|the block|Diamond Block}} would fill the role perfectly.

I have never been happy with the dabtext-in-titles craze here, though I've also never really voiced it before. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 05:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the about template would do perfectly in the Diamond page. My two basic points were that we should use ingame names and, if necessary, use (Item) or (Block) as the added text in the title. Really, though, if we use ingame names that there should be no problem. No two things are named the same. Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That's good to hear. I'd appreciate hearing the thoughts of others on this though (particularly admins/Curse staff); if this discussion will manage to get a change to happen, it should be sooner rather than later. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 13:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I have to add to this discussion is that any change of the naming convention needs to be agreed upon by more than just the two of you. This affects the entire wiki. So please plan on this being a very lengthy discussion... i.e. weeks, if not months before it is implemented. If you need to go to individual talk pages and point them at this discussion to get adequate participaction, I recommend you do so. Also, no renaming of base images is allowed, they can be reuploaded, but not moved as this affects the German and Dutch wiki as well. -- Wynthyst

talk 14:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Why didn't we use the official ingame names in the first place? Was it just because because one person decided it to be so? Drenay 14:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I was hunkering down for a lengthy discussion beforehand. :) I don't expect the way we create pages to change very quickly, as otherwise rash decisions could be made. I don't think that image renames would really be necessary, though. As long as the image looks right, its name doesn't really affect anything. Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I find it much easier to use the object(type) naming rather than the in-game name on several articles, the ores being a few of them. It's more efficient and it makes searching easier. I'm against changing the way we name our articles.--Quatroking - MCWiki Administrator 16:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:Drenay: The current naming scheme was used before official in-game naming existed. I don't care much either way (both make sense) but I suppose I lean a bit on the don't change side since that's the status quo. --JonTheMon 17:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, I would point out use of the about template as a good way to link together ores and their minerals. The only problem I can foresee is differentiating between Brick and Bricks, the brick block. Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I vote No, I like the way the wiki is set up. It makes things look more official or elegant. Cool12309^(T|C) 18:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't resort to "I like it"-style arguments, especially when there are quantifiably objective reasons to support one system over the other.

The current system is needlessly complicated and confusing - unless someone has taken the time to make the necessary redirects, a person cannot just come to the wiki and type an item's/block's in-game name into the URL bar or search bar and end up at the correct page (in the absolute best case, the proper redirect exists and points to the proper page; in the "good" case, the title they typed is a disambiguation page or redirects to one, meaning their intended target should be one click away; in the worst case, the title is a redlink or a redirect to an unrelated article). The current system does absolutely nothing that can't be done a million times better by judicious use of {{About}}. Wikipedia:Disambiguation is a very good read for those who are going to comment here. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 19:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me just provide an example for my point. Melon (Seed)s are melon seeds. They are not Melons of the type Seed. Redstone (Repeater)s are Redstone Repeaters. They are not Redstones of the type "Repeater". It is my personal belief that the title should say what the item actually is instead of putting a part of it needlessly into parentheses. Putting it in parentheses isolates the first word as the actual title of the article, such as the Redstone (Repeater), which seems to be called a Redstone. Such a thing is analogous to calling Experience Orbs Experience (Orb)s, or Fishing Rods Fishing (Rod)s. Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if this is relevant or not, @Verhalthur, but there are two items in the game with the same name. The two items, both named stone slabs, one created from 3 cobblestone blocks, the other from 3 stone blocks. Should there be a mix of the two formats? Or would that cause confusion? Like, the redstone, iron and gold formats are decent, but Diamond (Gem) should be renamed to Diamond (item) because the word "gem" isn't mentioned anywhere ingame nor by any of the staff. Diamond may not even be a "gem" in the game. (seeing as it's in a fictional universe) I see the issue arise with Brick Block and Brick (block) though. The item smelted from clay and it's block counterpart are called Clay Brick and Brick respectively, right? (sooo confusing) --HexZyle 14:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The Stone Slabs problem would be a case where I would title them something like Stone Slab and Stone Slab (Sandstone). The parentheses are being used to differentiate two ingame items of the same name, which works fine. I am not suggesting completely eliminating the format, just using it only when absolutely needed. Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I could see a good argument in that case for something along the lines of "Stone Slab" and "Smooth Stone Slab", or "Stone Slab" and "Cobblestone Slab" (or, as Verhalthur pointed out, this would also be one good case for part of the title in parentheses - something like "Stone Slab" and "Stone Slab (Cobblestone)"); no matter how it were done, though, a single {{About}} tag at the top of the article titled "Stone Slab" would immediately tell the reader which slab the article would discuss, and provide a link directly to the other article (all of this is only an example, though, since currently all the slabs are covered on one article). In general, using {{About}} on the page with the shorter, more general title should be enough to handle ambiguity (so, on such pages as "Diamond", "Brick" and "Clay", "Iron", etc.). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 16:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The about tag seems like the best way to deal with all this madness :D --HexZyle 16:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree We need to use official names, so pages should be named as they are named in-game, items with confusing titles such as the clay problem should have an about template instead of having a different name, blocks with the same name should have the page with this name redirect to a disambiguation page that links to the different blocks pages named with parenthesis containing the differentiating property between the different pages(block/item; stone/cobblestone; etc.)--Yurisho 17:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for redirects; just have the dabpage at the title needing disambiguated. This is another aspect of the current setup that makes absolutely no sense and is needlessly complicated. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 20:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree I changed my mind, I like this a lot better now that it is explained. If I got it right, the pages are to be named the ingame name, with the exception of Stone Slabs (with a solution of something like "Stone Slabs" be a disambig. page). If a block has a same name as an item, put (Block) or (Item) respectively. Is that how it was meant to be interpreted? Cool12309^(T|C) 21:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

More or less, yes (but note that we wouldn't actually have to do anything with slabs, since, as I said above, they're all covered on the one article). Also, this would be a good opportunity to discourage CamelCase in every single page title - "(item)" or "(block)" work just as well as "(Item)" or "(Block)", and neither "item" nor "block" is a proper noun, so there's no reason to require they be capitalized. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 21:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, too. Only stuff that really goes by the same name should be named equally. and i can’t come up with a single example.

if it’s Pumpkin Seeds, why is it Melon (Seed)? Melon Seeds is much nicer and more logical, as you don’t say “melon” if you want to refer too melon seeds.

also, especially the redstone pages are silly:

Redstone (Ore)
Redstone (Dust)
Redstone (Wire)
Redstone (Torch)
Redstone (Repeater)
Redstone circuits

do you notice sth.? yes, we can completely drop the parentheses for all those items. – Flying sheep 14:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It's been a week since the last comment; does anyone else have anything to add? Quatroking, JonTheMon, do you remain unswayed, or has your opinion perhaps changed? 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 18:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

eh, It's not like I had a strong position to be swayed from, and I even said that both can work. It does seem that the consensus is towards the proposed system. --JonTheMon 18:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

i think that we’re going to implement it is relatively sure, as quite a few pro- but no contra-arguments arised. anyone against it should not take this as offense, because i just want to say the following: i’d like to start a sub-discussion about “Title Case” vs. “sentence case”, because there seems to be more disagreement. should we use a new section for this? – Flying sheep 12:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

here an overview. (possible) counterarguments added where applicable. new scheme means “use ingame names where appropriate, only use braces when necessary for disambiguition of identically named items”. example: diamond should mean only the diamond item as the “diamond ore” is called “diamond ore” and the “diamond block”, “diamond block” too. the only example that i can think of for identically-named items are the stone slabs, but they are together on one page, anyways.

Arguments for the new scheme
Argument	Counterargument
The new scheme matches the way the ingame items are named.	This may be irrelevant if all items can be found with their ingame names as well^{[are they?]}
The old naming scheme was established before official naming existed, so there was never a decision between the two.
Complicated and confusing: Redirects have to be created manually, links have to be created like this: [[Diamond (Block)\|diamond block]] instead of like this: [[diamond block]]
It’s more semantic/logical, e.g. Melon (Seed)s are melon seeds. They are not Melons of the type Seed, as the braces imply
The braces are superfluous, i.e. can be left out without any decrease in meaning, or unambiguity.
There are no counterarguments, i.e. everything except opinion and lazyness speaks for the new solution.

Arguments against the new scheme
Argument	Counterargument
It makes searching easier.	I find searching harder this way, which may imply that this is an opinon and no argument.
It’s the status quo, i.e. it would require a lengthy process to change everything.	We are many, and people who don’t like to don’t have to help.
It makes things look more official or elegant	Opinion. I disagree.
~~It's more efficient~~	This may be a valid argument, although I doubt it. But what do you mean by that?

Lawsuit

Should the lawsuit between Mojang and Bethesda have a page for it? Or at least mentioned in the Mojang AP page? It is an important part of Mojang history, you could say. | JSan 17:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not its own page. This is the Minecraft wiki, not the Scrolls wiki. I could see it fitting well on the Mojang page. Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Added 1.8 stuff

…to {{ItemSprite}} and thus all dependant templates (such as {{Items}}). what do you think? – Flying sheep 13:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Once 1.8 is out and we know what's in it sure :D -- Wynthyst

talk 13:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The mushroom blocks need to be added to Template:Blocks. Could someone please get around to that? Oh, and if the Huge Mushroom page looks ugly, that's my bad. I'm currently working on making the images 150px instead of 15px --HexZyle 14:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: oh wait, the block side textures are 16px. Do I just expand them to 160px? --HexZyle 14:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

@HexZyle: Someone needs to update File:BlockCSS.png first. (see link below) some genius has only added the cyan flower and left out the rest (though i don’t know how to deal with the new stuff at the bottom, where we already put out stuff. how about doubling the image height and putting everything which has to be edited (grass, leaves) in the bottom part, so one just has to replace the upper half when an update comes out?) – Flying sheep 14:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What the hell is a cyan flower? Is someone trolling? And no, I'm not talking about the terrain.png, the mushroom blocks from the huge mushrooms should be added into the Planned: section of the blocks template --HexZyle 14:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, didn’t read properly. of course they should be added, even if their textures aren’t there already :D – Flying sheep 14:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

@Wyn: or we could just do it now that we already know it, sice jeb has uploaded the new item and block sheets: https://imgur.com/a/0Dpgb d’Oh – Flying sheep 14:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

now i did the same with the blocks! – Flying sheep 15:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone should go through and update Melon, Melon_Seeds, Melon_(Slice), Pumpkin_Seeds, and Rotten_Flesh (did I forget any?) with the new sprites. --Warlock 16:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well I meant add the blocks and links, sorry i didn't explain it correctly. Like: Huge Mushroom (Red Cap | Brown Cap | Stalk) --HexZyle 23:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm just curious what part of “don't add these until the update comes out and we know for sure what's in it” wasn't clear in my original reply? -- Wynthyst

talk 05:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see the need to delay, we already have plenty of info on upcoming items/blocks. Everything else is blatantly obvious. --HexZyle 06:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

what HexZyle said. there are the textures, the screenshots and the videos. we don’t need more to start pages. the blue Spider page is a good example, as it has loads of evidence: they are small, poison the player, spawn in abandoned mine shafts, their spawners are surrounded by cobwebs, poisoning makes your health bar yellow…

we don’t need to wait for 1.8 if we already know so much. and if something was changed from what we thought to know, we can still change it. – Flying sheep 20:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been too ambiguous. What I really mean is since all blocks are on the {block} template, regardless of if they have their own page, links have been added to them. The huge mushroom is not a block, neither is redstone. But they have categories that either take you to different sections of the page (if there is not enough info to have seperate pages, like lava bucket) or to different pages (if there is enough info, like for mossy cobble and redstone stuff) --HexZyle 01:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

you are right, only the parts are blocks, just like with trees – Flying sheep 14:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Opening the wiki to anon edits

Once again I am bringing this topic to the community for discussion. We have implemented a lot of really good tools to battle vandalism and spam (which has always been the primary reason for not allowing anon edits). Limiting participation to only registered users my reduce some of those issues, however, it causes others. Recently, a user had to jump through a gazillion hoops to try to contact someone at Curse because they had forgotten their wiki account password and didn't have email enabled to be able to reset it. Since he was unable to log on, he was also unable to contact any of the admins via their talk pages, or the noticeboard or anywhere else. This needs to not be the case. I want to enable anon editing, and quite simply, unless you, the community provide me with solid reasons to not do this, it's going to happen. Thanks! -- Wynthyst talk 05:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I support this whole-heartedly. Wikipedia has managed quite well with allowing anons to edit for a decade and counting; I don't see why we shouldn't be able to. Do you have any sort of timeline for how long the community has to comment on this issue? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 06:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No

Nonononononononononnooo

No

Oh god, I can imagine it. We'll have aspergite weekly. We'll have articles about cars added daily. We'll be rolling around in nazi iconography and ascii art of various organs. the pages will constantly be vandalised to the point that no admin team can bear it.

and the pages they'll make. steve the slime will be up first. followed by god knows what. porky the pig? Geoffrey the Ghast?

this just cannot happen.

ever.

EVER. o_o --Kizzycocoa 06:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Enough drama Kizzy. It happens on every other wiki on the network every day without any of these dire consequences you are predicting. Through proper use of the tools that we have available most of what you describe will never see the light of day. -- Wynthyst

talk 06:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree While I personally don't like anon edits due to IP addresses being really hard to remember for me (maybe I should start writing them down...), I really think the abuse filter can handle them pretty well. Just seeing how well it has dealt with the constant spam we used to get before it was introduced (I wasn't even aware the automatic spam was still happening, until I opened the block log and found the abuse filter all over it) had really proved its effectiveness to me (although I wish I knew how it worked).

I would definitely like some limits set on them though, like only let them edit, maybe let them create pages, I'm not to sure on that one, no page moves (they can get really messy to undo), and either no image uploading or a limit on how many images they're able to upload per-day (although that's pretty easy to undo, so it might not be worth bothering with). –ultradude25 ^(T|C) at 07:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Things like page moves, and image uploads are restricted by default. We can add additional restrictions (within reason) as the community feels appropriate. -- Wynthyst

talk 07:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have no complaints with anons not being allowed to create pages (though this should be limited to content namespaces; anons should be able to create talk pages for very obvious reasons). 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 08:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I mostly agree I agree that anons should be able to edit, and I agree abuse filter is good enough to prevent spam, I do think the anons should have limited editing only. The reason for that is that anon editors are mostly in-experienced in editing, noted by the fact that they don't find it worthwhile to register, or even if they are good editors, they are certanlly do not know this wiki's specific cloture and customs(i.e titles like uses, trivial, etc.).

Therefore I suggest only allowing them to edit pages, and not creating them, I also think it will be a good idea to forbid big edits - let's say, an edit that will have a bold number at the "Recent changes" page(this will not apply in the admin noticeboard and admins talk pages). I also think they shouldn't be able to upload pictures, and if they will be able to, there will be a size limit.--Yurisho 07:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of people who are very experienced at editing wikis, who will not register an account here for a number of reasons - maybe they're just making a spelling or coding fix and don't want to go through the hassle of creating an account for such a simple edit, or maybe they genuinely do not want to create an account (I knew several such editors on Wikipedia). Conversely, a username does not mean an experienced editor, not by any means.

It's also not a good idea to limit edits solely by size; there are a number of situations where perfectly legitimate edits are accompanied by marked increases in bytecount. On the other hand, page blanking in content namespaces is rarely desirable, so that could be stopped without any trouble, I think. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 08:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Easily. -- Wynthyst

talk 08:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't have a problem with this as long as moving articles, creating new articles and uploading files will still require regular userrights. Wyn is bringing up a very good point and allowing anonymous readers to edit pages would boost support a lot, as well as small-time corrections.--Quatroking - MCWiki Administrator 09:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Only if we restrict creating and moving moving pages, huge edits, and editing of template pages. (etc) Also, there are probably certain pages that would be best to be protected from anon edits. --{ Fishrock123 } ^(Talk) 14:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a good plan, especially since you're considering the exceptions needed to continue to keep the wiki safe, like restricting page moves and limiting uploads. I've used the abusefilter a bit, so I can give assistance/advice if needed. --JonTheMon 15:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't like this Idea. As an Admin I need to contact the person maybe. But I can't talk with an IP. And I don't think the english Minecraftwiki team have enough admins to control all changes. -- Oliver Scholz de.Wiki Admin 15:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

~~No.~~ Yes, see comment below. There already many one-off accounts that deposit spam or advertising or speculation that are not caught by the abuse filter. Many are dissuaded by the process of creating an account, and if we open the dam by allowing anonymous edits, they will pour in. Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No! We would have to fight more vandalism, maybe around 10x or EVEN MORE. If admins are ready to take more vandalism and protect the wiki for it, my opinion would possibly be a bit more positive, but still, this considerably adds vandalism. EDIT 1: And it is super-easy to create an account, why we would need guest editing? CosmoConsole my page! my talk! my contributions! 17:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

In answer to your question Oliver, this will extend to the language wikis eventually. As for the rest, MCW is the only wiki on the Curse network that doesn't allow anon editing. We have already increased the number of administrators, and we will add more if the vandalism/spam is such a problem. -- Wynthyst

talk 17:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

To everyone worried about anons moving pages or uploading images: these actions are restricted to the users group by default; allowing anon editing will not cause a flood of vandalistic page moves and file uploads.

To everyone worried about vandalism: the abuse filter is a very powerful tool for stopping broad categories of vandalism; a number of filters are already in place and more can be added as the need arises.

To Oliver: you *can* talk with anons, via their talk page, just the same as you can talk with any registered editor.

To Verhalthur: The majority of the spam is done via bot; an automated script can register any number of accounts within a very short period of time and immediately proceed to edit with them. The only people who are dissuaded by the requirement of registering an account are those who do not want to register for one reason or another.

To Cosmoconsole: 10x is a gross overestimation; I doubt the ratio of vandalism to good edits will change all that much if and when anon editing is enabled. There are a number of reasons someone would not want to register an account to edit; as I stated above, this hurdle actively dissuades people who only want to make a quick typo correction, and I know of several people who, despite being quite prolific and trusted editors, adamantly refuse to register an account for their own personal reasons. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 19:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we can add more filters when the need arises. The current ones did not catch the person spamming pages with swastikas a few days ago, but more can be implemented. Vote changed to yes. Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Filters will always be hard to adjust for intentional vandals (as opposed to bots). and wasn't that vandal doing edits on an account? --JonTheMon 19:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If someone is committed to getting around the filters and whatever other technical roadblocks are in their way just to vandalize, the software is ultimately ill-designed to stop them (particularly if they use an ISP that assigns a different IP address to a user every time they connect), and preventing IPs from editing will definitely not slow them down. Fortunately, though, most repeat vandals have some sort of theme to their vandalism (like the above-mentioned swastika vandal), making stopping them relatively straightforward. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 19:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm still for the 10-day rule. This is even worse. And what do I if the IP change? Sorry Wyn and Dinoguy1000 (your signature is strange), you're not convinced me yet. :) -- Oliver Scholz de.Wiki Admin 19:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There's really not anything you can do when the person's IP changes. Keep in mind, though, that Wikimedia has allowed anon editing for the entirety of its decade-long history (counting the days when it was just Wikipedia, back before WM was even founded), across all 800-plus wikis, and they've managed quite well insofar as talking with anons is concerned. I've had people say various things about my sig before, but I think you're the first one to call it "strange"... =D 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 19:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No I don't see many advantages to it. There simply isn't enough content in the game that is appropriate for the wiki, and we already cover everything exhaustively. We don't need every article looking like this. On the other hand, pruning the pages and fighting vandalism is mostly the admins' jobs, and you do a fine job of it. So if you want to give it a try, go ahead. --Theothersteve7 19:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

For every "Toilet paper orientation" article on Wikipedia, there are hundreds of articles only a fraction of its size. Articles on Wikipedia tend to grow to that size when their subject is a popular or controversial topic (which is why popular culture tends to be covered far more exhaustively than historically significant but somewhat obscure figures, for example). The fact that Wikipedia mainly covers real-world topics, which tend to be far more complicated than in-game topics, also contributes significantly. It is very difficult for an article to grow unboundedly when there's nothing else to be said about its subject, and that's close to the case for a lot of our articles. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 19:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

So, there are a number of ways to keep vandalism in check even if edits are open to anons, and several reasons to. Are these enough to persuade anyone to change their minds regarding this? --JonTheMon 18:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This isn't even required IMO. If people want to contribute, they will register. Anons will just make random changes of which we aren't even sure that they are true, and additionally, imagine loads of kids trying to edit pages then and most of attacking pages with vandalism especially on translated pages. However, if you really want to do that anon editing, do an 7 day trial of it, and you'll see how it will come out. Tom.K 19:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"If people want to contribute, they will register." - This is demonstrably false. I don't know about you, but if I'm reading a random page on a random wiki and notice a small typographical, grammatical, or factual error but have no intention of regularly contributing to that wiki, I am far more likely to edit the page to fix the problem if I'm not required to first register an account on that wiki. This isn't even specific to wikis; look at any website with some sort of public commenting system that requires registration, and you'll see (or rather won't see) plenty of people who do not post a comment because they would have to register an account to do so. Think about yourself for a moment - if you are surfing randomly one day and stumble across an interesting article somewhere, and you want to post a comment (but not very badly or urgently), but you have no intention of becoming a regular commenter and the site requires you to register to do so, how likely are you, really, to register just to post that one comment?

As far as the random vandalism/spam/test edits are concerned, I again point to Wikipedia and other Wikimedia wikis, all of which (all 800-plus of them) have allowed anon editing for the entirety of their history. Are any of these wikis a rules-free anarchy, a no-man's land of vandalism, a sea of unmitigated spam and "lol poop" edits? I challenge you - I challenge anyone reading this - to point to even a single one. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 00:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Does it count if I made the vandalism myself? :P –ultradude25 ^(T|C) at 02:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Trollface.png? 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 02:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nah trollface is too mainstream. /hipster –ultradude25 ^(T|C) at 05:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay then, do it if you want to... Tom.K 06:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Entities need treatment too!

O.K this issue has been burning for me for quite some time - entities have not been taken care of.

Entities have no nevbox template and are instead divided to mobs who have a template, mobs and the player who are together at the environment template, and block entities and droped items/blocks who don't have a template at all!
The entity template is a joke - it is meant only for blocks and items, and come to replace the item or block template that should be there!
Some Entities like falling sand don't have their own section in their article.
Entities have no entitySprite and EntityLink, and therefor no EntityCSS.
Entities IDs can't be found at the Data Values

The reason I finally say this is because until now we could live with that, because except mobs, the average wiki user don't think of thous entities as different from their block/item counterpart, but now experience orbs are added and where will they go? only an entity template.

I can't do this alone - I can make the nevbox template and the CSS, but not anything else, so I need help, I shell learn how to make a project in the wiki, and by tomorrow I hope it will be up - please help!--Yurisho 04:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Project is GO! Minecraft Wiki:Projects/Entities! I am disappointing thou that no one commented on me...--Yurisho 17:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You gave it a day before being disappointed? For a project like this I wouldn't expect many strong opinions before a week (with prodding). As to the idea itself, I personally see it as adding to the complexity of the wiki rather than making it more complete, since many items/blocks have entities which would then have similar page names. A possibly better alternative would be to integrate entity information into existing pages. --JonTheMon 18:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

you know what, there is something in it, I'm just so used to quick responses around here, I didn't think the likes of this will get a different treatment. For your second point - never had I though otherwise, the main point of this project is to make the templates, but the info will stay at it's main page(i.e primed TNT will still be in the TNT page, but will have another template in it for the entity and another nevbox, for entities.--Yurisho 18:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

ArmorBar update for 1.8

Just bringing to attention, in 1.8, the armorbar's position will most likely be moved to the left hand side of the screen, and the armour images are flipped. http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/605483-18-updates-update-date-revised/ That means when the 1.8 update comes, Template:Armorbar and File:Half Armor.png will need to be reversed. I just thought this might be something so small it's likely to be missed, since i searched that forum entry and no-one had brought it up. --HexZyle 04:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)