Minecraft Wiki talk:Projects/Rewrite for Style - minecraft.fandom.com

Rewriting structures[]

Some pages about generated structures also don't follow the style guide, so I think that a structure section can be useful. Use {{Comment}} for opinions. --Naista2002 ♦ 16px 16px 17:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It should follow the steps:

• Create a category for generated structures overall.
• Create a category for rewritten pages about generated structures.
• Create guidelines for rewriting structure pages.
• Rewrite the pages.

--Naista2002 ♦ 16px 16px 17:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

We should start by discussing general rules on the style guide, as adding guidelines here does nothing as to making it official. After we have a few guidelines in place for those, we can add the categories and subpage for generated structures. —KnightMiner ^(talk) 03:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@KnightMiner, Munin295, Fenhl, Goandgoo, LauraFi, Dand0, Majr, Orthotope, Sealbudsman, User GreenStone, Meeples10, JEC6789, Game widow, Quatroking and Dinoguy1000: Some guidelines for rewriting structure pages are developed and awaiting approval. The :Category:Structures category has first items in it. The draft for the project's page is here. --Naista2002 ♦ 16px 16px 09:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Leaves rewrite[]

How can I get rid of the Appearance section of the leaves page? (in other words where should I put that information?) Or is simply leaving the Appearance section there ok? –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk
Contribs
Edits 21:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I would move it under "Usage" The first fact is relevant to its usage as color, and the second and third describe its usage as a transparent block. –KnightMiner ^(talk) 22:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Doesn't even need a subheading, just one paragraph for color (relevant to builds) and another for light interaction. —munin · 16 px 16 px · 22:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

 Agree. I'll add it to the actual style guide. --Naista2002 ♦ 16px 16px 07:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add anything to the style guide until consensus on the subject has been reached on the style guide talk page first. I don't even know what exactly you're proposing to add.

The purpose of this project is to rewrite articles. Making changes to the style guide is a related but separate issue and should only be done after discussion on the style guide talk page, so that people interested in the subject have a chance to notice the discussion and respond (and people in the future know where the discussion occurred). —munin · 16 px 16 px · 08:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Bot in project[]

My bot, J.A.R.V.I.S., is replacing interwiki Twitter links with {{Tweet}} template. Is it allowed to add a bot to the project's team? --Naista2002 ♦ 16px 16px 06:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

KnightMiner? --Naista2002 ♦ 16px 16px 08:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Soon I may no longer wait. KnightMiner, Goandgoo? --Naista2002 ♦ 16px 16px 10:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

He could join the team I guess, if he wants to. On a more serious note, I don't see anything wrong with his joining, as he likely would have been helping out anyways. Just to make sure he is marked as a bot in the list (which he is). –KnightMiner ^(talk) 15:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! For referencing a bot, use 'it' and 'its', not 'he', 'his' and 'him'. Also, for interest, the bot's name is an acronym. --Naista2002 ♦ 16px 16px 15:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Tutorials[]

Sorry for my decreased activity. I became more active in Russian wiki.

The most "dirty" pages are tutorials. They are written by various users, and not much of them read the style guide, and thus there we have a mess. If stacked vertically, the amount of such bad-styled content would nearly beat original 7 WTC building in height.

We need a complete cleanup of these pages. I did some there. It might not be part of this project, but then it is still a related rewrite. There's no specific guidelines like with other sub-projects, as contents vary from tutorial to tutorial.

Any suggestions?

--User:Naista2002 | 16px 16px 17:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right, tutorial pages are messy and they don't follow the style guide. Laura Fidalgo ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The main problem is making a guide for tutorials. Much of the earlier sections of the style guide can be followed, other than leaving out tutorials, but after that, we really cannot make a set pattern for tutorials well, as each tutorial requires different things. That might be worth a separate project, due to how diverse the tutorials are, of maybe a fifth sub-project once the rest are finished.

We also would need guidelines as to what should be a tutorial, what is to broad for a tutorial, and what is too narrow, as a few tutorials could merge just fine, and Tutorials/Combat could really use a split. –KnightMiner ^(talk) 00:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It looks like it is worth of a separate project, or an autonomous division of this project (such as Minecraft Wiki:Projects/Rewrite for Style: Tutorials).

I also agree about merging/splitting. Example: Tutorials/Defeating temples and Tutorials/Defeating an ocean monument (and a few others?) would go to Tutorials/Structures guide or something like that.

--User:Naista2002 | 16px 16px 18:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Now more about length: Tutorials/Traps is 18th longest page, at 142,327 bytes. PvP, TntD, mining and combat tutorials are 22th, 30th, 37th and 39th longest, respectively, at 127,243, 110,306, 98,151 and 94,368 bytes.

Suggestions:

• Traps
  • Basic traps
  • Greed traps
  • Explosive traps
  • Semi-advanced traps
  • Pocket Edition traps
  • Trap disarming
  • Trap design
• PvP
  • PvP preparations
  • PvP tactics
  • PvP (itself)

--User:Naista2002 | 16px 16px 18:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

As for PvP, it would lose over half of the article if we dump the PvP classes, no one really needs them as classes are different for every server, and a server planning classes would not likely come here, as the classes section is a mess. I think the only reason we have them is because many anons love making a class system, without taking into account that the class is mostly useless, impossible to actually create, or imbalanced. Beyond that, PvP would be a much shorter article, listing basics to combat, combat with various weapons, and tactics.

Traps would do well to split, based on version, then survival/creative accessibility (creative/command only traps can be separate), and then player/mob traps, and finally type of trap. Type may do best divided based on how damaging the trap is (whether the trap destroys the player's stuff, whether the trap damages the terrain). Most categories of traps can be subpages of Tutorials/Traps, with the main page linking you to designs and explaining general design, and maybe disarming.

Although, for most tutorials with major rewrites, it may be best to discuss it on the tutorial's talk page first, some people will see that, but not this page. –KnightMiner ^(talk) 18:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. --User:Naista2002 | 16px 16px 06:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

 Unauthorized rewrite of Tutorials/Traps started by JEC6789. I warned him. We should first discuss, not act. --User:Naista2002 | 16px 16px 13:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You can start a rewrite of any page without permission in your userspace, implementing the rewrite into the page is what requires discussion, and if your rewrite has disproved content, that may need to be changed before it can be implemented. –KnightMiner ^(talk) 14:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Rewriting articles, in your own namespace or even directly in the article, is not against the rules -- it is the core function of how wikis improve. No discussion is required before rewriting an article, though it can be helpful to avoid future edit wars. Even if someone had gone ahead and rewritten an article that was being discussed elsewhere -- so what? That wouldn't harm anything. The discussion could continue, and possibly incorporate some of the new rewrite into the discussion or into the future rewrite.

Being a member of a project give us no special authority over any pages. We are not admins (except for those of us who are) and we don't order other people around. At most we can try to be helpful by letting other people know that a project or discussion is occuring that they might want to participate in.

This page is for talking about the Rewrite for Style project. A discussion about developing/improving a style guide for tutorials should occur on the style guide talk page, and a discussion about improving a specific tutorial should occur on that tutorial's talk page. —munin · 16 px 16 px · 17:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Project is a potential permanent work in progress[]

Minecraft evolves. Not everyone follows the style guide when writing pages about new content. The game is still a work in progress. So does this wiki, and many others, and so does this project.

I think that there's no reason to have "Have a bot remove the categories..." in the to-do list.

--User:Naista2002 | 16px 16px 08:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

My original plan was when all pages have been rewritten, it would be finished, and then new pages could be brought to the same standard upon creation, as there will always be someone active on the wiki that follows the style guide. This project was mainly because few pages followed the guide, so to implement the guide across all pages.

Making this a permanent ongoing project would help as to marking pages which need rewriting, and to keep track of pages requiring adjustment, but users should already be checking new pages to make them fit the style guide, and as the style guide will be followed on most pages, users will notice that it is actually followed versus just stated. Also, if a user's edit are frequently reverted or adjusted, a mention on their talk page pointed to the style guide would help.

Pages that eventually become messed up could be cleaned up again or marked with {{cleanup}}, to be added to the list of :Category:Cleanup. To keep it orderly, it may be best to force translation projects to use a separate cleanup category.

–KnightMiner ^(talk) 17:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

So you're generally neutral on this point.

--User:Naista2002 | 16px 16px 17:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Mostly, yes. If there is reason to continue the project, I would help maintain that, otherwise we already have provisions to reduce the need. I am leaning a little more towards using those provisions, as having both the project and {{cleanup}} would be slightly redundant (although after completion I could incorporate a list generated using {{cleanup}}). –KnightMiner ^(talk) 15:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This project might be expanded to eventually take care of tutorials, version, environment and gameplay pages, if not more, so it is farther than you might think.

After everything is fresh and clean, we may make a group of "style patrollers" who check pages and [[Category:Cleanup]], and do necessary changes. --User:Naista2002 | 16px 16px 15:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Version pages are rather new, so little cleanup is required other than random "This should be a change, not an addition" and adopting a few templates where correct. They also mostly lack a style guide (I did propose one though). The rest of the types are a little inconsistent, but some standards could be adopted. We would really want to finish the current four first though, as #DPL has a four category limit set (used for the total progress bar), and it helps to avoid the problem of too much to do preventing any from finishing.

Maybe, although most likely as an unofficial group, we don't want newer people to feel certain people are in charge of all style guide changes because of a usergroup. The only use of a group rights wise would be to give them patrol for new pages and a right to edit the style guide should we need to protect it. –KnightMiner ^(talk) 02:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't really need a separate set of user rights. We may have a special section to list patrollers' signatures, like with current Members section. --User:Naista2002 | 16px 16px 12:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Next phase of rewriting[]

The Blocks sub-project is now complete, with the Items sub-project basically complete as well (the hub pages don't really count). A bot can now remove the categories from those pages. We can now also discuss the rewriting of Environment and Gameplay pages. While it may be difficult to come to a uniform page layout, we can always simply set up sub-projects and enforce general guidelines (e.g. ensuring that the intro is not too long, removing historical and duplicate information etc). Also, in regards to the Tutorials topic above, we can discuss rewriting those as well. –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk
Contribs 01:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the hub articles are not too bad, and techincally do not fit as the same type as the rest. I archived the items and blocks projects, and will send my bot to remove the categories tomorrow (as I should really go to bed right now...)

Anyways, the tutorials project already exists under the name Tutorials Modernization (which makes sense as updating tutorials attracts a different crowd then conforming articles), but I would agree to adding environment and gameplay, though I would like to look into a few guidelines specific to those types. –KnightMiner · (t) 03:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

That project merely exists only to update tutorials to modern versions of Minecraft. — Agent NickTheRed37 (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

 Categories removed. –Majr ᐸ Talk
Contribs 13:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Reviving this topic as we only have one category left, I think it's now time for us to make guidelines for environment and gameplay pages. –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk
Contribs 23:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have any ideas for the structuring of the environment and gameplay pages? From what I've seen, all the pages are simply so diverse so we may need to resort to general rewriting (e.g. moving content into sections, out of trivia, out of the header etc). –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk
Contribs 01:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I really see no real pattern of content with gameplay, but there is a bit of pattern with environment pages that relate to generation which we could use, though it would basically just be repeating the structures stuff (and since structures are also environment, it would be a good idea to merge those two projects). –KnightMiner · (t) 03:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

While many pages could have the similar heading of generation, for some pages the generation page might not work, such as the moon or day-night cycle. –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk
Contribs 04:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added two new sub-projects for gameplay and environment pages. I've added the pages already rewritten under the structures sub-project to the environment sub-project. –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk
Contribs 06:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Completed rewrite not showing up[]

If you look at the source or history for the south-east rule page, you'll notice that I have added {{escaped link|Category:Rewritten gameplay}}. However, it is still showing as an incomplete page in Minecraft Wiki:Projects/Rewrite for Style/Gameplay. Does anyone know why this is? --Madminecrafter12 (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be a MediaWiki bug, as no changes I make to categories are reflected in the categories themselves. I'll alert the proper people. –KnightMiner · (t) 02:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I just discovered something. I'm a part of the Screenshot Licensing project, of which part of the goal is to categorize files. All uncategorized files are under Special:UncategorizedFiles. However, anytime when I categorized a file yesterday, it would do it properly, but when I looked under uncategorized files, it would still be there, even though it had been categorized. Today, when I categorized files, they would not show up under uncategorized files, which is what they were supposed to do, so this may have just been a temporary problem. Thus, I'm going to temporarily remove the rewritten gameplay category from the south-east rule page, and then put it back, and see if that fixes the problem.--Madminecrafter12 (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

It worked - the problem has been fixed!--Madminecrafter12 (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Project slowdown[]

As it appears like, the project’s progress has slowed down over the last time. The amount of articles that were processed as part of this project in 2014 (when I was active in these re-styling works) appears to be larger than nowadays. Has it anything to do with increasing complexity of articles, or some sort of general loss of enthusiasm and interest? — BabylonAS (talk | ru.Wiki Admin) (fka NickTheRed37) 13:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

For me, its a major decrease in freetime for wiki editing, along with the articles being more difficult for being less standard. –KnightMiner · (t) 04:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Close project[]

Does anyone object to me closing this project? I originally started it close to 7 years ago and it has since performed its purpose. It just never finished one additional category that was not even part of the original project, plus we have been in the middle of gameplay for close to 6 years, so I really doubt project work will be consistent with the original "rewritten" articles.

I vote we close this project as it is. If people want to start fresh with a new project thats up to them, probably less focused on rewriting this time and more on just checking articles to see that they remain up to quality standards. However, the main benefit of a new project (if people want it) is we no longer have many project members as inactive. KnightMiner ^(t/c) 00:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

If this is closed and there is a new project, someone please let me know on my talk page as otherwise I might not notice. --GK1H • Profile • Talk • Contributions • Achievements • Sandbox • Userboxes (I made) • Userboxes (On user page) • Projects 00:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)