Talk: Community portal/Archive 27

The result of the discussion was shifting to Windows 10 logos as 7 is increasingly phased out. With Windows 7 officially EOL, it does not make much sense to keep this open now. Unless some software explicitly does not support Windows versions later than 7, there is no longer any reason to use Windows 7 logos for it. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 00:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I feel like the Windows icon should be changed to one that is used for Windows 10; instead of keeping the XP-7 icon. Jarl penguin (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

 Yeah. It should be the iconic icon of Windows 10, but I'm afraid other editors will argue that readers will be confused between Minecraft: Windows 10 edition and Minecraft: Java edition. If you think it is right, you can propose it in the main page's editcopy. Lê Duy Quang (Make some words | Contributions) at 12h53:20 | 1/12/2018 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose – Would cause confusion with both the Bedrock Edition and the aforementioned Windows 10 Edition. -BDJP ^(t|c) 20:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

While I agree the icon should not be that of windows XP anymore, the icon for Windows 10 is not suitable either. The edition that the icon represents, and the one the icon is clashing with, Java Edition and Bedrock Edition for Windows 10, need to be differentiated. To use distinct icons. Because the icons should be representing the edition, and not the platform it runs on. I have ideas on how to do that, but in no way can I myself because I have no graphics software to do it. But somebody should fix this once and for all, I keep seeing the two parties colliding on which icon should be used and if a new icon could be made that fits both arguments (different icon but not the old logo), both parties should be able to agree. – Jack McKalling [ ] 20:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it should represent platform instead of edition. Along with macOS, linux, etc. Cause I don't remember there is actually "Minecraft: Java Edition macOS Edition". – ItsPlantseed ⟨₰|₢⟩ 20:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Then come up with a different solution, instead of saying "no you're wrong". – Jack McKalling [ ] 20:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Everyone should be aware that there is no "Minecraft: Windows 10 Edition". It doesn't exist, there are only three or four that are considered as edition, instead it got replaced by Bedrock Edition. Thus, the icon on main page should refer to platforms instead of editions, since Bedrock and Java are also available in Windows. Windows 10 has been out for years. Using two distinct Windows logos will make other people believe that Windows 10 is representing edition in the long term, believing that the edition is still exist. I don't come up with a solution since I don't think it needed a change. – ItsPlantseed ⟨₰|₢⟩ 21:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

They should both be windows 10 as it's about the platform not the edition of the game. Both Java and bedrock can be played on Windows 10, so the logo should be the same. – Nixinova 21:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

But Java can also be played on Windows XP and higher; that’s why the confusion regarding the logo should be avoided. -BDJP ^(t|c) 21:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

If Windows version was the problem, instead of diffirentiating Windows 10 Edition with Java Edition, adding "or lower" under the Windows logo should help just fine. – ItsPlantseed ⟨₰|₢⟩ 21:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

This being discussed before, twice, (even though those discussions were for Windows 8 only, the logo hasn't changed), and is has been pointed out that there is another problem with the post-W7 logo: it is uniformly blue, thus less visible on the wiki's light blue background, and on lower resolutions, like 20px in infoboxes, it may not be sufficiently recognizable even if contrast is sufficient.

It may not be the best comparison, but I thought of comparing the issue of the "old" Windows logo with using floppy disks as icons for "Save"-like actions in software. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 22:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The main page will use the blue on yellow/red, so that point is not that relevant, and the windows 8 logo is still easily recognisable in low resolution. – Nixinova 22:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is completely superfluous and needs to be speedily closed with no changes. Why would we need to change the icon to Windows 10 in full when the following completely counters this change;

1. Java Edition is not just available for Windows 10; minimum requirements show that it works on Windows 7 or later. Heck, Java Edition isn’t even sold through the Microsoft Store.
2. Story Mode and it’s sequel already have a Windows 10 icon already to signify that the game is also available through the Microsoft Store as well as Steam; there is no need for two Windows 10 icons on those pages.
3. It has already been confirmed that Dungeons will be playable through the Java Edition launcher, so no icon change is necessary.

Think about this, why change the icon when all of the information 100% counters it? -BDJP ^(t|c) 09:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Side note; even Majr disagrees.-BDJP ^(t|c) 09:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

There's a difference between {{OS|win}}: and {{OS|win10}}: , the former refers to all Windows version in general (which is currently using the latest Windows version logo) while the latter only refers to that of Windows 10 (used for a software that isn't compatible with all Windows but ten, same for {{OS|win7}} it is used for a software that only compatible with seven). You can easily tell this difference by hovering the cursor over them, and honestly we shouldn't bother all the Windows version below 7, they are already long gone by now. If the current logo is not clear enough, we can use this file for the former which indicates Windows in general as the file description says. – ItsPlantseed ⟨₰|₢⟩ 11:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

No difference from what I can see. It’s literally the same logo, which is what needs to be prevented, and the template should never have been changed in the first place. I also  Oppose using any derivative of the Windows 10 logo. -BDJP ^(t|c) 11:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

They indeed have the same logo, but the title and the link of {{OS|win}} is different than {{OS|win10}} or {{OS|win7}}, you can literally see this by hovering over them. The logo for the general Windows version is currently using the latest Windows version logo, clearly you opposed for this because of the logo being the same, now you are opposing for the logo to change. Why should we use the Windows 7 logo for the general logo of Windows? Even the page of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia is using the Windows 10 logo since it's the latest and the most recognizable logo. Reverting the logo of {{OS|win}} to Windows 7 doesn't help either, since it'll be using the same logo as Windows 7. – ItsPlantseed ⟨₰|₢⟩ 12:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Side note: hovering doesn't exist on mobile devices. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 12:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Reverting the logo to Windows 7 will help tremendously because it will avoid confusion with the Bedrock Edition and the Microsoft Store. Many visitors to the site aren’t going to hover over a logo to figure out what the platform is, but when they see two of the same logo (e.g. Minecraft: Story Mode), they’ll definitely be confused. Visitors are catered far more than editors, and I am speaking on behalf of the wiki visitors that having two of the same logo will indeed cause confusion, and may imply that it’s only available on the Microsoft Store on Windows, of which the Java Edition and Minecraft Dungeons definitely aren’t. Story Mode is different in the fact that it’s both on Steam and the Microsoft Store, but having two of the same logo there will make visitors confused.

In addition, I’m surprised that the editors have decided to act on changing the logo with one person in support, all prior to this discussion taking place. Just complete bull. -BDJP ^(t|c) 12:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Now tell me, how will reverting the logo to Windows 7 help people differentiate between the Windows 7 and Windows in general? Even if there's no other Windows 7 logo on the page other than {{OS|win}}? You can't just assume that people will consider the Windows 7 logo as the universal Windows version, so to prevent this it's best to just change the logo to other versions that are different both from the Windows 7 and Windows 10 logos, if you are only opposing the derivative from Windows 10 logo, what about this, is this any better than the previous? – ItsPlantseed ⟨₰|₢⟩ 12:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

"Now tell me, how will reverting the logo to Windows 7 help people differentiate between the Windows 7 and Windows in general? Even if there's no other Windows 7 logo on the page other than {{OS|win}}?"

Look at the infobox in this revision; it clearly shows why the Windows 7 logo needs to be used.

And yes, I am fine with the commons logo you just showed. Windows 10 in terms of aesthetic, but Windows 7 in terms of look and design. 👍 -BDJP ^(t|c) 12:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Personally I think that the infobox on the page you referenced should've just used one logo, the Windows in general. Since the row itself says the platforms it runs on, not the place where it's on sale (such like Windows 10 logo as Windows 10 store). I still think that it should be changed to a version that uniquely represent all the Windows versions (for instance like stacking Windows logos), but I've no further suggestions as for now. – ItsPlantseed ⟨₰|₢⟩ 12:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

This ^ . The infobox is showing which operating systems the game runs on. For both Bedrock and Java, it runs on Windows. Use the generic current Windows logo.

If we were a soft drink wiki and were saying something about Pepsi being available at a specific ballpark, let's say, we wouldn't use an old logo, we'd use the current one representing the Pepsi company / product in general - the visual brand that's seen as current by the company and by the public. To use an older logo is out of sync with what ballpark visitors or wiki site visitors are familiar with in most every other current context (for Pepsi or Windows or whatever). Just as the beverage site wouldn't say "Ballpark X serves Pepsi (2014-2019)" but rather "They serve Pepsi," so too should we say "This game runs on Windows."

Unless we're documenting something that only runs on older versions of an operating system, it makes no sense to me to differentiate specific iterations of that operating system. So I  Oppose the original proposal but support replacing the logo in the infobox with the current generic Windows logo and doing away with release-specific operating system logos (i.e., Windows 10) unless there's a need to identify a particular op-sys. This has nothing to do with differentiating versions / editions of Minecraft, as far as I can see. That's a separate issue. —Memetics ^{talk | edits} 04:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Just throwing the idea out there, why not use the "current" logo and add the text "7 or above"? FVbico (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose; not the logo for Windows 7, and the text would be too small. -BDJP ^(t|c) 11:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Who said I meant in the image itself? Also that it's not windows 7 is the point, it's not 7 exclusive, it's just the latest logo of the OS, as Memetics explained in the comment chain above. FVbico (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

"it’s not 7 exclusive"

The feeling of exclusivity is what I’m trying to avoid by having the old logo. If the Windows 10 logo is used, then visitors will assume that it’s only for Windows 10. -BDJP ^(t|c) 12:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe use this logo instead? [1] Modern logo geometry with the old logo color scheme. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 12:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Was already shown in a reply above (I opposed to that one but supported this one). -BDJP ^(t|c) 12:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The thing is, when we're trying to represent windows as a whole, we should not use any existing windows logo that is used for a specific version of the OS. Because that will always mislead the reader to think it is exclusive to that version, whichever version that may be, even if it is for the newest version. I'm not sure if there is a non-version specific logo for windows, but if there is, try that one. That is the whole point of this discussion, to find a logo that is not version specific. I don't know whether any of the above suggestions are used for a specific version or not, I'm just describing what we're looking for. – Jack McKalling [ ] 13:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

No; using the Windows 7 logo will show to visitors that its for all Windows versions (we've never had any issues with it up until now), while using the Windows 10 logo will show to visitors that its exclusive to Windows 10 only. -BDJP ^(t|c) 14:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I've made a mockup of what I had in mind some time ago here: File:Jack McKalling icons.png. I post this here and immediately retire from this discussion. You guys will have to solve this problem yourselves, I tired out. – Jack McKalling [ ] 16:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose per BDJP. 174.255.8.180 14:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose as having the Windows 10 logo will cause massive confusion among readers in pages such as Story Mode and Dungeons. I regularly view these pages from time to time and when I saw that the logo was changed, I was already confused as to whether the games were exclusive to Windows 10 or not, in which I had to literally search it someplace else to know that they were not exclusive to Win10. 64.134.162.93 19:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

How is that confusion any different than if a Win7 logo is used? Microsoft uses the Win10 logo to denote "Windows" in general; using a random old logo doesn't show that it runs on most computers. Win10 is the recommended system requirement of all these games; it's just supported on older platforms. – Nixinova 20:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

For the main page, I would support keeping the updated Windows logo () in the Java Edition launcher section; for the Bedrock and Education edition sections, perhaps the icon could be similar to File:Windows 10 Mobile icon.svg (where the Windows logo is displayed with the text "Windows 10" or "Win 10" under it). –Sonicwave ^talk 00:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

For a start, I’m not really good at compromises, but this honestly just popped into my head right before I started typing.

The proposed compromise is as follows:

1. The logo stays as the Windows 7 logo for as long as possible on all Java Edition related pages / sections. If and when Windows 7 is no longer supported as a minimum requirement for Java Edition is when the logo should be changed immediately to the Windows 10 logo or some other derivative (e.g. Windows 8).
2. The logo stays as the Windows 7 logo for both Story Mode pages indefinitely. This is because the system requirements for both Story Mode games mention Windows versions older than 10, and also for the fact that Windows 10 versions of these games have been released separately.
3. The logo stays as the Windows 10 logo for Dungeons until system requirements for the game are released. If the system requirements show that the game will support Windows 7 and later, then the logo should be changed to said logo (and also for the fact a Windows 10 version might be released separately).

-BDJP ^(t|c) 05:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not a compromise, and I see you trying to sneak this change into the main page recently. Windows 7 is such an old system now that people hardly recognise it as representing "Windows" itself. Microsoft has pushed Win10 so hard and the Win10 logo is everywhere, and is the official logo for the Windows brand. There's no reason to confuse people by listing old supported versions. Nixinova  T C 01:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, like Nixinova said, this isn't a compromise. This is just what you want. The Win10 logo should be used everywhere where Win10 can be used, only using older logos when Win10 is actually not supported. Using a logo that was deprecated in 2012 makes no sense. And even aside from it being directly linked to Win10, that logo has come to represent the Windows brand as a whole, not just the specific version.

BDJP has been the only strong voice of opposition aside from a couple IPs. Everyone else who's disagreed has at least wanted to use the new logo in some capacity. I think it's time we close this discussion, and, if needed, open up a separate discussion on how we what variation of the Win10 logo to use (subtitle, colors, etc.). -PancakeIdentity (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was use unambiguously non-redundant forms. The terminology that is now expected is that objects have NBT data, named after the NBT format that is composed of NBT pairs in which NBT keys are mapped to NBT values. The term "NBT tag" should no longer be used; not just because it's redundant, but because it's unclear and could be used to refer to multiple terms in the example sentence. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 00:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

FVbico and I disagreed on Discord about whether the phrase "NBT tag" is redundant because "NBT" is an initialism for "Named Binary Tag". FVBico suggested making edits to change the phrasing so that it's grammatically correct when you substitute the expanded name in the sentence, and opined that we should do so globally on the wiki. I think that's unnecessary and even harmful in some cases. We agreed to bring the discussion to the community.

In my opinion, NBT is an initialism that has become a word with its own denotation, something that popular initialisms do frequently (often even losing their original association with a phrase, as happened to "snafu" and "radar"). When we read such an initialism, we don't ordinarily translate it into the expanded phrase, but rather conceive of it as an independent thing. It functions as a noun in a sentence (even when the original wasn't a noun phrase, e.g. "snafu"), and therefore it shouldn't be judged grammatically as if the expanded phrase were substituted for it. In the specific case of NBT, we conceive it as referring to a method of coding, not to an individual tag as the expanded phrase would suggest. I leave it to FVBico to present his point of view, obviously. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 17:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

 Yes, it is redundant; it's an instance of RAS syndrome like "ATM machine". Both of these should be avoided IMO, because of the redundant expansion. --Pokechu22 (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I would point out that the cited Wikipedia article contains a refutation by author Bill Bryson, who says "only the ultra-finicky would deplore them". – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 17:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Auldrick. Yes, it's redundant, but  No, it's not necessarily a bad form of redundancy. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 17:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

My opinion on the matter is that "NBT" could be seen as a short form of "NBT Format" which is a short form of "Named Binary Tag Format". In "NBT tag", the "NBT" doesn't mean the tag itself, but the format in which the tag is saved. (At least that's my interpretation of that.) I think using "NBT" instead of "NBT Tag" everywhere will make it more difficult to understand what's actually meant. Then again, you could just use "tag" instead of "NBT tag", but there are so many tags in Minecraft that this could get confusing as well. That's the reason why there's the "NBT" in front of it, so that you actually know what kind of tag it is.
TL;DR: my opinion would be  No | violine1101^(Talk) 20:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Just elaborating here, as already stated, "NBT tag" is a form of RAS syndrome, and the term is not short for NBT Format, but actually just "Named Binary Tag", as stated on the wiki as well. The "NBT tag" when referring to the name of a variable can easily be changed to use "key" instead, as string NBT (as in when used in commands) is actually derived from JSON format, which is key: value pairs, which is exactly the same in NBT, even block states are adressed this way, key=value pairs; when referring to the whole key:value pair, it can simply be called "the NBT". So any mention of "NBT tag" can actually easily be changed to not have RAS syndrome, while not making it hard to understand, and naming it "NBT tag" is bad grammar. FVbico (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

So you think we should say things like "NBT key" and "NBT value"? --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 20:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It would be equally clear, if not even more clear, and be grammatically correct. FVbico (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarifying, I did not say that "NBT" is short for what Violine calls "NBT Format", but that it denotes it. The difference is important. Furthermore, redundancy isn't a grammatical issue, it's a style issue. Grammar is concerned with structure, not meaning. Grammatically, "NBT tag" is an ordinary attributive noun phrase. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 21:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Being a non native English speaker I still feel "NBT tag" is a little redundant, and that just using "NBT" is not precise enough. I would opt for doing "NBT data" or "NBT key/value", as it feels correct without loosing its meaning if expanded. Holroy ^{talk◆contribs} 23:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking of that exact solution as well. Fully agreed. – Jack McKalling [ ] 09:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

But without disagreeing with Holroy here, I wanted to add/clarify that "NBT" isn't an accurate acronym for what it actually means. It stands for something what the format contains many instances of, which isn't a really good name for a format. However, using the acronym as an adjective to any noun like in "NBT tag", will have the same meaning as if you were just calling it a "Mojang tag", as it has nothing to do with what the acronym stands for but is just a plain adjective trying to differentiate what kind of tag this is. So there is an ambiguous meaning here to begin with. Although I feel this "tag" differentiation is more important than it is meaningfully common for someone to actually know what the acronym stands for, because of the many, many different kinds of "tags" that are there already, a different phrasing altogether would be best. – Jack McKalling [ ] 00:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Any further opinions? If not, this discussion kind of hit a dead end with support and opposes being balanced out.

To everyone who opposed, what do you think about replacing it with "NBT key/value" when referring to the tag name or value, and "the NBT" when referring to the full pair? FVbico (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Although I, too, find the redundancy slightly annoying (similar to "PIN number"), I feel that this is an instance of needing to honor and record the term that the Minecraft community commonly uses, rather than risk creating confusion by trying to change it. Let it remain QWERTYed into the lexicon. —Memetics ^{talk | edits} 10:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I support "NBT key" and "NBT value", but not "the NBT" because I think that's more confusing. Given you propose to use this to refer to a full pair, I propose using "NBT pair" instead. However, I'm not that proficient with Minecraft technical terminology, so this term may be inaccurate. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 20:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I can agree to that. FVbico (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

NBT tag is redundant, however, I think it has been used to such extend now, that this form of RAS syndrome has literally been petrified. Changing it now to something different would, in my opinion, raise eyebrows. This does not take away that I'd support NBT key for the tag's name and NBT value for the tag's value and NBT data for a set of NBT tags (or should I say a set of NBT key/value pairs? {so lengthy...}).

In short, NBT tag is a form of redundancy, however,   this expression has become petrified and thus I no longer consider it a redundancy. If you want to use other expressions than NBT tag, be my guest, but don't be surprised some eyebrows are raised. —DarkShadowTNT (t �� c) 20:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh yeah, "petrified". 🙃 --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 21:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Giving 1 more bumb.

I'd like to see the title of this discussion changed to match more what I actually suggest to be done (avoid it, rather than declare it redundant).

Just stating again what I'd prefer: NBT key, NBT value, NBT pair and NBT data for the tag name, tag value, key and value, and the total set of all NBT resprectively. This to avoid NBT tag, as it is used to refer to all but the last one. FVbico (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I like and  Support this suggestion. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

 Support using "NBT value", as this distinguishes a single value from, for example, the entire NBT data of a block entity. We can use "NBT data" when referring to multiple values (e.g., an entity's NBT data) which we currently label as "NBT tags". The Blobs 01:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was blank old inactive userpages. In general, if you see a userpage that you believe won't be needed by its author any time soon (given the author's long inactivity), it would be acceptable to black it, preferably using the {{InactiveUserpage}} template. I don't believe there needs to be a formal cutoff for time since last action before the user is considered inactive enough, but if there has to be one, I'd suggest 6 months. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 00:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

On the topic of cleaning up the wiki: it seems a lot of pages belonging to inactive users link to either a lot of relatively useless and outdated redirects, or straight up redlinks and missing files. Could we have the option to outright blank inactive userpages (I'd say before January 1, 2017 would be a reasonable cutoff date), removing these redlinks in the process, and possibly including a template on the page stating the action taken (similar to the box placed on inactive user talk pages)? Of course, if the user ends up returning, they can revert this blanking at will, hopefully fixing up their page in the process as well.

The only main concern I have regarding this is userpage images; removing these from the page would result in them possibly being linked to from nowhere, and would likely result in their deletion, which may be undesirable. Might be prudent to keep such images linked somehow, for example in a gallery, for their preservation, although this might not be the most visually desirable option. - User-12316399 (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

 Support, and the gallery could be wrapped in a display: none div which will render it invisible, but keep the images "used" from the engine's perspective. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 12:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I've went ahead and created Template:InactiveUserpage. I might pop it on a few of the more notorious pages later on. - User-12316399 (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to avoid performing basic maintenance on userpages such as updating/removing links to pages that have been renamed or deleted. I have no objections to simply blanking old userpages when the user hasn't edited for some time (I do it myself on another wiki I edit regularly), but I do think it should be left to the discretion of the editor performing the cleanup whether they want to just blank the page, or take the time to actually fix the issues with it (though on the gripping hand, I'd be surprised if many people chose not to blank, since blanking is much easier and faster). 「ディノ奴千？！」^{☎ Dinoguy1000} 11:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Considering changing the cutoff date to August 1, 2018 (from January 1, 2017); this will cover all userpages created before the Update Aquatic and therefore before the removal of numeric IDs. Any objections? - User-12316399 (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if this is still relevant but seems good,  Support. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was implement the proposal. The categories have been disbanded

The concept of "raw materials" is mentioned at Template:Items, Item#Raw_materials, and Category:Raw materials; however it doesn't appear to be a distinction made in-game. Each page also categorizes items differently (Template:Items lists glass bottles and sticks as raw materials, while the Items page puts them under manufactured).

The Items page has "Raw materials are used for crafting, brewing, and smelting other items and blocks.", but that can include anything that's used in a recipe, such as bows being used to craft dispensers. The category page says "Raw resources in Minecraft used to create other resources", which is also somewhat vague.

In my opinion, the "raw materials" classification should be defined better if we decide to keep them in the first place. I'm thinking something like "Items and blocks used for crafting, brewing, and smelting other items and blocks, and are not themselves craftable or smeltable", which would exclude things like bows. However I'm not sure if "raw materials" or "manufactured" is necessary in the first place. Many other items that fit into either category (e.g. green dye or arrows) are placed in more specific categories instead, leaving only 10-20 items in the "manufactured" category. There could simply be a "miscellaneous" category instead, which might be less confusing. –Sonicwave ^talk 22:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Support removing the concept of "raw materials". Doesn't make much sense given a lot of very different things can become "raw materials", and the common definition for the class seems arbitrary and useless: what really depends on whether an item is a "raw material" or not? --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 19:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

 Support Several months ago, I proposed replacing several of the item classifications, including raw materials and manufactured, and with a simple list of all items. I think they are unnecessary and have vague definitions. So I would support just about anything that involves removing item classifications. an_awsome_person (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

 Support removal of both raw materials and manfuactured classifications. -BDJP ^(t|c) 03:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The method we should go with is automatic categorisation based off values in the infobox, e.g. add [[Category:{{{type|}}}]] to {{Items}}. That would be easy to deal with and less vague. – Nixinova 04:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any reason we can't go ahead with disbanding that category. No objections and no arguments against, with substantial arguments for it. Anyone up for the task? --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 21:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Could also get rid of passive/neutral/hostile mobs classification while we're at it... --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 22:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Can we remove block classifications (plants, mechanisms, utility, etc.), too? an_awsome_person (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

 Support - and I support replacement of hostile/neutral/passive with expanded overview text instead. Also block classifications, unless someone has good reasons why they should be kept. —Memetics ^{talk | edits} 11:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I can edit the infobox templates, but can I remove the classifications on the block and item pages? I want to replace them with a table of all blocks or all items, like what I have on my user page right now. an_awsome_person (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Since the parameter is now removed, could a bot be made to remove it from all of the pages that it still currently exists on (as well as other deprecated parameters, namely gravity=, dirt=, and sunlight=)? - User-12316399 (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was inconclusive. There appears to be no interest in this project.

Bit of an odd proposal, but what if we added voice overs for pages? Wikipedia has something similar to this with the "listen to this article" feature, and I'd figure it be good for accessibility reasons. (if it's already added, feel free to let me know) ggtylerr (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not against it, but I don't really see how it's valuable. The corresponding wikipedia project is neat, but for accessibility at least I don't think it matters too much since screen readers (e.g. the narrator thing built into windows) exist and we don't use much in the way of special characters that it might break. IMO, the old video overviews of article content are more useful, just because they could also illustrate what's going on. (Of course, I myself just really prefer text to speak, since I can skim over text much faster. So I'm biased.) --Pokechu22 (talk)

It's my understanding that modern text-to-speech readers also benefit from the use of multi-level headings, which enables the user to navigate the page (the reader reads aloud the index of headings). Without headings, the person has to listen to the entire page to find what they're looking for. Much better to skim through the headings first. —Memetics ^{talk | edits} 11:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Screen readers are in no way superior than anyone who would devote their time into making a decent voiceover of an article. Artificial intelligence as of now canʼt understand the articleʼs topic and structure and will inevitably make errors. Also, some info best presented as text will have to be changed to fit for audibility. Iʼm not against the idea, but may it be worth the effort? Might be worth a try though. — BabylonAS ru.Wiki Admin 06:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

How about more updated/accurate videos? :3 Marinah (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thatʼs a way harder thing and surely not worth the effort. Updating voiceovers is much easier if organized properly. — BabylonAS ru.Wiki Admin 06:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was use present tense when referring to releases/versions/updates in introductions.

Recently the Java Edition 1.14 and other versions' pages were modified to switch the tense of the lead section to the past. But I don't agree with this. I'm convinced the text about what the update does should be present simple perspective, and just the release date part of it in the past. Because only the release of an update lies in the past, everything else about the update is present. Anyone can choose any version of the game to play at anytime they want, using launcher profiles, so it doesn't make sense to force the contents of an update to reside in the "past", it will confuse the perspective even if it is supposedly in a player's present or even future. Present simple is the default for this. For example, in my opinion it should be phrased like:

1.14, the first release of Village & Pillage, is a major update to Java Edition that was released on April 23, 2019. It focuses mainly on villages, adds (...)

Just because the update happened in the past, doesn't mean its content is as well. It is a product that is still available right now, and so is its content. Like a car, it may have been designed in the past, but it can still be bought right now. Pinging Nixinova, as you were involved in this edit (series). – Jack McKalling [ ] 08:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Present tense for me. The argument that it shouldn't use present after it released is wrong, since it should be in future tense until it releases ("will add", "will focus", etc) if not present. Past tense just seems silly. --Pokechu22 (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Present if the version of the game is currently accessible and playable (e.g. through the launcher). If we're talking about a future update, then we use future tense, and if the version is lost/unavailable, past tense. - User-12316399 (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you both then also agree that the part about the release date should always be past tense though, unless of course it hasn't happened yet? – Jack McKalling [ ] 16:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

"1.14 is an update to Java Edition that was released in 2019." That does make sense, so it should be past tense if is/was is present and referring to a past date. - User-12316399 (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the release date should be in past tense, "was released", and anything directly related to the release probably should be too; however attributes of the update itself should be present IMO. The closest example elsewhere I can think of is television episodes — pulling up a random one from wikipedia (Gridlock (Doctor Who)), with present tense in blue and past tense in red:

I think the same style makes perfect sense here as well. --Pokechu22 (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Present per Pokechu22. -BDJP ^(t|c) 16:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Past. The update is in past tense—the version isn't being "updated" anymore—but if you then say "1.7 is a version of Java Edition" that is fine. It also doesn't make sense to have one word in present tense while the rest of the paragraph is in past. "1.x was an update to Java Edition released on x y z that added a b c d and e" reads better than "1.x is an update released". – Nixinova 19:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The difference between version and "update" is irelevant in my opinion here, as we're documenting the version of the game anyway. How it works, how it looks, what it has, what it does, and what it thinks, if that were a thing. In other words, the page is describing the product, not the event. For the reason that readers will be reading and interpreting it as a version of the game, and not as a point in time when stuff happened. – Jack McKalling [ ] 19:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

present per Pokechu's example, as that's exactly how I understand the tense of iteratively released content which remains available. – Sealbudsman talk | contribs 22:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Why haven't we reached consensus yet about this? Nixinova, you're the only one so far who wants to put everything in past tense. In my example above, I'm using past tense for the date-related aspect of the update, and put the content it contains in present tense. This is what I think is the best way, and all others who have replied to this discussion so far. Do you have any argument against this suggestion other than your preference? – Jack McKalling [ ] 07:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I still prefer past tense. 1.4.2 was a major update to Minecraft (Java Edition) released on October 25, 2013, which added a number of new mobs... reads much better than 1.4.2 is a major update to Minecraft (Java Edition) that was released on October 25, 2013, which adds a number of new mobs.... When you say "update" you think of something new – this update occured many years ago, and as such using past tense sounds better. – Nixinova 08:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

How about we don't call it "update" but just "version"? Would you then agree on the tense used in my suggestion above? You're completely ignoring the argument that the content of a release is not exclusive to the past, but is still available. Keeping all content described as happened in past tense is confusing some people and we need to address that. Your argument is purely your own preference, and I can't think of a different way to address that too. – Jack McKalling [ ] 08:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Grammatically, the correct construction was illustrated by Pokechu22 in the Doctor Who example, which shows the use of past tense for things that happened as an event at a point in the past but are not still happening in the present, and present tense for things that still exist in the present (exactly as the grammar of this sentence you're reading demonstrates). So it just depends on what we're saying. It works in both contexts for a specific version of Minecraft: The version was released at a specific point in the past, and it is a playable version of the game in the present. The game was designed in a specific way, and it is fun to play.

To take Jack's example specifically: To say "1.14, the first release of Village & Pillage, was a major update to Java Edition that was released on April 23, 2019. It focused mainly on villages, [...]" grammatically means that it no longer is a major update to Java edition and that it no longer focuses mainly on villages (etc.), neither of which is true.

Using the correct tense is a matter of accuracy of expression, therefore, as well as of following the conventions of formal written English, so I don't think this can be considered an opinion-based discussion (unless we're of the opinion that we should make inaccurate statements or violate general linguistic conventions for some specific purpose). —Memetics ^{talk | edits} 07:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not my example, you switched it around. Are you saying what I wrote was the correct one, seeing it follows the same construct as the Gridlock example? I'm confused. – Jack McKalling [ ] 08:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I was not saying what you wrote was correct; I believe I was using your example as the starting point but applying past and present tenses to illustrate how the incorrect tense causes problems and to show which tense is grammatically and factually accurate in the various contexts. Thought I explained this sufficiently in the previous post; sorry if the wording in how I introduced those examples was confusing. —Memetics ^{talk | edits} 07:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd say this topic reached a pretty good consensus. We really only have one person opposing this. Do we have the go-ahead to change pages to reflect the same the present tense style (per Pokechu22 and Memetics's examples)? -PancakeIdentity (talk) 02:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there a difference between Pokechu's and Memetic's example and mine? Anyway, there is now a project that includes this work amongst other stuff, see new hatnote. – Jack McKalling [ ] 08:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was infobox animations are now more controllable; the radio button part is not implemented. Especially given Majr's inactivity and this topic's inactivity, with UCP, implementation of substantial projects should be put on hold. Specifics on infobox customizability for desktop and/or mobile are yet unclear.

Just a thought. For an example, take Wool. Can we have the infobox display the white wool render by default (static), then have it switch to whatever render is associated with the invslot the user clicks? Such as if the red wool invslot is clicked, display the red wool render as the main image, and the same for all other variants.

I think this is better than having an unstoppable and uncontrollable animation of 16 images. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 21:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I like the idea, though accessibility is a concern (though equally, invslot has accessibility issues which I brought up on a module talk page that nobody seems to have noticed). But, ignoring that, maybe it'd be best to have the animation automatically cycle, but clicking an individual image would set it to that one and stop the cycling? --Pokechu22 (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Since you've brought it up, I do remember that when I was a reader of the MCW who knew nothing about how it worked from the technical side, I found it annoying that some block images were replaced by others before I could take a good look at them. I'd definitely support fixing this, but I'm not sure how. I'm a bit skeptical of having only one image appear unless the reader clicks an InvSlot; something like Pokechu's idea might work better, though if we replaced the left-clicking an image functionality with stopping the cycling, that wouldn't allow the easy maneuver to the file's own page, which could be problematic.--Madminecrafter12 ^{(Talk to me | View what I've done)} 22:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

What if on hover of the invslots and the infobox image itself, the animation stops indefinitely, but immediately resumes again when moused out (or alternatively, the animation automatically resumes again after a longer interval than currently)? And then on click of the infobox image it of course opens its file page, and onclick of the invslots it switches out the infobox image as the original suggestion. – Jack McKalling [ ] 22:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Nice idea, Jack, that solves all of my concerns.  Support!--Madminecrafter12 ^{(Talk to me | View what I've done)} 23:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I like this and I think it'd be more obvious behavior-wise, but I'm not sure about accessibility. Would it make sense to have clicking on the images in the invslot simply open the file itself, the same way as the one in the infobox works? Granted I'm not sure if it's too big a deal, and people have been able to live with the current inaccessible version this long. --Pokechu22 (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

 Support original proposal if this is possible to do. – Nixinova 23:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

 Support Jack's idea or original proposal. This is one of the most annoying aspects of the wiki, imo. Some kind of fix is desirable! —Memetics ^{talk | edits} 07:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

 Support Jack's idea or original proposal. Although what about entities like Wolf or Cat? – Sealbudsman talk | contribs 05:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

 Support Jack’s idea or original proposal. -BDJP ^(t|c) 07:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Jack's idea (22:52, 8 May 2019) gets implemented? Presuming someone knows how to code that. —Memetics ^{talk | edits} 23:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

We can pretty much reuse the code that pauses animations for crafting recipes on hover, for other animations (I'm thinking a generic class to apply to any container that should pause animations when hovered). Having the image change based on the invslot however is not so easy. The naive approach of just showing frame 1 for invslot 1 would be very simple and work for many cases. But many wouldn't. Wood has two rows of invslots and images, so it would have to only change the image 1 for row 1 and image 2 for row 2. Potion has a bunch of rows, but only one image. Bell has a multiple frames and images rows, but only one invslot. Bed has a whole set of invslots for BE that are only different in the inventory, not the world so there's no different image to show. In other words, you'd need a way to assign specific slot(s) to specific image(s), and handle cases where there's slots without corresponding images, and images where there aren't corresponding slots. It'd be a nice feature to have, but it's just not simple to set up properly. –Majr ᐸ Talk
Contribs 07:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Hovering over the image area of an infobox will pause all animations in it now (and you can define any element with animations in it as the container for pausing by adding the animated-container class to it). As for implementing changing the image on hovering an inventory icon, that still needs a viable solution to link related images and inventory images together. –Majr ᐸ Talk
Contribs 07:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was to implement the suggested change.

The texture update highlighted a long-standing issue caused by our current method of updating textures, where we upload over a render with the new version, then reupload the old version somewhere else (seem to be using "Revision X" currently, but the naming scheme is irrelevant right now). This is great for updating all the places the image is used in most cases, but when it comes to historical places such as history sections, removed feature pages, and the texture update page itself, this actually causes a problem as we should've kept the original image. Someone now needs to find all those locations and update them to use the newly uploaded revision file, so it goes back to the correct version. This issue was a real big problem on the texture update page, where it was using the current render for the "old" column and a TextureUpdate version for the "updated" column, which then all broke when the original files were overwritten with the texture update versions, and required changing all the "old" column to revision files, and the TextureUpdate files in the "updated" column are now all duplicates of the original file, which should be removed.

As such, I propose we move all current renders to whatever name we would've used for the current version had the texture been changed (don't bikeshed about the naming scheme here, we can decide that elsewhere if people aren't happy with whatever we're using now), and leave the original name as a redirect. When a texture is changed, we just upload a new revision file, and update the redirect to point to the new revision. That way all pages that want the latest version will get it via the redirect, and historical places will keep using the revision file directly.

For example: we would move Grass Block.png to Grass Block Revision 6.png, leaving a redirect and continue using Grass Block.png in places it should update, but use Grass Block Revision 6.png in the history entries about the texture update, so those won't break in the future. If the texture is changed again, we'd upload Grass Block Revision 7.png and update the Grass Block.png redirect to point to it.

I would also recommend we standardise on linking all the different revisions of a texture on each file page, so you can navigate them easily, and add a note (on the redirect page too) about using e.g.: [[File:Grass.png]] when you want a file that updates with the game, and [[File:Grass Revision X.png]] when you want the file to stay the same.

The only issue I see with this is I'm assuming redirects don't work for shared repositories, so language wikis relying on these images will be missing them until they create redirects themselves or upload the images locally. That being said, while the shared repo is a useful crutch for new language wikis first starting up so they don't need to duplicate all the files, it is not something that should be relied on long-term as it's prone to being broken due to our files being modified to work for our own articles, as it's not practical to check in with every wiki to see if a file can be modified. –Majr ᐸ Talk
Contribs 15:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

A big part of this project has been changing history sections to be correct as well. I honestly don't see what's wrong with the current system as long as we're vigilant about updating things, and your way just seems like the current way but more complicated. And it doesn't even make sense. If you move a page, the redirect redirects there, not an old version of the page. In my opinion, the file named "grass block" or whatever should always have the most recent version of the texture on it, and the current system seems like a good way to do that. If you (or anyone else) sees an incorrect history page, fix it! That's the beauty of a publicly editable wiki. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

So you mean Grass Block.png would redirect to Revision 6?  Strong support. This would be a much better method than having all these duplicated files. – Nixinova 19:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

My problem is that I feel that people should be able to link Grass Block.png and always have it show the latest texture. I might be missing something here though. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The proposal says redirect the non-revision version to the latest revision, so you'd be able to do that. FVbico (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh alright, I see. Thank you!  Support -PancakeIdentity (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

 Support. FVbico (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting idea, the author deserves praise for creatively solving technical challenges.  Support. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 21:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Full  Support. Complete solution to a troublesome problem, no counter-arguments. Also thanks for the clear examples, that cleared up a bit of misunderstanding, as "just upload a new revision file" was ambiguous for me, and I understand now that you're talking about texture revision, not a revision of the file's page. – Jack McKalling [ ] 11:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Great idea!  Support. —Memetics ^{talk | edits} 05:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I have moved File:Grass Block.png, put the text explaining the redirect with a table of all revisions on the redirect and revision pages (this would obviously need to be made into templates), and updated the relevant history section, as an example of how it would work. If an update made a change to how the grass block looked, you would upload File:Grass Block Revision 7.png, update the redirect at File:Grass Block.png to point to the new file, and add the new file to the table (kept on the first revision file page, as you can't transclude the content of a redirect page). All pages using the redirect would update to the latest revision as usual, but you don't need to update any history sections as they will keep using the previous revision file directly. If this looks good we can convert the text and table into templates and start moving files. –Majr ᐸ Talk
Contribs 06:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Also: incredibly, redirects work over a shared repo (e.g.: cs:File:Grass Block.png), so that's not a concern any more. –Majr ᐸ Talk
Contribs 07:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, yes! That looks amazing; I'd say definitely do that for all infobox images! FVbico (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I would fully  Support using this format on all renders. – Nixinova 02:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's get this done! FVbico (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was to amend the style guide to allow second-person in tutorial articles.

I've noticed that there has been a relatively recent effort (i.e. within the last year) to remove "you" from Tutorial pages and replace such instances with "they" or "the player". While I do think that normal feature pages should not use second person point of view, I disagree that using second person on tutorial pages is harmful. The whole point of a tutorial page is to instruct the reader how to do something, so using third person does not make much sense to me. As I've briefly looked around tutorial pages, I've noticed weirdly-worded sentences quite commonly and I can't come up with good ways to rewrite them. Here are two examples from Tutorials/Your first 10 minutes:

"It is best to create a temporary landmark to indicate your spawn location before the player moves at all". This sentence is addressed directly to the player at the beginning of the sentence, but then refers to the player in third person, causing inconsistency. It could be changed to "It is best for the player to create a temporary landmark to indicate their spawn location before they move at all", but again, it doesn't seem right to be constantly referring to the player in third person when the whole point of a tutorial is to teach the reader how to do something.

"If the player still does not see trees, then start collecting sand (as much as they can get) for 20 seconds, then move on". Same circumstance as above, inconsistent POV usage. Could be changed to "If the player still does not see trees, then they should start collecting sand", but again the whole point of such a sentence is to instruct the reader themselves to do something, so why would it be in third person?

I'd be happy to see what other users think about this. I understand that a lot of users may not end up agreeing with me. But I do want to make sure that if we do end up deciding that despite tutorials being addressed to the reader they should always be in third person, we clear all tutorial pages of structural and grammatical mistakes in articles (e.g. "Keep the player's eyes and ears open for animals in the "First 10 minutes" tutorial), as well as change commands such as "Punch wood from a nearby tree" to "The player should punch wood from a nearby tree". Currently, there is a large amount of inconsistency in POV amongst tutorial pages which really needs to be fixed. Thanks, --Madminecrafter12 ^{(Talk to me | View what I've done)} 15:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Noting that if we do end up deciding that "you" is preferred over "the player" in tutorial pages, we need to clarify that in the style guide, which currently says "Articles in the main namespace should always be written in the third-person perspective and without terms referential to the reader".--Madminecrafter12 ^{(Talk to me | View what I've done)} 15:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

 Support changing tutorials to second person and adding this as a style guideline. I have no objections against the provided argumentation on the purpose of tutorials. (To future posters: please note that whether tutorials should be moved somewhere else is off-topic and should not be discussed here.) --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 17:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Support usage of second person ("you") in tutorials, but not articles. I oppose being strict about this, however. There are times when "a player" is preferable to "you" even in tutorials, depending on the context. ~ Amatulic (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, to clarify, I'm not saying tutorials should never use "the player", but it generally should be and there should definitely be consistency in the same sentence (unless, of course, the tutorial is talking about something regarding other players or similar scenarios).--Madminecrafter12 ^{(Talk to me | View what I've done)} 13:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

 Support "you" on tutorial pages. I suggest to amend the existing style guideline to phrase Tutorials as just an exception to the rule. We don't know how to make Tutorials exclusively use either one or the other style, so just state that it's not exclusive there like it is on regular articles. – Jack McKalling [ ] 12:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

If this proposal does end up passing, how about adding the following sentence to the second paragraph of the style guide?

"The exception to this is tutorial pages, where in most cases "you" is the most appropriate pronoun to use when referring to the player."

Improvement suggestions are welcome.--Madminecrafter12 ^{(Talk to me | View what I've done)} 13:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

That sounds perfect to me. ~ Amatulic (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Good, that's what I meant exactly. – Jack McKalling [ ] 13:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

If no one objects soon, I'll add the sentence to the style guide and start changing the pronouns on tutorial pages.--Madminecrafter12 ^{(Talk to me | View what I've done)} 13:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Late  Support on being lax on nth-person grammar in tutorials. – Nixinova 00:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, added to the style guide.--Madminecrafter12 ^{(Talk to me | View what I've done)} 01:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Also late to the party, but I  Support consistency here over which grammatical person to be consistent with. (Violations of parallel structure and shifts in person make me cringe as a reader.) We should go with whatever person makes sense for each specific tutorial page. —Memetics ^{talk | edits} 11:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

 50 – 50:

 Agree on consistency of using only one perspective.

 Disagree on using second-person perspective. Information on this site are for everyone, there is a pretty great chance that someone looks the wiki up to supply information to another person, thus the looking up one is obviously should not be referred as "you".

Lê Duy Quang (Make some words | Contributions) at 13h54:53 | 4/9/2019 (UTC)

If someone is reading the tutorial to help someone else, they will usually refer to the other person as "you". Writing tutorials this way will match what the readers would say. The Blobs 14:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was prevent IPs from creating non-talk pages and disable the page creation abuse filter.

It has been proposed that our current system of filtering out undesired new pages, which allows IPs to create redirects (and this has been abused several times recently) and sometimes incorrectly prohibits new users from creating pages, is replaced with a simpler one:

All additional page creation restrictions from new users are removed. IPs are completely disallowed to create any pages.

In addition, this far simpler system can be implemented as a group right change. While this would require wiki manager access, IPs will automatically be told that they can't create pages, and abuse filter logs will be less flooded with nonsense.

This system has been implemented as a group right change on Terraria Wiki and as an abuse filter on Minecraft Wiki (Russian), in neither case causing any significant problems.

Since this is a group right change or an abuse filter equivalent, it would not be inappropriate to let the community comment on this suggestion. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 18:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

 Support This current system doesn't really work. The admin noticeboard has many false positives and special:log/delete has many of those redirect pages. – Nixinova 19:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

 This does make sense, but I think there should also be a way for IPs to propose new pages that they themselves have created without having to request them on talk pages. - User-12316399 (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

We could have something like Wikipedia:WP:Requested articles. ~ Amatulic (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

 Support the creation of Minecraft Wiki:Requested articles. A page like that would be very useful for IPs to propose new pages. 46.132.188.46 07:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose the creation of that page. Would be hardly used (this is Minecraft, with limited topic coverage, not Wikipedia which covers everything) and if an IP really wants a page made they can just make an account. – Nixinova 07:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose per Nixinova. -BDJP ^(t|c) 14:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

 Support I would already have signed up if you could just register in Minecraft Wiki. But you have to sign up to Gamepedia, which ask you to sign up to... Twitch. Seriously. I have principles. Hence I want "Requested articles" to be created. 78.193.28.136 09:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

 Support although I prefer to see the English Wikipedia's additional restriction of not allowing page creations for users who aren't confirmed. Auto-confirmation (a group right) seems to happen here immediately after creating an account. On en-wiki, you are confirmed (and can create pages) after your account is at least 4 days old and you have made at least 10 edits. Here, we could do 2 days and 5 edits. A positive side effect is that a new user can still create a new page in his/her sandbox (on en-wiki a new user can also create pages in Draft space). By the time the page is ready, the user will have enough time and edits built up to move the sandbox article to main space. ~ Amatulic (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, autoconfirmation cannot be configured on Gamepedia due to the authentication mechanism used. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 08:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@AttemptToCallNil: I have run across pages on this wiki that requires autoconfirmation status. So I thought if the protection level is available, and it's a configurable user right, I figured it was something that could be set up. ~ Amatulic (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

By that I meant the following: Gamepedia's auth system makes it so that all logged-in users are autoconfirmed, and no additional restrictions (like 4 days since registration and 10 edits) can be imposed. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 15:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

 Support per above. -BDJP ^(t|c) 14:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

 Support; if implemented as a group right change, this would be clearer for IPs than the current abuse filter system. (I assume this would apply to all non-talk namespaces and not talk pages.) –Sonicwave ^talk 23:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

 Support, assuming this doesn't apply to talk pages. If we have spam issues, a simpler filter to add in addition would be just preventing a user's first edit being a page creation, as I'd assume most spambots won't bother trying to make an edit before making a spam page. –Majr ᐸ Talk
Contribs 05:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

 Support original proposal. I don't think we need Minecraft Wiki:Requested articles, though. —Memetics ^{talk | edits} 11:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The permission change would be fine by me. It would prevent IPs from creating non-talk pages. Talk pages can still be created by IPs normally.   MarkusRost (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done, IPs can no longer create non-talk pages.   MarkusRost (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was the questions were answered. The topic-starter got the information they needed to perform the desired task. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 18:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there a tool like the Wikipedia page view stats for this Minecraft Wiki?

I thought I'd look at the top-viewed pages to see if they need cleanup. One thing I've been doing is changing future tense to present tense, as has been discussed. Today I finished doing that for Villager and a few other articles I thought might be highly visible. ~ Amatulic (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no such tool for Gamepedia wikis available publicly. The only tool that allows to access views per page is the administrator tool showing statistics about the wiki. And from it it could be gathered that the most viewed pages in last 30 days are to no surprise Villager, Enchanting, Brewing, Blast Furnace, Conduit, Java Edition 1.14, Composter and so on. Frisk (Talk page) 08:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

There used to be a special page for the most viewed pages, but it was improved and added to a ton, and got admin-only. Somewhere within the last 7 years. It's now indeed called Statistics, I've noticed this change myself too on my own wiki. – Jack McKalling [ ] 14:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Frisk: Thanks. That short list you provided is good enough for now. I figured Villager was near the top, but I'm surprised Blast Furnace is in the top 10.

@Jack McKalling: Special:Statistics doesn't show page views but it does show other interesting information. ~ Amatulic (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh woops, I meant Special:Analytics, not statistics. – Jack McKalling [ ] 09:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Yes, that page isn't visible to me. Anyway, I've corrected the verb tense in all the articles in the short list you provided, as well as others. ~ Amatulic (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was the user was provided with relevant information.

Bug reports often have spelling or grammatical errors in them, or in other ways just don't comply with the general style of wiki writing. I've seen many bug reports that have been changed on version pages to fit the style guide and others that haven't. To what extent should we fix errors in these titles? -PancakeIdentity (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and basically the titles can be freely edited to match the style guide. – Nixinova 05:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't completely change the meaning of course. – Jack McKalling [ ] 07:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was the issue was addressed. The pages were changed to use the JS-based page loader and no longer display Lua errors. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 18:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The New Village Blueprints page is broken, and I'm trying to determine the correct/best way to fix it. It seems the page has reached some threshold where the wiki won't process templates anymore. Most of the page is fine, but the last several blueprints on the page just show the template name instead of actually rendering the BlockSprite or other templates correctly. When previewing individual sections instead of viewing the whole page at once, the templates work fine. My instinct would be to either make each village type loadable on demand the way the blueprints currently are, or split each village into its own page (plains village page, desert village page, etc). However, I was hoping to get a bit of guidance before making a large-scale change like that. -Aronson 1 (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd make all blueprints load on demand as only some of the blueprints are now. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 17:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes that's a good start. There aren't that many blueprints directly on the page and there are still a good number of Taiga and Snowy buildings left to add (which have their own material tables) so I'm worried we'll run into this again, but I suppose we can deal with that if/when it happens. --Aronson 1 (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Ocean Ruins/Structure seems to suffer from the same problem, with most of the blueprints just reading "#invoke: layered blueprint" instead of displaying the actual template. 46.132.188.41 06:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems to show up fine in the edit window but not when on the page itself. Weird. – Nixinova 06:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The blueprint template is very expensive. It shouldn't be "spammed" on one page that often like that. – Jack McKalling [ ] 07:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was inconclusive. A long-since-inactive topic, not apparent whether the topic starter's issues have been addressed.

Hello everyone! I come from the Portuguese Minecraft Wiki. Should we can use the file from other Minecraft Wiki in our Minecraft Wiki? For example: by using [[:pt:File:exemplo.png]] on English Wiki, will show the exemplo.png file from the Portuguese Wiki. I don't know if you understand me, but is like MediaWiki Commons is related with (every) Wikipedia. It'll be awesome for minor Minecraft Wikis. Thank you! --Dr03ramos (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

This wiki is a shared repository for language wikis, so other wikis can use images from here but not vice versa. – Nixinova 05:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but is still necessary make re-uploads in the other wikis. seria melhor sem uploads, como no wikimedia commons. --Dr03ramos (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was redirect texture-only items/blocks to "Unused features" pages.

What do you guys think of the pages about blocks/items that are limited to only having textures in the game's files getting pages? Something about it seems wrong to me, like its super speculative or something. I personally think these pages shouldn't be made and the texture references put somewhere else. -EatingSilencerforBreakfast (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I am also opposed to such pages. They should just be sections in the unused features pages. The Blobs 01:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I have turned those pages into redirects while retaining the page content so that it can be quickly fixed when they are implemented. Nixinova  T C 07:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was proposal approved. Further discussion can be done at the video project page or in the #wiki-videos Discord channel. –Sonicwave ^talk 00:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I know, hear me out first.

I propose we create new videos for all pages that cover certain topics, and update them if new things need to be mentioned/changed.

The videos would have to be voiced by active members, or administrators/directors on the wiki (preferably the latter) in order to keep it in a similar line with other videos.

Editors on the wiki would be able to assist with the creation of the videos (unlike with mcspotlights) by providing scripts and or note things that definitely need to be shown/talked about.

Speaking of scripts, we could save them on a semi-protected subpage for confirmed editors to assist with (eg Creeper/video_script). These pages would need to follow a format to be consistent, but that's up for discussion.

The videos would need to be uploaded to a wiki youtube channel, and not a personal one; all admins should have access to this channel, as well as a few select editors.

Who here thinks this is a good idea and would like to assist with it?

People willing to help out

Voice recording

• FVbico

Video recording

• FVbico
• Nixinova

Video editing

• DarkShadowTNT
• Nixinova

Script providing

• DarkShadowTNT (unsure as of now)

Subtitle Translator

• User-12316399 (English (United Kingdom))
• Eduaddad (Portuguese)
• Dr03ramos (Portuguese)

Subtitling/Transcriptor

• leduyquang753

If you like to help out, please add yourself to the sections above. FVbico (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: some clairifications after internal discussions:

• Not only admins would have power over the channel, trusted regular editors would be asked as well.
• The channel would not be limited to only english videos explaining game content, but also other languages (if they chose to do so) and other wiki related videos (such as talking about upcoming changes to the wiki, or recent changes to, eg, the style guide).
• Subtitles would be able to be suggested by anyone, but would need to be checked by the people who have power over the channel, either by someone who knows the language, or someone who puts it through a translator to see if it pretty much matches with what's said.
• We will not take an existing channel, but instead create one depending on the outcome of this discussion.

I hope this clears things a bit up, and I'll extend this list of small decisions/clairifications as the topic gets discussed. FVbico (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Note that these videos are likely to end up mostly useless for non-English readers, and non-English editors may be unable to record their own versions as this requires very substantial effort. I believe the German wiki is the only other one which will ever be able to create something similar. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 15:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

(Thanks for the spelling fix, missed that one.) True, but youtube videos support subtitles, which can be suggested by anyone as well; so other language wiki admins/editors could suggest subtitles. FVbico (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Subtitles are a very interesting idea. That means I no longer have substantial objections against videos. Just wondering, what does providing scripts involve? --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 16:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The scripts would be the text which'd be spoken in the video, along with notes on what to show, where to put emphasise on, etc. It wouldn't be the same as the article itself, which'd go in much more detail. FVbico (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm willing to edit videos. Perhaps I could make a script once in a blue moon, but I'm not quite sure about that yet (which is why I put my username in small font in that section). —DarkShadowTNT (t ♦ c) 23:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I also suggest adding subtitles in another language (in my Portuguese case that I can translate)--Eduaddad _(talk) pt.Wiki Administrator 16:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion subtitles should be translated by administrators of their respective Minecraft Wiki languages ​​and subtitles should not be available for translation on YouTube --Eduaddad _(talk) pt.Wiki Administrator 17:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Good point, or at least constructive wiki members. FVbico (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

We need to establish a subtitle submission method (for example: Discord Channel, Google Drive Folder, Minecraft Wiki Page) --Eduaddad _(talk) pt.Wiki Administrator 17:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Youtube has a function for the community to support with translation. just need to enable it. --Dr03ramos (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

If approved, this can become a project --Dr03ramos (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I personally don't think we should include history information within the videos, since it isn't included anywhere in the main article outside of the History section. Also, will we have to make new videos for everything once an update hits? - User-12316399 (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It wouldn't, as that's not relevant to the viewers anymore, also "and update them if new things need to be mentioned/changed". FVbico (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd be up for captioning videos in English UK if I can figure out how the youtube caption system actually works. - User-12316399 (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a bit quiet here, perhaps an example should be made to better get responses? An easy to cover one is the parity issue list.

If anyone has anything else to say about this that's not uncertain depending on how the videos would turn out, you can already say it. FVbico (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's start finding out why we can't really make anything like that making videos, no? I can help with writing scripts and Russian subtitles (both with big maybe). --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 22:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the channel's name is pretty important such as " Minecraft Wiki". Since the videos are not supervised by Mojang, we should be pretty careful on the name chosen.--skylord_wars (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Created a project page for it now: Minecraft Wiki:Projects/Wiki videos. FVbico (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it's best not to recycle an existing account, and instead make a new one. FVbico (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

(Split off discussion) What do others think, recycle that channel, or create a new one? FVbico (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I propose creating a new channel. First, there is the matter of ownership, which I believe would need to be transferred to a more involved wiki participant (like what happened with the Discord server). Additionally (and I believe this to be more important), I find it weird that this channel has no content and over 72 thousand subscribers. If this is a result of some manipulation, it could open the channel to sanctions in the future, which would be completely unacceptable if the channel hosts our videos. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 18:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I suggest a new channel like "MinecraftWiki". This generic name would open up the channel for more than one purpose, promote itself for the wiki specifically, it would be recognisable and official, and I agree it needs to be owned by an involved wiki editor/ranked editor. It would be nice if we could share ownership of it though, within the/a group of video-creators on the wiki. – Jack McKalling [ ] 07:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd also prefer if we started a new channel; it would probably seem strange to readers for the channel to already have 72,000+ subscribers with only a few recently uploaded videos. The current subscribers of that channel might not be expecting (English) Minecraft content, depending on what type of videos (if any) used to be uploaded there. –Sonicwave ^talk 00:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I also think it. --Dr03ramos (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

If we have more support/people willing to help out, I'll make the channel then, but until such time, it's best to wait, as this proposal might not launch still. FVbico (talk) 06:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was issue resolved.

Please make the "codes" for Minecraft PE. I'm having trouble understanding because I play on PE. -Person with no name (I made it like this) 47.41.196.213 03:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The block and item IDs (both numerical IDs and namespaced IDs) can be found here. If I misunderstood your question, please clarify. The Blobs 04:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was implement the amendment. "Screenshots with old textures" is now a maintenance category

Since Java Edition 1.14, the textures are changed and many screenshots got outdated. I hope people can upload the new versions with new textures. Opinions about support this or keep the original images (don't update the screenshots), or just being optional? I have make a category "Screenshots with old textures" to reflect this as a part of the Screenshot Fixing Project. --HaydenBobMutthew ^{(talk, contribs)} 12:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Support Like other screenshot fixes, this should be a long-term goal. We may want to leave some screenshots to show how the old textures appeared in-game. The Blobs 13:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Support where it makes sense. - User-12316399 (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Support from me Oakar567 (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Support setting screenshot updating as a long-term goal. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 16:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Support. I had already been doing this myself. Nixinova  T C 20:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was project started.

It's been five months and yet the wiki is still a complete mess due to the texture update, with files labelled "Texture Update" remaining in infoboxes and many older revisions of blocks missing from history sections, as well as new textures being passed off as old due to funkiness with file moving. Not to mention that history sections are, in many cases, outrageously incomplete; for many of them, early revisions from the resource pack releases of the Texture Update are completely omitted, which isn't good at all. We need to get this sorted out sooner rather than later.

I propose the following:

• Check through infoboxes to make sure Texture Update files aren't being used in the infoboxes
• Make sure all non-historical renders are up to date
• Check through the histories of Texture Update files and upload to new filenames any prior revisions of blocks, items and mobs that aren't yet noted in the history sections
• Check through all the official Texture Update resource packs for any textures that may not have been uploaded here in the first place, and (render then) upload them
• Maybe use a script to check through those resource packs (and old releases of Java Edition, just to be sure)?

There will probably be a few other steps required to get us out of this mess, so I'd rather get the to-do list finalised so we can get all of this finally cleaned up. - User-12316399 (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

It'd been worked on for a while, not sure what happened to it. I'll pick up the project again. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Just made a project, Minecraft_Wiki:Projects/Texture_Update_Cleanup. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was change article introductions to expand them and remove quotes. Passed with no objections

While the blog is not specifically written for Gamepedia, we can still get useful information from it. We could use this part to improve our introduction sections. I would like to suggest changes to these two points:

1. Quotes

   We have a lot of quotes at the beginning of articles, and as the blog explained, that's not really ideal for SEO and they don't have much value for the reader who is looking for information. Because of that I would like to suggest moving the quotes to other, more fitting sections or removing them completely (case by case basis).

2. Introduction text

   The introduction text is what search engines like Google as well as the reader see first and is therefor very important. And while the English wiki doesn't need to worry that much about SEO because of it's size, the language variants, which often just directly translate from the English wiki, need to, as they also compete against the English wiki. So it's a good idea to start with improvements on the English wiki to help both.

   Our current introduction text is often just something like "Shears are a tool" which is obviously not great. Ideally the introduction text is a summary of the article, giving the reader an overall view about the topic. A good way to do this would be to ask yourself if a new player would understand what the topic is, just from the introduction text. Examples:

   "Zombies are common undead hostile mobs."
   "Zombies are undead hostile mobs that attack villagers as well as the player. They appear in different types and burn to death during the day."

   "Shears are a tool used primarily to shear sheep and mine a few types of blocks."
   "Shears are a tool made of iron ingots that is used to shear sheep. They can also be used to collect honeycombs from bee hives."

   While the second version is still not perfect, it's already way better than the current texts. A good example for an introduction text we have would be Creeper.

To make the point about both more clear, I would like you to take a look at the results for google:shears minecraft and google:creeper minecraft. The shears article shows up with part of the quote as description, which is not helpful for anyone at all, while the creeper article starts with an informative introduction text.   MarkusRost (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed this before, I'll be working on it since I agree itsMatyh (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• I agree. When you look at the page the useless quotes are the first thing you see. I've been lengthening the intro text on version pages (MCW:VC) and occasionally do it to some other articles when I'm editing the top section. I agree with the examples chosen, and on newer pages they tend to be like that, but should definitely be made a policy. Nixinova  T C 00:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm all for the nuking of page top quotes. 9 times out of 10 they're redundant useless bloat which duplicate information later on in the article (and can even be outright wrong as in the Leaves case a while ago), and the other 1 time out of 10 they could easily be moved to the history section in a far less obnoxious and space-hogging form. - User-12316399 (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

 Support removing top of the page quotes unless they do actually have some use. Also  Support making intro sections longer. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

 Support removing top quotes and longer intro sections. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 04:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Support. I'm all for expanding the introduction texts, and I wouldn't mind removing/relocating the quotes (especially the ones from minecraft.net articles; maybe we could replace those with a link to the article in the "External Links" section). –Sonicwave ^talk 04:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Support, let's do this, the quotes lack historical significance and don't belong at the top. There was a project for adding quotes, which was a way of adding flavor to pages. I don't know what you want to say about that ... but as someone who installed a lot of those quotes up there in the first place I say yeah, take em down. – Sealbudsman talk | contribs 07:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I think most quotes should go to External Links sections, to extend what Sonicwave32 said. The Blobs 14:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was no support. Substantial opposition, no support from any other user.

There are quite a few blocks in the game as of right now. Ever since the flattening, most of them have gained unique IDs on the Java Edition, however they still share pages (likely due to the flattening not having been performed on the Bedrock Edition). I'm personally not too chuffed with most of the current page sharing that's going on, and believe that doing a large-scale splitting of these block and item pages would be beneficial.

Pros:

• The refactoring of obtaining sections, as mentioned above, would likely be made a lot easier; you wouldn't have to specify that for example only this specific type of flower can be dropped from this mob, but no other flower can, etc.
• Crafting sections would also get a lot shorter/have much less of a need for cycling images - the stone bricks page wouldn't need three crafting recipes listed one after another for each craftable variant of stone bricks, and we'd also get rid of the smelting section as well, and the prismarine page wouldn't have the crafting grids cycling through different blocks for recipes for each stair variant.
• More specific history for each block. Refer to the Cobblestone page, which had Mossy Cobblestone merged into it (my fault) and the markedly different histories are mashed into each other as a result.
• Infoboxes currently note differences in properties between described blocks which can cause some minor chaos behind the scenes. For example, see Andesite, which states that polished andesite is renewable but andesite is not, causing the page to be added to Resources with invalid renewability. Granted a fix for this could be performed by editing the infobox to account for these, but splitting pages gets you a shorter infobox due to not having to specify one being renewable while the other isn't, gets rid of the error category, makes formatting more consistent across pages, among all these other benefits.
• Data values sections would get shorter as well - the Coral Fan data values section is pretty long since it has to account for all 20 unique block IDs in Java Edition. Via splitting per species we cut this down to 4 java data values per page, and if we split this further into dead and not dead we halve it into 2. In the best case scenario,we could scrap the Data values section entirely for many pages and just have everything documented within the infobox.
• Some blocks and items that share pages have subtle behavioural differences (e.g. breeding with dandelions) that could be documented on only the subject block/item's page and not the other ones it shares it with.

Cons:

• This will likely cause a large amount of information to be duplicated across articles, since many blocks likely share a ton in common with other blocks outside of texture, recipe and IDs.
• Bedrock Edition doesn't have the Flattening yet, so matters could become confusing for certain blocks.

There's blocks which I'm less sure should be split than others, here's a rough list of them.

Definitely split:

• Smooth, cut, polished, cracked, mossy, chiseled and pillar variants of blocks e.g. cobblestone, sandstone, stone bricks, quartz blocks
• Flowers, grass/ferns, coral in all six forms
• Non-dye colour variants of things i.e. sand and red sand, sandstone and red sandstone
• Pumpkins and carved pumpkins
• Heads
• Bee nests and hives

Not sure about splitting:

• Dyed blocks - these seem a bit too similar to be split, especially into 16/17 per block
• Wood variants - many things come in different wood types now, and do we really want 24 new pages for each species, strippedness and logness combo of wood blocks?
• Slabs, stairs and walls - there's a lot of them
• Tools with tiers, armor pieces
• Grass and tall grass, ferns and large ferns

Definitely don't split:

• Block ID differences which are blatantly the same block and done to prevent redundant ID combinations e.g. wall signs, wall heads, attached stems
• Block state variations (at least as far as Java Edition is concerned)
• Damage states of anvils
• Sponge and wet sponge

I doubt this will gain much traction at all, but this is something we've been talking about on discord recently and that has been at the back of my head for a while, so I figured putting it here might spark some kind of constructive discussion relating to it. - User-12316399 (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

If there are a lot of similarities, we do not need to split. For example, bee nests and bee hives behave almost exactly the same; they are just obtained differently. I think the zombie, skeleton, and creeper heads are very similar, so there is no reason to split.

I would support splitting smooth stone and mossy cobblestone from stone and cobblestone, respectively, but in general, I would think hard about splitting. The Blobs 13:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd support those two splits, as well as maybe pumpkins/carved pumpkins, but most things can probably be kept together. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I  Massively oppose basically all of this, the content that shares pages is basically the exact same objects, with just a different name, look, and how to get. Flowers, all except the wither rose have the EXACT same properties; Pumpkins are the exact same except for golem creation and enchanting/wearability; Heads, exactly the same except for some recipe usages; Tool tiers, only durability and the ores it can mine. Grass, does this even need mentioning?; Beehives, exactly the same behavior, just creation process/where to find is different. Smooth, cut, polished, cracked, mossy, chiseled and pillar variants of blocks, ALL of them use the exact same properties.; Coral fans, OK, by now this is just a big joke...

This will not "cause a large amount of information to be duplicated", this will cause all those pages to be the EXACT SAME information.

As for your obtaining section rewrite: Simply say Poppies: <obtaining methods>, Azure bluets: <obtaining methords>; this is a super minor thing that really doesn't matter.

Just because 1 of it's minor properties is not shared with the rest of a group, doesn't warrant a whole new page.

I also massively oppose your previous all of the sudden crop-seed split, which had little to no discussion on ANY of their pages. FVbico (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

 Strongly Oppose. It's just much easier to have blocks that are essentially the exact same on the same page, both for us and the average reader. To help alleviate some issues, I suggest putting both the item and block texture in the infobox on pages like string and any crop/seed pages. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

 Strongly oppose, mostly per FVbico. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 18:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was the issue was addressed. Part of this had already been covered in the style guide by the time of this post, and the other part is now implemented as a change to the style guide. Player builds of any kind are now explicitly stated to be inappropriate in article galleries. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 18:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it's time to clarify the use of the gallery section. I looked back a couple years in the archives for this page and couldn't find something, so I hope I'm not bringing up an old decision. In my opinion, the gallery should be used to demonstrate/showcase things about the page's subject. Like the villager professions on Villagers. Examples of full villages on Village. These images should be informative and useful but not really something that fits better elsewhere in the page as an image on the side. Images released by developers during development could also go here. However, I commonly see the gallery section used for images of builds, user creations, weird generation, etc. Should these types of images be allowed in the gallery section, or should we restrict them to the purely informative images? (Also sorry for starting two topics so quickly, both have been on my mind for a while) -PancakeIdentity (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Just curious, can you give an example of a page where the gallery has images with user builds? Otherwise, I'd agree that galleries should be mainly about informative images. -EatingSilencerforBreakfast (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Ice is what reminded me to make this section, but I've seen it a lot of other places as well. I've been editing out egregious examples that have bad screenshots, but I'd love to finally clarify it here. There's also a lot of images such as on Ore and Clay that are basically "look I found some of X item", and add nothing to the page. Cactus has a ton of images, such as multiple pictures of the underside, lots of tall cacti, cactus farms, etc. Just to name a few examples. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I support screenshots of odd generation for the same reason we have "Trivia" sections. For example, I am not sure how else to show a village generating in multiple biomes.

While it is reasonable to show the underside cactus texture, we do not need more than one. In general, each screenshot should serve a unique purpose. The Blobs 03:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I should clarify, I'm not wholly against those types of things. I was more speaking to the excessive amounts of pictures, and how it plays into the larger idea that a lot of users view it is a place to upload their random screenshots. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, I wanted to add that I think Banner is a really good case study for this. The top section is good. It displays images released by developers and shows some visual information, such as gradient progression or rotation. The commands section is good to showcase the two images there, however, any more is unneeded. The problem section is Example Designs, which is almost completely unnecessary imo.

I agree with Blobs2 about screenshots serving unique purposes and leaving images of odd generation. I do agree images of user builds should be minimal. For example, those farm screenshots in the Cactus article are rather off-topic.

The question of limiting the growth of galleries has been on my mind as well. In particular regarding the article Banner, specifically the Example designs gallery subsection.

In other words, the two main problems with article galleries I see now are player build images and several images of the same phenomenon. Would there be any negative implications if both were to be disallowed? --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 07:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't think of anything. They both seem to belong more on user pages and/or tutorial pages. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

 Comment - Though we haven't reached a definitive conclusion yet, I'd propose putting the results of this discussion on the style guide page. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The no duplicates guideline is already in the style guide (see MCW:IMAGES). I opened a new topic regarding player builds. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 18:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was the proposal was implemented.

Should Minecraft Wiki:Sandbox be linked from the MediaWiki sidebar? This would make it much easier to get there to test things. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 18:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

 Support Many anonymous users do test edits on mainspace pages, which is often disruptive. By having a link to the sandbox in the sidebar, more people would know about the sandbox, so more people would use it. The Blobs 18:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure, it's not obvious to find since it's only linked from user warning templates and Help:Contents (not including talk page posts). –Sonicwave ^talk 18:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

 Support -PancakeIdentity (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I assume this would be added under the generic category? If so, I'm kind of thinking to put it directly under "Style guide", as it makes sense to have it at the end of the "small grouping of useful MCW namespace pages" (projects, wiki rules, style guide). I'm open to other suggestions, however.--Madminecrafter12 ^{(Talk to me | View what I've done)} 17:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable location to me. The Blobs 19:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Added the link in the place I mentioned above.--Madminecrafter12 ^{(Talk to me | View what I've done)} 14:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was no support. Substantial objections with next to no support.

Currently, the wiki is formatted as though Java were the main edition. This made sense when Pocket Edition lacked a lot of features, but this is no longer the case. In fact, there are reasons that Bedrock should be considered the main edition:

• A lot more people play Bedrock Edition than Java, so information about Bedrock will benefit more readers.
• Bedrock Edition is just called Minecraft, implying that Mojang thinks of it as the main Edition. (FVbico, could you verify this?)

Since Bedrock is the true "main edition", we need to make certain changes:

• Describe Bedrock Edition before Java when they are described separately; for example, in history sections.
• Some Java-specific pages, such as Level format and Custom servers, should be moved so that "Java Edition" is in the title, similar to their respective Bedrock pages.
• Some features that were mentioned for Minecraft (not specifically Java Edition) are currently on the Java Edition mentioned features page. We should transfer these to a generic "Mentioned features" page instead, since almost all mentions after the Better Together Update apply to both editions.
• In infoboxes, when information is different between editions, the Bedrock information should be given (with {{only|bedrock}}). For example, the renewability of netherrack should say "Yes (BE only)" instead of "No (JE only)".
• The tutorials covering features that are different between editions, such as redstone, need more Bedrock Edition information.
• Once Bedrock Edition receives a flattening, pages should be moved to the Bedrock titles, should any discrepancies remain.

Please let me know what you think. The Blobs 19:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Mojang has stated time and time again, there's no priority over one or the other, so they don't see it as a "main" edition. As it stands now, java has more streamlined and more new namings for objects in the game though, so it's best to follow those. FVbico (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Since Mojang considers neither one the "main" edition, that factor is irrelevant. Bedrock is the more widely played edition, so we should consider that. The Blobs 21:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Mojang has said multiple times that Java is, at least in terms of features and technical stuff, the more complete and accurate version. It's why we use JE names for pages and such. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd support moving mentioned features to the non edition-specific mentioned features page (see also my comment on Talk:Mentioned features). –Sonicwave ^talk 01:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• "Since Bedrock is the true 'main edition' "—false, there is no "main edition". On your other points: 1) I think the History section should be ordered in the same order as the feature was added to the game in (eg stonecutter has bedrock first); 2) Agree; 3) That's probably better; 4) We should instead list both (Yes‌^{[BE only]} No‌^{[JE only]} etc) or "Only in Java Edition"; 5) Ok, whatever, not something a policy can do; 6) Java still has the "correct" names. Nixinova  T C 02:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose to your 1st point : history would get very messy (and it is already a bit) 78.193.28.136 10:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

 Support all of this except  Oppose the first bit, as per IPs comment. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose from me in terms of rearranging everything to put Bedrock first. For the second half, I agree with what Nixinova said. As mentioned above, there is no "main" version, Mojang considers Java to be the more "correct" at least in terms of features and technical stuff. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose to prioritize Bedrock Edition over Java. Minecraft does not have an official "main edition". Minecraft is historically Java Edition. Also good luck for finding technical stuff on Bedrock Edition. Finally this would need a LOT of work that could be used for other things. 78.193.28.136 10:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was passed and being implemented. Proposal in the sub-topic is being implemented or has already been.

Currently, the naming system for block/item/entity/whatever renders is "[X] Revision 1", "[X] Revision 2", etc. If there's a different texture in Bedrock, the file name is usually "[X] BE". However, this can get messy in certain cases such as Coral Fans, where Bedrock has had multiple version-exclusive textures. How should we name files in this case?

I would personally say to adopt the Revision naming system in this case as well, just adding "[X] BE Revision [N]", removing the BE if/when the textures become the same as Java. I'd be hesitant to renumber Revisions to reflect Bedrock as it seems a lot of version-exclusive textures are being changed to be the same as Java's. Opinions? Thoughts? Ideas? -PancakeIdentity (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Trying to think of all possible combinations of different texture evolution across editions made me reach only one conclusion: it's an absolute mess.

Some scenarios that made me reach that conclusion (note that all different texture IDs mean different texture contents):

1. Edition X (XE) has texture T1 for the item, then switches to texture T2, then switches back to T1. Should a duplicate of T1 be uploaded as Revision 3? In general, trying to think of handling reversion to previously used textures makes my mind a cobweb.
2. Editions X (XE) and Y (YE) started out with the same texture (T1). At some point, XE changes to texture T2x, and YE changes to texture T2y. Then YE changes to T3y, and later both XE and YE change to T4. Is it a problem that T4 is the third revision from XE's perspective (i. e. it jumps from "XE Revision 2" to "Revision 4")? Is it a problem that there is "XE Revision 2" but no "XE Revision 1"? What if after T4, XE changes to T5x? Do we have a jump from "XE Revision 2" to "XE Revision 5"?
3. I started thinking of just numbering revisions by introduction date, but then what if XE and YE release simultaneously with different textures? This could be solved by replacing numeric revision IDs with introduction dates (i. e. "XE revision 2019-10-24" and "YE revision 2019-10-24" for simultaneous releases and the same with no mention of editions in other cases). Yes, that would mean file names would be unpredictable, but this is already present to a lesser degree with edition specification.

I apologize for being unable to present this information in a more comprehensible manner.

P. S. I believe since neither BE nor JE is a main edition (AFAIK, this is Mojang's current official stance), in case of texture divergence, texture file naming should not favour either edition by omitting edition mentions in file names. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 00:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we should include the appropriate numbers from both editions. For example, cobblestone would be Cobblestone BE3 JE6.png, since it is revision 3 on Bedrock and 6 on Java. For texture revisions that have only ever existed on one edition, we should still specify the edition (e.g., Structure Block Save JE1.png). The Blobs 00:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I like this solution. Kinda janky but this whole thing is a mess, especially since we still haven't done anything about this project. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Agree about the extent of this being a mess. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 00:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Unless anyone has any opposition, I'll probably start using this system within the next few days. I'll need help moving files as well. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't. Give people the chance to reply, a few days is far from enough. Give at least 1 month. FVbico (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

There's not been much discussion, does anyone have anything to add? Support? Opposition? Other proposals? The files are super messy right now and I'd love to be able to work on it finally. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I have a proposal. Redirects could be created for Bedrock Edition textures that are identical to Java Edition (for example, "File:Cobblestone BE Revision 1.png" could redirect to "File:Cobblestone Revision 3.png"). This would avoid long file names like the previous suggestion. In addition, the Java Edition file name could be changed (e.g. "File:Cobblestone JE Revision 6.png"). Bedrock Edition files that are edition-exclusive could use a similar naming system to Java Edition (such as "File:Nether Bricks BE.png" being renamed to "File:Nether Bricks BE Revision 2.png"). Thoughts? 173.48.222.236 07:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose If we only mention the Java version number, that would imply Java is the main edition, and Mojang does not consider either edition to be the main one. The Blobs 04:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose this variation of the solution as it focuses too heavily on Java. File names shouldn't be too long if we use "BE1" instead of "Bedrock Edition Revision 1" or whatever. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I see the problem with my solution, so I am fine with the use of the previous proposal instead. On the discussion of file parity, however, I think that this change would require the reorganization of the revision tables on certain files, as they only show the Java Edition revisions currently. 173.48.222.236 02:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

This should be mostly possible with merging. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

File names will follow the format [Thing] JE[X] BE[Y]. X is the revision number of the texture in Java, while Y is the revision number of the version in Bedrock. For example, Cobblestone would be "Cobblestone JE6 BE3". This would go for all textures, including ones with only a single revision. "Cobblestone", "Cobblestone JE6", and "Cobblestone BE3" could all redirect to it.

Textures that are exclusive to one version will only include that version, but will still include it. For example, the nether reactor core would be "Nether Reactor Core BE2".

In cases where current textures differ, I'd propose that the basic file name without any version numbers/editions would redirect to the latest Java revision. This is just due to Bedrock typically receiving Java's textures and rarely vice-versa.

This isn't any different from Blobs2's proposal above, just a bit more in-depth.

Thoughts? -PancakeIdentity (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

This seems all right. The only downside I can find is that when a texture is first introduced in a second edition, the file has to be moved, but the proposal would require a redirect from its original title anyway. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 04:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

This discussion has been open for a month. Considering this is a minor change for the average editor/reader, and that there's been no opposition or other proposals, I think we can go ahead with this. It should also get added to the style guide. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was merge. Substantial support with one, apparently refuted, objection. Implemented.

This was done without any real discussion on ANY of the pages.

To the average player, seeds and the crops they place are one and the same, and that's the main, if not only purpose of the seeds.

Split without real discussion:

• Wheat Seeds - [[Wheat (block)]]
• Potato - Potatoes
• Carrot - Carrots
• Beetroot Seeds - Beetroots
• Pumpkin Seeds - Pumpkin Stem
• Melon Seeds - Melon Stem
• Nether Wart - [[Nether Wart (block)]]

Split before, for no clear reason:

• Cocoa Beans - Cocoa
• Sweet Berries - Sweet Berry Bush

Just because the ID is different doesn't warrant a new page. The only seeds which have another use action besides placing the crop are Potato, Carrot and Sweet Berries, which can easily just have a seperate mention in the usage section.

The only reason these pages got split is because User-12316399 is not happy with anything sharing a page.

The "pros" of the "MEGA SPLIT" section above do not at all apply to ANY of these, except shorter data values section, which is a no-concern point, as they're already really small for most pages. Additionally, only people who actually want to know those things read those sections, not the average userFVbico (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the crops should be re-merged with their seeds. The main usage of the seeds is to plant the crops, and the main way to obtain the seeds is by harvesting crops. There is probably a lot of duplication in these sections, especially since crops cannot actually be obtained without inventory editing or add-ons. The Blobs 13:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Even though for some reason I wanna keep them split, I can't think of a logical reason to do so. Right now is messy and the page titles are confusing, and many old links are broken.  Support re-merging. I'd also suggest having both the item and block textures in the infoboxes. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

 Support having both the item and block render (or entity for minecarts, boats, painting, item frames, armor and armor stand) in the infobox --Capopanzone (talk | contribs) 10:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

 Support merging them back together. --Capopanzone (talk | contribs) 10:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Also  Support remerging since they're just the block form of an item, and the page titles are confusing (Nether Wart (block)??). Nixinova  T C 19:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Any opposition? How about merging Cocoa Beans/Cocoa and Sweet Berries/Sweet Berry Bush? FVbico (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd support that as long as both were in the infobox. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure about sweet berries, since the bush itself has specific entity movement properties. However, if someone could create an example page, we would see how this plays out. The Blobs 02:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I have created an example page here, and it looks fine. If no one objects, I will port it to the Sweet Berries page. The Blobs 04:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks good! I'd  Support the merge. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

 Support also merging cocoa beans/cocoa and sweet berries/sweet berry bush --Capopanzone (talk | contribs) 10:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Support merging them back together, as long as the block and the item are in the infobox. For normal players the seeds and the crops are not that different. --LakeJason (Talk • Contribs) 15:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I have merged sweet berries. We can start the other merges. The Blobs 05:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

While I still can -  Oppose.

While these items and blocks are definitely closely related objects, they're not one and the same. You can't breed chickens with planted wheat crops, walking through berries doesn't damage the player, and there's no way to make potato crops directly produce eating sounds. With them merged, these sections end up becoming larger and mixing up relatively unrelated information, notably in the History section.

With them split, these sections can be kept shorter and the differences between the associated blocks and items can be more clearly defined without having to specify what does what in the text, which obviously improves readability.

The assumption that the mega split's benefits do not apply here at all is also completely false - alongside the shorter data values sections, the item pages would have no need for a drops section at all, and the block pages would be free from having a drops from section. Also, the history section, and other stuff...

Anyway, no. Having these pages be merged provides little to no readability benefits, mixes up lots of information, and generally isn't that helpful. If we're merging these pages, we may as well merge Sapling into Tree since they're just different growth stages of each other. Keeping these pages apart is definitely the better way to go. - User-12316399 (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The pages before you split them (with absolutely no discussion) had no issues at all, it was clear when it was referred to as the block, and when it was referred to as the item. Additionally, as stated on discord, the seed and block ARE the same thing, the block implements the seed as the corresponding "block item", it just provides a different ID.

Plus, it's logical that item entities have no effect on the player, and the blocks don't exist in the inventory...

And I haven't even pulled out the argument of the HORRIBLE name you gave to nether wart...

This whole mess is caused just by your mindset of sharing page = bad, and as made clear in the mega split discussion, it's completely absurt to want to split all pages, including seeds from their crops.

Lastly, so far you're the only one to have stated to oppose both here and in discord, so I think consensus is clear... FVbico (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@User-12316399: Lots of blocks are separate from their item forms; see this page. There is no logical reason to have separate pages for standing signs and wall signs, even though they are technically different blocks. The Blobs 04:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Almost unanimous agreement over multiple discussions and it's been done for a couple pages with no opposition. Let's re-merge the rest of these pages. -PancakeIdentity (talk)

 Strong support. Separated was confused. --dr03ramos (talk) Admin wiki[pt] 22:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Obviously the re-merging can be strongly supported by the discussion so far. If there's no more objection, the pages mentioned above would be reverted to the last version before the split with new changes included, and the extra pages would be redirected to the matching main pages. If necessary, the re-merging will be performed in Sandbox before applying to the pages. Please reply to the topic if there are any more suggestions. --Hatsuki kiri〔T〕 08:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Most of the work has been done. Please inform me if there's still something important lost. --Hatsuki kiri〔T〕 02:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was the issue is apparently resolved.

I am interested in "List foreign uses." See this. --Rascal97 (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly the same way you'd use them on this wiki; just type [[File:Whatever]] on a different language wiki and it'll work. Nixinova  T C 06:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe some non-English wikis don't use the English wiki as a shared file repository. On those wikis, you won't be able to use files from the English wiki without reuploading them locally. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 17:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You are right, Chinese wiki is an example, but it is really inconvenient to maintain this files. --Dianliang233 ^talk•_con 23:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

You'll have to enable transclude for English mcwiki at Special:Interwiki so that you can cite content on the English side including pics.  Cuervo^Talk 14:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was remove the information as specified.

I brought this up earlier and it was shot down, but I've heard rumblings of renewed interest so I thought I'd bring it up again.

I propose that we finally bite the bullet and remove all information regarding discontinued versions from the main sections of block/item/entity/mechanics/etc articles only. Their spots in history sections would be kept. This would mostly apply to the non-PS4 LCEs, but there's also remnants of versions such as 3DS in some articles. There are a few reasons behind this:

1. Consistency. We don't document discontinued versions like Apple TV edition or pre-Bedrock LCEs or PEs.
2. Readability. Articles can already be fairly messy documenting Java, Bedrock (+Education), and PS4 editions. Documenting discontinued versions adds to this mess way more. At least Java, Bedrock, and PS4 are all receiving updates, so their contents should be fairly similar. Discontinued versions are frozen where they are, and the already vast disparities are only going to get larger as other versions receive updates. Documenting these huge differences is going to create messy pages with information that, frankly, most readers won't care about.
3. Accuracy. As time goes on and these versions get smaller player bases and become more of a pain to access, it'll be harder to confirm that information about these versions is accurate if the need arises.

Counter arguments:

1. Readers who still play LCE may come to the wiki looking for information. I don't think this argument holds water. Readers playing any other discontinued versions may come here looking for information, but they won't find it. Additionally. we don't document old versions (i.e. 1.12) on the wiki, despite there being players who play 1.12.
2. [Worries about PS4 as it is technically LCE.] The wiki already documents PS4 separately from LCE, so I don't think this should be an issue.
3. LCE is the biggest discontinued version, so we should at least keep that one. While it is the largest discontinued version, I'm not sure this is a reason to support it. The only platforms (other than PS4) that have LCE but not Bedrock are discontinued platforms themselves, meaning the player base for LCE is going to shrink more and more as players move away from this.

The overall idea is that discontinued versions are going to continue to get more difficult to document on the wiki and the usefulness of this documentation is only going to decrease.

To clarify, I am only referring to removing information from the main sections of block/item/entity/mechanics/etc pages, NOT from history sections or removing version articles.

Thoughts? Opinions? (At the very least, can we decide to not document 3DS?) -PancakeIdentity (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

 Support Some pages, such as Sweet Berries, say that the feature is exclusive to the Bedrock, Java, and PlayStation4 editions. This would confuse many readers, as this essentially says it is exclusive to all editions if Minecraft. Some other pages say that the feature is exclusive to Bedrock and Java Editions. Again, this will be redundant once Bedrock becomes available on PlayStation 4. The Blobs 00:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

 Support no longer documenting 3DS and LCE, definitely. – Sealbudsman talk | contribs 01:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

. I thought this had already been done, though all instances of ‌^{[Legacy Console Edition only]},etc should be replaced with ‌^{[PlayStation 4 Edition only]}, etc. Nixinova  T C 02:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

It's been happening, but I still see LCE-only info left on a lot of pages and I thought we should officially discuss it. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

 Support—Capopanzone (talk | contribs) 20:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

On a related note, why did we decide to get rid of Pi Edition stuff from history sections? It's historical info, so it, like Console Edition, should be kept there. I think we should really get around to redesigning the history template first though. - User-12316399 (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Good point, not sure. Make another topic if you wanna discuss Pi Edition though. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

With Bedrock's PS4 release, this'll be a great time to get this all done. -Pancakeidentibot (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The achievements list is cluttered with discontinued versions. I propose that the {{achievements}} template remove this parameter entirely. Those achievements exclusive to Legacy Console Edition should be moved to a "Removed achievements" section. I also proposed on the grass talk page to split shrubs and mark them as a removed feature. The Blobs 14:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Opened a new talk section specifically for shrubs. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was Do not replace.

A thought that crossed my mind recently would be the replacement of the current widely-used isometric renders with actual three-dimensional models of said objects that can be moved around by the user, like the one that can be seen on this page.

Advantages:

• Would allow the player to see things from angles otherwise inaccessible from a pure still image
• Certain objects, such as bee models and certain model changes in History sections, require that the camera position for rendering be rotated in the first place so the difference can be seen - with models, the previews would look more consistent and the viewer would rotate to see the changes

Disadvantages:

• Hardware and software support - png support is basically universal, so if we go with these then certain devices might not be able to view anything in the worst case, or just not be able to interact with it well in the best case. Could be worked around by adding links in infoboxes to view original images.
• Replacing all the renders with these would be a pretty massive undertaking.

Is this a good idea at all? - User-12316399 (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

 Strongly oppose. I don't think there is a huge need to do this, plus it would bring a large quantity of work that we can just avoid. It IS a good idea though; It's just way too complicated to do this kind of work by SVG. --LakeJason (Talk • Contribs) 16:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

 Weak support. Seems like a huge undertaking and I'm not sure if it'd be worth the effort. It would be nice to be able to see all sides of things, such as Cartography Tables, or see changes outside the usual view. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The only problem is that I don't know any kinds of things that are out-of-box to render the block online (if there is let me know) and it would be much more complicated if we are going to make an interactive SVG. Maybe it's not that complicated if we can just write a JavaScript or something, and when that just doesn't work we can fallback on the png files. --LakeJason (Talk • Contribs) 18:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose now. Seems like too much work and the downsides outweigh the benefits. Just creat addition renders like normal if needed. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

This video shows lots of underside textures that players do not normally see (Note: It was created 3 years ago in Legacy Console Edition, but the information is probably still true). The main thing that isometric renders would do is show these "hidden textures", which should probably be documented using the raw texture files (currently, only a few pages show these, but we could change that). The Blobs 18:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Strong oppose – Unnecessary and not mobile friendly. Also, people always get images directly from the wiki pages and will be confused as to why their image doesn't function like an image. Nixinova  T C 06:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose per above. -BDJP ^(t|c) 00:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was update overview videos. A new project has been started, and the new Video Policy no longer supports the inclusion of MCSpotlights videos on pages.

I hope this is the correct venue for this topic.

I've noticed a rather aggressive effort on the part of PancakeIdentity (talk • contribs • logs • block log) to delete those helpful little 1-minute summary videos created by mcspotlights. They mostly appeared in many of our articles about individual blocks. I've reverted a few of these deletions (for example, this removal of the planks video, and this removal in sugar cane) because the content of the video is still valid and true, not out of date, but possibly incomplete due to software updates.

PancakeIdentity and I have engaged in a bit of discussion about this on my comment board but I thought this should be discussed in a wider community.

My position is this:

• If the information in the video is valid and true, then it should be kept.
• The fact that information is incomplete isn't a good reason to remove it, unless the missing information is so significant that viewers may be misled by watching the video.
• If the information in the video is misleading, it should be removed.

My viewpoint is based on my personal experiences with my child, who had difficulty reading these pages when he started playing Minecraft, but could use a browser and watch videos. These little 1-minute summary videos were extremely helpful to him. Even now that he can read better, when he looks something up on this wiki, the first thing he does is scroll down to see if the article has a video by mcspotlights.

We may all be adults creating content here, but young children use this Wiki also. Information that is still useful to them should be kept.

What say others? ~ Amatulic (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess I personally don't see their use if they're incomplete. It doesn't provide a good overview of the item/block/whatever then. The videos are kinda weird for the wiki, and feel very out of place imo, tbh I'd support removing them entirely but I really don't see them happening. When I watched the first one, it struck me as extremely out of place, maybe better fit for some type of tutorial page. If we are insistent on providing video overviews, I'd say we should find/create completely updated videos. Otherwise, I'd say they're not really too useful and should be removed.

I will say though, I do think floor/ceiling placement for item frames is important enough for the video to be considered outdated.

I would also like to clarify, I have been watching all the videos without outdated notices and have kept the accurate and up to date ones On the pages. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Going in on "If we are insistent on providing video overviews, I'd say we should find/create completely updated videos.", I suggested this recently in the discord:

"Since so many videos are outdated (and now removed), should we try to make new videos altogether, and try to keep them updated? I'm open to try, but I've never actually video edited anything."

Since I posted that, ItsPlantseed pointed out we should alter Minecraft Wiki:Wiki rules/Video policy first.

The wiki admins would be in charge of the video process then, though editors would be able to help by providing scripts for the videos or alike. FVbico (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It's just weird to me that Curse videos are exempt from the typical video policy. Also, how are the overview videos serving a business purpose? I'd be more supportive of overview videos if they were done professionally and essentially rehashed the wiki page's content. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The videos being deleted seem professionally-enough done to me. They are nice and concise overviews of the main points in an article. Little details that are missing, like the ability to place item frames on floors, are easily discovered by player themselves and don't detract from the educational value, particularly for kids like mine who want to see them. That's rather the whole point of a concise overview; you can't include all details and still be concise. They don't need to be comprehensive, just informative.

We may as well argue that a video has no value because it was made with Java Edition while Bedrock has the larger installed base. I don't buy that line of reasoning (and by the way, I and my child play Bedrock and we still found those videos helpful), and I don't buy the reasoning that a perfectly valid video should be removed because more details became available in a software update. I'd rather keep them, adding a notation about changes, and delete only the ones that are now completely wrong (such as villages needing doors). ~ Amatulic (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean, I would argue that, although not for the same reason. That's not what we're talking about though so I won't bother. From my understanding, we as a community had reached a consensus to remove out of date videos (See above topic). Even if I disagree, I do see your argument about keeping incomplete videos. More of the community would have to chime in. In addition, "completely wrong" is too strict a criteria for removal imo. The wiki should not promote any out of date information whenever possible, unless the page is dedicated to an older version (such as the new Trading before Village and Pillage page). Like I already said, I think the best solution to make the most people happy is creating up to date videos and removing outdated or incomplete videos (even if I personally still dislike the current videos). Incomplete videos are incompetent as overviews, especially in the case of something like item frames, where the missing information is pretty essential to the current function of the item. We're gonna have to undo most of my edits if we decide to promote videos that don't showcase basic functions of an item. I've stated my opinion, and I think we need more community input before moving any further. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I had just restored the video in chest and then I saw this reply. OK, I'll stop restoring them for now, if no more get removed.

My choice of words "completely wrong" was poor. I'm in favor of removing videos that have obsolete information (that is, information that is now wrong because things have changed, such as beds now defining villages instead of doors), but if the content is still all correct, it serves as a concise overview.

We disagree that a new capability to put an item frame on the floor is a critical feature. It wasn't before, and it isn't now, it's just an enhancement that isn't necessary for a concise overview video.

Ultimately, we disagree about what constitutes "out of date". My position is, if the content of the video is still valid and correct, and it covers most of what a young player needs to know, it isn't out of date yet, it's a keeper. ~ Amatulic (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm really glad the videos helped your child, but I'm just not sure we should specifically cater towards that audience. Maybe we should instead focus on increasing the wiki's readability? I know a lot of articles could really use it. Maybe as a separate project, but I digress. I don't know, the videos just feel very out of place to me, especially when missing good amounts of information. I really hope some other people chime in.

I also wanna say, I got the impression from the videos that they mostly focused on how to obtain the item and how to use the item in gameplay. It's when that information is missing is especially when I feel they should be removed. Especially since I would say most provide a good, solid overview for when they were released, whereas now, they can be missing info that I feel the creators wouldn't have left out if making them today.-PancakeIdentity (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Having watched many of these with my son, I can say confidently that they (at least the ones by the mcspotlights team) are concise yet thorough overviews, covering one specific block or item: what it is, how to obtain/craft it, the primary things you can do with it, and other considerations if there's any time left (these videos seem to be disciplined about running less than 90 seconds). Basically they give a new player all the basic information they need to know in far less time than it takes to read the article. This isn't about catering to children who have difficulty reading (but why not do so? Minecraft appeals to a wider age range than any other game). It's about providing information choices. For the comprehensive details, you read the article, which covers everything known about a topic. If you just want to get a quick understanding, those videos are extremely useful. They're professionally-done, well-scripted overviews. Overviews don't cover all information, by definition. And in many cases the videos aren't out of date. ~ Amatulic (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I see both sides and at first blush fall somewhat in the middle. When I first started using this wiki, I absolutely loved those little video overviews, as did my daughter (we had an experience similar to Amatulic's). But lately, it has become somewhat disheartening to see the frequency of tags identifying videos as out of date. It makes the pages with videos feel out of place.

The rub of the problem seems to be this: If the videos are a core part of the wiki, i.e., an expected element of the basic content and structure of key pages, then most pages should feature current, accurate overview videos - at least the pages about the basic elements of the game, as the videos seem intended for bringing beginners up to speed. If the videos are not a core part of the wiki, then they should not be embedded in the pages at all, as having them on some pages sets up an expectation that they will be present on most pages. This expectation is reinforced by the way the current videos refer to other videos in the series: they present a comprehensive structure of video content about current basic game elements and mechanics, a structure that simply doesn't exist anymore now that so many of the video "nodes" in that structure are out of date.

And that to me seems like the bigger problem: Taken as a whole, the set of mcspotlights videos is no longer about the current game. As a whole, it's historical content, individual remaining videos notwithstanding. The old scheme for how our wiki pages were structured, including overview video content near the end, is no longer viable. As much as still I like the videos and appreciate their professionalism and consistency, I reluctantly have to conclude that it's time to pull them all until we have an active project creating a comprehensive set of up-to-date videos. Meanwhile, we can work on making the rest of the page content as accessible and user-friendly as possible. (Honestly, it seems as though the video content should be its own living project with an active maintenance team, one to which the wiki can point; otherwise, as the game is under constant development, we'll run into this issue of stale videos over and over again.)

If the community's consensus is to keep videos that are still accurate (even if incomplete), then I wouldn't oppose that, though I think the larger issue of the wiki's overall stylistic consistency would still need to be addressed. —Memetics ^{talk | edits} 11:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. Having a continuing project for creating updated videos would be great, but if it doesn't happen, I'd rather just remove them altogether. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I guess we could try to launch such project then, as I stated in the above comment thread early on, I actually suggested doing it, but it kinda stopped there.

If we were to make videos, I suggest making scrips for videos a subpage of the project (eg Videos/Stone for the video about the Stone page).

I'd gladly record it, but I suck at making scripts and never video edited anything, so this will need a collaborative effort nonetheless. FVbico (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

In last 2 months (September - October) we created 7 new guides, but now there are only 2 guides to compleate Full Release guides, so it will be good idea to add new sections for Alpha and Beta Java Edition Guides. Now, I need only your support. Thanks. --Rychlik (disc) 13:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was the categories were reorganized. Mostly taken care of, closed by request of User-12316399.

Have a butcher's at these things:

• Category:Information needed
• Category:Verify
• Category:Unknown version history
• Category:Stub

These maintenance categories have grown to contain hundreds of pages needing attention. Yet, despite this, it seems as though few people are actually trying to fix the issues with these pages. I'd think that the sheer size of these categories for one is one of the main contributing factors to how these have grown out of control - why bother with fixing these pages when there's absolutely hundreds of them and it would take hours of arduous effort?

I think this calls for a split of these categories. I'm not sure how to do Information needed, Verify and Stub, but Unknown version history seems rather basic; splitting by edition and then by development period would probably dice it up into manageable chunks. Of course, it's no secret that the history template itself has a fair share of other issues that need working out, so maybe this category splitting thing could be done en route. Does anyone have any ideas as to how the other three (and any other problematic categories) could be divided up into bite sized chunks? - User-12316399 (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know information needed or verify either, but at least stub could be gone through and split on a case by case basis by adding an additional argument into the template call, such as a particular type of page (like content, project, person, version, etc). Of course it can already be split between full-page and section-specific, by detecting whether or not that argument was specified. Good idea to start with these categories before any big history template overhaul, because missing information always makes things like this difficult. – Jack McKalling [ ] 09:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Every so often I scroll through Category:Verify and fix what I can. I do agree that it should be split more since I just deal with modern Java when I go through the list. There should be a {{verify|historical=yes}} or something to exclude history verifications, and unknown v.h. should definitely be split by edition; that doesn't seem difficult to do. Nixinova  T C 00:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Since {{history}} already checks which edition is being referred to, it should not be difficult to have categories for "Unknown Bedrock Edition version history", "Unknown Java Edition version history", etc. The Blobs 01:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Testing needed and Category:when are out there, too. – Sealbudsman talk | contribs 01:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I've done a kind of sloppy split of the missing version history category, which does seem to work. There might be some formatting edge cases screwing it up somewhat that I haven't accounted for yet though. - User-12316399 (talk) 10:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we should also somehow distinguish between things that we don't know but can currently test, and stuff we can't currently test due to reasons (e.g. the version a change happened in not being archived). This should be easy to do for templates like verify. I'm not sure how we'd deal with this in the history template. If anything we should start a discussion of revamping the history template sooner rather than later. - User-12316399 (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I have an idea to further split unknown version history. We have already proposed to distinguish editions, but we could also distinguish releases from development versions. If we know which release a change was made in, but not which development version, that is better that a completely unknown version history. The Blobs 00:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

One category per release version then? - User-12316399 (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes. We would have Unknown Bedrock Release, Unknown Bedrock Beta, Unknown Java Release, Unknown Java Snapshot, Unknown Education Version, and Unknown Legacy History (for Legacy Console, and New Nintendo 3DS). The Blobs 14:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

For unknown development versions would it be possible to categorise by version and not just development stage? - User-12316399 (talk) 07:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, did that and we now have even more unknown version history categories, and it seems to be working mostly as intended, so this should split things up into yet more manageable chunks. - User-12316399 (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was sounds will be documented. Mostly taken care of, closed by request of User-12316399.

All sounds should now be split into a dedicated section which provides much more information than was given for them in the infobox. There's a few things that need cleaning up now:

File names

File names for sounds don't seem to be standardised like many images tend to be. Is there a standard for sound naming, and if not, what should it be?

Missing sounds

The splitting of sound sections has helped to highlight what sounds are missing from pages, organised into a maintenance category Category:Pages missing sounds. This should give a better idea of what needs uploading than the table on the associated wiki project.

Pitches

For sounds which are always played in-game with a different pitch than their actual sound file, should we only upload the original sound file and let the table's pitch parameter do the talking, or should we upload an artificially pitched up/down version of the sound instead?

I've brought up the idea of sounds being artificially pitched up or down using a script, would anyone else agree with this? - User-12316399 (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Block sounds

Sounds for the placement, breaking, destruction, walking on and falling of blocks should be next up to be uploaded (except for slime blocks, which are already sorted). These can be found at Category:Pages with missing sounds/Blocks. I've only added tables to one page per material type so that it doesn't become a particularly gigantic maintenance task, as the table with filled in sounds can then be pasted onto other pages. So if anyone's willing to upload these sounds I'd be more than happy.

Block sounds are pretty much done now - the only ones remaining are a few edge cases which will need more investigation, as well as jumping sounds exclusive to Bedrock Edition, with the discussion of how Bedrock Edition sounds will be represented still underway; see section below. - User-12316399 (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Parity

The tables I've added are based solely on information from Java Edition. If we're also to document Bedrock Edition sound related information where differences exist, how should we represent it? Should we create separate tables for Java and Bedrock Edition values, or mix them into the same table?

We should put them in the same table. I assume most, but not all, of the sounds match, so having them as separate tables would result in a lot of duplication. The Blobs 13:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe that Bedrock uses completely different sound IDs (mob.drowned.say instead of entity.drowned.ambient, for example). We could make another column for it (making the table wider than it already is), or put the JE and BE IDs on different lines, which would probably lead to lots of [only] tags. –Sonicwave ^talk 05:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more having two separate tables becomes the more appealing option. Given that there's still some new types of columns I want to add to the tables, having all the info being mashed into a single table does not sound useful. - User-12316399 (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I've added an example section to Stone#Sounds which utilises separate tables for Java Edition and Bedrock Edition. I'm going with this since sound events seem to be always naked differently across versions, as well as the fact that certain sounds are version-exclusive (such as the jump and land sounds shown), that Bedrock Edition doesn't have subtitles, pitch and volume values being different across versions as well in some cases (usually being ridiculously long and precise in Bedrock) and that the attenuation distance parameter also seems to be Java Edition exclusive. If people would still rather have them be mixed into the same table then say so, but it's not what I think we should go with. - User-12316399 (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Historical sounds

There's also plenty of cases of sounds which have changed throughout the game's history, such as skeleton sounds, and there are also sound differences between the history of the editions, such as breaking blocks in the alpha versions of Java, iOS and Android. These should also be uploaded eventually.

Created Category:Pages needing sounds/Historical sounds, which should cover most of the stuff (the block sound differences seem to be merely pitch based). - User-12316399 (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, that should be about it for sound-related topics. If anyone wants to start work on any of these or comment on them then please do. - User-12316399 (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The "Min. Volume" column should be removed, since it's not a field in sounds.json (at least for Java Edition) and only applies to the playsound command, not sounds played by the game by default. Sounds that play at different pitches in-game than the sound file should follow the in-game pitch, since that's what people would expect to hear (and some of them can quite different and hard to "derive", such as the zombie pigman's angering sound).

I'm still not sure about the "Pitch" and "Volume" columns; they specify the sound's ingame pitch/volume relative to the sound file, instead of relative to other sounds (which one might expect). There should at least be a tooltip explaining what they specify. –Sonicwave ^talk 05:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was the issue was addressed. Mojang will not call this the official wiki as they do not own it.

So, if you visit the minecraft.net Community page https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/community and scroll nearly to the bottom, above Discussions & Help, there is a link to the "Unofficial Wiki"... which goes to this wiki.

I did a little search of the wiki here and found no mention of this unofficial link.

Discuss.

Sorry for being lazy and not creating an account. 49.178.46.161 13:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

User:FVbico mentioned on the wiki Discord that he contacted User:HelenAngel (the community manager) about this, as she has previously stated in a Discord private message that "the wiki is official and officially endorsed". While most of the content here is written by community members and Mojang doesn't take part in day-to-day editing activities, they do maintain some official documentation pages. –Sonicwave ^talk 18:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I asked about it, and minecraft.net is right; the web team was told that since Mojang doesn't own the wiki, it cannot be called official. FVbico (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. What does that mean for the opening... Welcome to the Official Minecraft Wiki on the homepage? --Thefakesheep (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC) (OP here)

While it is not technically an official wiki, it is probably the most credible Minecraft wiki, since the developers have acknowledged (and even created) the necessary pages. The Blobs 04:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

This somewhat implies that they consider what is official, and there is a possibility Mojang will have their own "official" wiki/resources. It will be otherwise if they don't care about the wiki being the official nor non-official. – ItsPlantseed ⟨₰|₢⟩ 07:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was the issue was addressed.

The file MediaWiki:Msu-comment cannot be edited and I would like to licence it with "free art". --Andrew36903690 (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

That would change the default license for every file uploaded using msupload, which we can't be sure about the correct license. You will need to edit the file pages manually after the upload add the license or use Special:Upload.   MarkusRost (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)