Minecraft Wiki talk:Community portal/Archive 35 - minecraft.fandom.com

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Treść tej podstrony pochodzi z artykułu „Minecraft Wiki talk:Community portal/Archive 35” w domenie minecraft.fandom.com na licencji CC BY-NC-SA 3.0
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. 
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Convert the Tutorials pages into their own namespaces

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Outdated: 9 months since last re. If somebody would want to start this topic again, feel free to link this section --TreeIsLife (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm reviving Minecraft Wiki talk:Community portal/Archive 26#Should we move all Tutorials pages to a own namespace?

That discussion actually is worth of reopening. Tutorials are an important part of any game wiki, as it is a secure way to keep documentated facts that aren't able to be into normal articles.

This was opposed before mainly because (if I read the old discussion correctly) other namespaces couldn't be accessed with the "Random page" link. However, that is no longer the case, as now Minecraft Dungeons and Minecraft Earth articles can be accessed with the link.

If we do this, then we should do this (see the table):

Original name New name Reason
Tutorials and Minecraft Dungeons:Tutorials Minecraft tutorials and Minecraft Dungeons tutorials Since both games are active, tutorials need to be split into two namespaces.
Example: Tutorials/Defeating the ender dragon Example: Minecraft tutorials:Defeating the ender dragon To be the same as Minecraft Dungeons and Minecraft Earth.
Example: Talk:Tutorials/Defeating the ender dragon Example: Minecraft tutorials talk:Defeating the ender dragon To be talk pages of their own pages and not subpages of the general Tutorials talk page.

The reason is that tutorials are an important part of the wiki. Though the Minecraft Wiki is meant to explain factual data about the game, it can't do that completely without the tutorial pages. Things such as redstone circuits, general farms, game quirks, functions, and information about the game's UIs all are stored within tutorials. This is factual evidence that can only really be given in a tutorial format, as the main articles oesn't alllow tutorial-like content.

Now I'll show another table showing the advantages, disadvantages and arguments for them:

Advantage Disadvantage Counterargument to disadvantages
Tutorials as their own namespace will be able to be accessed through the Random page link. Tutorials are often badly written, and its quality is seriously questionable. Being acessible through that link means that users will be able to see them more often. Also, tutorials themselves can be rewritten, and it's easy to mark them with the {{rewrite}} template.
Tutorials as their own namespaces can receive a standard definition of what are they exactly, which isn't totally defined. Tutorials describe guides, describe processes, can serve as suggestions or warnings for doing things in-game. The Minecraft Wiki's scope and purpose is to document actual information from the game. Tutorials have a different tone, set of editors, audience and intentions than regular articles. Tutorials always have been part of the wiki, or at least for so many time. The fact itself that they have a different tone, set of editors, audience and intentions also acts as an advantage, since people wants to document its creations in a secure way, making sure that they will be preserved. Many tutorials do this, containing information for both current/recent and old versions.
Tutorial talk pages will be specific for only one tutorial, and wouldn't be anymore a subpage of the general Tutorials page. --- ---
Their shortcut versions would be "MCT" (Minecraft tutorial) and "MDT" (Minecraft Dungeons tutorial). Minecraft Dungeons tutorials would have an inconsistent shortcut. Another proposal can be "MCDT". Though it would be longer and still inconsistent with the usual 3 letter ones, it is more consistent than "MDT".

What do you think of this proposal?, as this really needed to be discussed again. Supeika (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

 Strong support I actually had forgotten for a while that they weren't a separate namespace. (Or did they used to be? I honestly can't remember.) In any case, Terraria Wiki uses a namespace for their equivalent Guides, so its feasibility is demonstrated by example. --MentalMouse42 (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 Strong support per my comment on #The problem with subpages.Humiebeetalk contribs 00:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 Strong oppose. I don't see how any of the four advantages are substantial or valid. Most visitors would get to tutorials from the search engine (not even the on-site search or the random page button), which means optimizing for the latter two ways should not be done at the expense of the first one, and page moves of any kind are harmful to search engine optimization, while the subpage structure is very well understood by search engines. So #1 is an advantage that will be targeted at the expense of the average reader. #2 is invalid, any policy can be changed to adapt to circumstances, and we shouldn't try to adapt circumstances to policy at substantial expense of user experience. The talk page issue doesn't seem problematic at all, at most weird for the more involved of readers (most of who won't even use talk pages). The namespace shortcuts are not going to be used by readers as they won't have any idea of them (and once again, they'll most likely be coming from search engines who at best won't care about shortcuts); in addition, the proposed shortcuts can conflict with potential "talk" shortcuts. --AttemptToCallNil (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 Comment: It is true. The policy can be changed so how to write tutorials should be explained better than how it is done now. The main reason of this is the point #1, which explains that subpages can't be accessed from the Random page link. If this can break the search engine, maybe we could find a solution to this. Subpages can't be shown easily, and that's another reason of why. Supeika (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 Strong Oppose - Namespace? No. I feel we should not make an soup opera from Namespaces. Namespaces are here to seperate functions between pages. All namespaces have purporse. With creating new, however, we should consider why it is needed to make a new namespace. For example, with Minecraft Earth and Dungesons - "Different games". Games, which are not 100%-ly Minecraft, but are from Minecraft Universe (Minecraft Earth, Dungeons, Story Mode) and have potential to have more content, yes. This doesn't. It may have more content, but it is really needed? No. --TreeIsLife (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 Strong support. Tutorials serve a very different purpose to definitive fact-based Minecraft Wiki articles, but are a necessary commodity for this Wiki to serve. (Is there anywhere close to as good a resource as we have here for Redstone logic gates? I don't think so.) New and old players utilize these resources, and they are key to this Wiki's helpfulness, while being very different from say, and article about a block or item. For this reason, and since most people find tutorials through the search bar anyway, and for categorization and organaiztion purposes, I dig this idea. --DigiDuncan (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 Extremely strong support These pages have been in the mainspace for far longer than they should have been and are well overdue for being kicked out. The style guide specifically forbids tutorial info from mainspace articles, so why these insisted on remaining mainspace articles for a decade plus is beyond me. - User-12316399 (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
For the shortcuts, MCT is already used (Minecraft Wiki talk). Possibly MT and MDT/DT? (consistant) and the talk would be MTT and MDTT or DTT)Humiebeetalk contribs 14:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 Strong oppose, for now. Not a single one of the advantages listed is compelling. Going through them one at a time: (1) We don't need badly-written tutorials to be accessible via the Random Page link, as they are not representative of article-quality pages. (2) Lacking a dedicated name space doesn't preclude creating a standard definition for a tutorial, this can be done with or without a name space. (3) Tutorial talk pages are already specific to each tutorial. Tutorials are sub-pages, each sub-page has its own dedicated talk page, and some of those talk pages have already seen heavy use (such as Talk:Tutorials/Drowned_farming, for example). If this isn't a problem for other wikis, I don't see why it's a problem here. (4) Consistent shortcuts can already exist without a name space; we just have to agree on what they are. No name space is needed to create redirect links. Before we rearrange an existing mess, we need to clean up the existing mess, and develop clear guidelines about what should be in a tutorial, how to write them, what the video policy would be (not well defined at the moment) and how to prevent tutorials from growing into indiscriminate lists of "helpful" advice. Amatulic (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose my own discussion now for a couple of reasons:
  • This discussion was opened because the tutorials aren't easily accessible for users and they are difficult to maintain. However, as mentioned, namespaces should be about a topic, and for example Minecraft tutorials being in the (main) namespace makes sense. Same with tutorials on the Minecraft Dungeons namespace.
  • Our real issue is handling all those badly written tutorials, the horrible navbox that includes all of them, and their accessibility id just the least important part of their problem.
  • Enabling 2 namespaces would reduce our chances to be able to receive/enable more custom namespaces on the future,and there will probably be more Minecraft games on the future.
  • Oppose per AttemptToCallNil's, TreeIsLife's and Amatulic's comments.
  • A solution I can give is linking them on the main page similar to what Template:DidYouKnow does.
Those are my reasons of why it wouldn't be a good idea. Supeika (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Navigation on FandomDesktop (and perhaps sidebar on Hydra)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
--TreeIsLife (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

As you may know, FandomDesktop will use the same navigation, as Oasis, therefore we would have to change this one. Unfortunately, this type of navigation would mean the uncollapsed "navigation" would be gone, and we would have to rework it entirely. What are your opinions on this?

Note: It is possible to add 3 layers into navigation --TreeIsLife (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I propose an idea to do this. We can just update MediaWiki:Wiki-navigation to make 4 custom sections. Note that I don't know if the "Explore" category can have many customizations like the others, but it can be modified I think, so I propose that we should update to this only after UCX (FandomDesktop) releases:
Wiki Minecraft Dungeons Help Explore
Wiki rules Gameplay Gameplay How to help Recent changes
-> Minecraft style guide -> Blocks -> Locations Help with contents Random page
Dungeons style guide Items Heads-up display Standardized views What links here
Talk page guidelines Entities Daily Trials Quick reference page Special pages
Video policy Mobs Ancient Hunts Schematics Upload a file
Community portal Mechanics Difficulties Official sources Missing pages
-> Admin noticeboard -> Crafting Mobs
Projects Smelting Gear
Pending tasks Brewing Weapons
Patroller requests Enchanting Armor
Wiki Discord Trading Artifacts
Edit testing page Redstone Enchanting
-> Components Cosmetics
Circuits Drops
Tutorials Arcade
Achievements -> Cards
Advancements
What do you think of this? Supeika (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki navigation request (moved from admin noticeboard)

Currently, it looks like:

  • Minecraft
  • Minecraft Earth
  • Minecraft Dungeons

This should be changed to:

  • Minecraft
  • Minecraft Dungeons
  • Minecraft Dungeons Arcade

Thank you. Humiebeetalk contribs 21:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd do these changes to MediaWiki:Sidebar:
* Games
** Minecraft|Minecraft
** Minecraft Dungeons|Minecraft Dungeons
** MCD:Minecraft Dungeons Arcade|Minecraft Dungeons Arcade
** Minecraft: Story Mode|Minecraft: Story Mode
** Minecraft: Story Mode - Season Two|Minecraft: Story Mode - Season Two
** Minecraft Earth|Minecraft Earth
Because all of those games are official (even Story Mode is official in its way), and people might be interested in seeing them.
If we someday use MediaWiki:Wiki-navigation, I'd use on that page:
* Minecraft (games)|Games
** Minecraft|Minecraft
*** Java Edition|Java Edition
*** Bedrock Edition|Bedrock Edition
*** Education Edition|Education Edition
** Minecraft Dungeons|Minecraft Dungeons
*** MCD:Minecraft Dungeons Arcade|Minecraft Dungeons Arcade
** Minecraft: Story Mode|Minecraft: Story Mode
*** Minecraft: Story Mode - Season Two|Minecraft: Story Mode - Season Two
** Minecraft Earth|Minecraft Earth
To make it more useful on FandomDesktop. Both options work anyway. Supeika (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The first option is fine but in the second option, if you are going to put discontinued games, you have to put discontinued versions OR remove the discontinued games (3DS and Console) (like the original proposal I made). Humiebeetalk contribs 21:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we should only have 3 links to 3 current games. After all, our wiki has content for all those games and readers may be interested. Sure, they are discontinued, but I wouldn't compare them to 3DS or Legacy Console, since games like Story Mode or Earth are their own games unlike 3DS and Legacy, which are just ports of regular Minecraft to other devices. Supeika (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
If so, I prefer the 1st option because editions are NOT games. Humiebeetalk contribs 16:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
While I agree that editions aren't games, people searches them and they are enoughly relevant to be included there. That's a reason of why I didn't include editions like Legacy, Pi or 3DS. Also, note that Wiki-navigation only affects FandomDesktop, and on Hydra Sidebar takes its place. Supeika (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC) (Edit: I moved Earth down since it was discontinued.)
Change the sidebar:
  • Games*
Minecraft
Minecraft Dungeons
Minecraft Dungeons Arcade
Minecraft Earth
  • Discontinued games*
Minecraft: Story Mode
Minecraft: Story Mode Season 2
To this:
  • Games*
Minecraft
Minecraft Dungeons
Minecraft Dungeons Arcade
  • Discontinued games*
Minecraft: Story Mode
Minecraft: Story Mode Season 2
Minecraft Earth
111.88.70.70 13:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 Support this though MCE should be moved above MC: Story Mode. Humiebeetalk contribs 14:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
For MediaWiki:Wiki-navigation I would suggest something like this:
* #|Games
** Minecraft
*** Java Edition
*** Bedrock Edition
*** Education Edition
** Minecraft Dungeons
** MCD:Minecraft Dungeons Arcade|Minecraft Dungeons Arcade
** #|Discontinued games
*** Minecraft Earth
*** Minecraft: Story Mode
*** Minecraft: Story Mode - Season Two
--MarkusRost (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't know, the reason of why I didn't add s discontinued games section was to make simpler for users to go to the pages. We already say that they are discontinued on both main page and their own pages, so for me it's kinda redundant. Also, I would make "Games" go to a disambiguation page or something like that, such a "Minecraft (games)" or "Minecraft (franchise)" page or something like that. Supeika (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
That's actually not possible as clicking on "Games" collapses and uncollapses the games themselves. Humiebeetalk contribs 14:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
This one includes different editions unlike the IP above. I don't think editions should be in "Games". Also, Arcade should be a subbullet of MCD and Story Mode Season 2 should be a sub-bullet of Story Mode. Humiebeetalk contribs 17:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
My overall request:
* #|Games
** Minecraft
*** Java Edition
*** Bedrock Edition
*** Education Edition
** Minecraft Dungeons
*** MCD:Minecraft Dungeons Arcade|Minecraft Dungeons Arcade
** #|Discontinued games
*** Minecraft Earth
*** Minecraft: Story Mode
**** Minecraft: Story Mode - Season Two
Humiebeetalk contribs 17:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan on the subsections for Story Mode and Dungeons. The subsections include only a single link which kinda defeats the point of of a subsection, specially as we aren't at the limit of links in the higher section. MarkusRost (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I really don't like discontinued games either, they recieve too little traction, MCE is inaccessable and MC Story Mode is inaccessable if you did not download it before its discontinuation. I'm fine with no sub-bullets ifi there is only going to be 3 games (MC, MCD, and MCD: Arcade). I'm still not comfortable with editions as they are not games. (So I basically support my original proposal
* #|Games
** Minecraft
** Minecraft Dungeons
** MCD:Minecraft Dungeons Arcade|Minecraft Dungeons Arcade
Humiebeetalk contribs 14:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

To continue, I've made some significant changes to the navigation (for Fandom Desktop) and not just for the games section, feel free to add or suggest more things about it:

Quick look: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/827172532917764161/865280880628465684/Navigation.gif – ItsPlantseed ⟨₰|₢⟩ 20:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I really think that Realms and Commands should be moved to technical. I also think that a discontinued games sub-section should be added to separate old games and new, active games. Humiebeetalk contribs 21:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I've updated the menus to show less items, since 4th layer menu doesn't really supported. – ItsPlantseed ⟨₰|₢⟩ 17:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Forgot to say,  Support. Also, how would these apply to the hydra sidebar? (MediaWiki:Sidebar) Humiebeetalk contribs 21:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
As MediaWiki:Wiki-navigation doesn't affect the current hydra sidebar, I don't think it's possible to add multi-layered section with the sidebar. So hydra would almost likely to be unchanged. – ItsPlantseed ⟨₰|₢⟩ 21:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I'd use something like this actually:
That way we can include more useful links, also without being redundant on usage of many "something|something" (it does work). Supeika (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Does 4th layer even exist? I did not saw nothing about it?
But if you ask about my idea, it should be simple, so the idea for layer 1 would be:
--TreeIsLife (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
4th layer does not exist so thejouqui777's idea can't work. Minecraft Wiki is not a game and you forgot MCD Arcade.Humiebeetalk contribs 22:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
MCD arcade goes into MCD layer. Minecraft Wiki lists wiki things. "Help:Contents" isn't even a in category of "wiki contents". --TreeIsLife (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Simply thejouqui777's idea without 4th headings (+ or - a few adjustments) Humiebeetalk contribs 22:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to mention that 4th layers did exist before, but they now don't, so yeah the proposal may need to be tweaked. Supeika (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


If you noticed a new Fandom blog, next week, the skin will officially be unchangeable from preferences and 2 weeks later, ?useskin will be removed too. So, it will become inaccessible. Because of this, we must to make a final decision for the skin. After some thinking, my final suggestion is:

I decided to merge editions with the "Minecraft" on sublayer of Games. Few changes in "Minecraft Wiki" layer, but otherwise it is same. --TreeIsLife (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

2022 Update

Continuing the discussion, I proposed this for the new navigation:

Preview on my test wiki: [1].

I've removed the Games section altogether and merged it with the Gameplay section (you can still click on the respective title), also added Technical section which contains several links to customization resources. I also noticed that moving from sidebar to wiki navigation means that we will lose the amount of maximum items in a single dropdown, so multilayered dropdown is needed to compensate some of the remaining links. – ItsPlantseed ⟨₰|₢⟩ 04:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Hydra

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Hydra will no longer be able to be used at all making this discussion obsolete in a few months. Humiebeetalk contribs 17:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

This sub-section will be used to discuss the hydra sidebar. For games, MCE should be removed (no discontinued stuff) and MCD Arcade should be added. There is also a dungeons sidebar so the twitter and discord for dungeons can be done accordingly. Instagram should be added, Minecraft Twitch should be renamed to Twitch, all mechanics (trading, brewing, enchanting, crafting, smelting) in the hydra sidebar should be clumped into Mechanics. Technical stuff should not be added. Blocks, Items, and Mobs should be moved to the top and gameplay should be added. Humiebeetalk contribs 21:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why we should discuss this. Soon in August, all wikis should be using FandomDesktop by default, and later, Hydra skin will be removed from options to switch. --TreeIsLife (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh, at least the admins should repace MCE with MCD Arcade, this discussion is now irrelevant. Humiebeetalk contribs 17:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

How are people getting perfect mob models?

Is there some sort of model viewer that can view every mob? How are people getting images of blocks and mobs at perfect angles? -- XZippy (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

You're referring to isometric renders. You need software or a mod to make those; for example see https://www.curseforge.com/minecraft/mc-mods/isometric-renders or Google for "minecraft isometric render". On this wiki, the renders appear to be made with Blender, and you can find a huge amount of detail, requirements, and instructions about that at Minecraft Wiki:Standardized views. Amatulic (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
The renders are made with Blender, with models extracted from Bedrock Edition Vanilla Resource Pack. - Magiczocker (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I got the mod working, thank you guys for telling me about it. The mod doesn't seem to render mobs with weapons. Am I missing something? Does the mod actually do that or is there some other program for that? -- XZippy (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
If you don't want to use the graphic programs (which may be more complicated but always up to date and I understand that) try using Mineshot mod, latest release seem to be compatible with 1.16.5. What mod is doing is basically letting you project camera into orthographic view. Oakar567 (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I used that isometric mod to make the image on the mobs page. Is it good? Do you like it? -- XZippy (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
It looks good for the lead image, but for individual illustrations the camera angle and other stuff (like no dropshadow) needs to comply with the MCW:Standardized views guideline. Amatulic (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I understand how all the images should work here. Are there any other pages that need my image magic like I gave on the mobs, undead and biome page? I don't want to leave any page non-beautified. -- XZippy (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Explaining things

How do I explain Minecraft facts to pre-beginners like me if I'm not allowed to use non-specialist language? User: The Slimy Stump. – Unsigned comment added by The Slimy Stump (talk • contribs) at 03:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC). Sign comments with ~~~~

Splitting Biome-related Pages

In recent snapshot 21w40a, an amount of biomes is removed (e.g. swamp hills) or renamed (e.g. jungle edge → sparse jungle). However, we do not have any agreements on how to split related pages, so I would like to suggest some possible methods:

  • merge all removed biomes into one page (e.g. removed biomes)
  • list removed biomes as subpages of regular biomes (e.g. desert/old)

If anyone has better suggestions, please list below. --Ultim_0 ( USER | TALK | CONT ) 11:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I think they should just be kept as is since they're still in the main game, and when 1.18 is officially released they can be moved to the removed features pages. Cat201 (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Logo?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
--TreeIsLife (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Idk but sounds like we need to change the logo... maybe a cube wikipedia? Gugalcrom123 (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Which logo exactly? -- XZippy (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
See the Community Portal page (not this talk page) for an explanation. This wiki has been disallowed to display Microsoft-owned trademarks or logos. Amatulic (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, the wiki is no longer official. Microsoft terminated the agreement that allowed use of Minecraft trademarks on this wiki. This is no longer an official source. About that though, how will it affect the wiki's style guide? I doubt there would still be the same dedication to making this a complete, comprehensive source when there is no credibility status to live up to. As far as I can tell there is nothing to stop this wiki from becoming another one of the millions of fan-made nonsense that this site is full of. I'm really worried it won't be as reliable as before, even if only from a user perspective. Loss of an official status is no small thing and would definitely affect credibility.Theoratically, what can prevent this from becoming another trash can is if the strict style guide is never dropped or changed, as in for instance pages about features not in development versions are not allowed, so on and so forth. But even then would it be viewed and referred to by the community the same way as before? Anyone with information or even just an opinion about that matter as a whole? I'd really like to be wrong about where I think this wiki is going, but I also kind of like the drama ngl. Zegatrox (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I do not believe this change is going to affect article quality or wiki policy. --AttemptToCallNil (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
As a member of this community, I can say that we won't be different from what we've been all these years. A community like us isn't only defined by their rules, but also their members. All those users who make either small or big editions are appreciated. The logo may be different, yeah, but this doesn't mean we'll be different. Some things will change, but our core will remain the same. We've even been considered "unnoficial" from many years ago actually, and we all knew that someday something like this would happen. What we need to do is to not lose our dedication and inspiration, we need to continue doing what we've been doing for all these years, which is to document all the info about the franchise we love. Supeika (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Without rules, the people start conflicting. As such, the rules actually do make or break a community. Be clear, be concise, and be comprehensive. That is why Fandom's wiki was listed as official for longer than anyone else's wiki. And, if we slack on the rules, then all the work that was poured into the Fandom wiki goes away. ... Yes, the people are important. Just make sure the rules last longer than the people will. :) 70.190.43.171 04:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Your comment made my day! Ever since I discovered this place and the Nether Update was anounced I was so anticipating to see how the articles grow and keep documenting all of the cool new features so people who like me at the time were new to the community and didn't follow Minecraft on YouTube or Twitter could see all of these things. I had that same feeling once Caves & Cliffs was announced, and after what happened I worried this aspect of the wiki being so up to date and a comprehensive source to check out update news would be no more. But thinking about it again you are right. Ambition and dedication is what gave this wiki a place in the Minecraft community, not some status given or taken away by the all-great, all-powerful authorities (looking at you Microsoft). What they call it doesn't change its reality, and the reality is that this wiki has been documenting all information about Minecraft that is in reach since its release. Zegatrox (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I didn't give a **** about the "official" designation when I got here, and I still don't. This is a wiki, people. A wiki consists of user-generated content, which cannot by any stretch be considered "official". It would be official if the content were curated by Microsoft or Mojang. But as a wiki, no way. It's an information resource, made reliable through the dedication of its contributors. Amatulic (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the logo specifically, I have just updated to a new logo to fulfill the Microsoft requirements in a timely manner; though it's not necessarily final and I think some people wanted to discuss it further. –Sonicwave talk 18:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I like the new logo, but can we do it without text or with a plain font like Roboto? It looks like one of those cheap recreations from the internet. – Unsigned comment added by Gugalcrom123 (talk • contribs). Sign comments with ~~~~

Regarding the logo and header, I have a new proposition for the wiki header: Wiki header2 rev6 Let me know what do you think and if you support possible change to this revision.
Update: Changed logo perspective to more 3D look. Oakar567 (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks good! Cat201 (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I really like the idea of the new earth logo, it just needs to be improved upon. As for the header, I think the text should be tilted/pitched backwards and forwards similarly to how all the Minecraft update logos are. I made an example of this, but I don't know if I should upload it due to it using a CC BY-ND copyrighted font (idk how it works). The current header looks too flat in my opinion. Cat201 (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

We can definitely figure something out in terms of more 3D look, but I'm affraid then it would be called out as taking too much inspiration from official Minecraft logo, resulting in getting back to starting point and change request. Idk, maybe others have different opinion in this matter Oakar567 (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

A logo idea I made, which *technically* doesn't use the official minecraft logo. Minecraft Wiki Header3 Is this what you (Oakar567) meant by things possibly being called out for taking to much inspiration from the official one? (also sorry if I somehow break everything, I'm completely new to editing wikis) JakeThe28th (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the "Unofficial" is unnecessary, and so it the emphasis on "Wiki". Also, I don't think there's an issue with having the wiki logo being inspired by the Minecraft logo as long as it's not the exact same one, but maybe using the same font design like you did here is too much. Cat201 (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal about closing in 3 days

Since this discussion is nearly 14 months old, with no activity for those 14 months and as we've basically "adapted" the current logo (and ES wiki even modified it for their needs) and besides that logo, there was only one different logo submition, (which didn't get any support), I would like to close this discussion in 3 days (if nobody will oppose).

If the discussion will get closed, it will mean that current (Oakar's) logo will become the wiki's official one and we will finally be able to have this topic closed. --TreeIsLife (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Quick question

Do you have to get the new launcher or can I keep the old one?

also I’m new here so Hi – Unsigned comment added by MrPigWig (talk • contribs) at 12:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC). Sign comments with ~~~~

Banners on shields

please add an article about this, it may help everyone.

https://minewiki.pl/en:Shield -AmsterWikis (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
What more needs to be said than what's already in the shield article? Amatulic (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Use Module to store all in game tags

Maintaining |blocktags= and |itemtags= in {{ID table}} by hand can be really annoying and tiring also easy to get outdated.

Using module can easily change all tags by maintaining module's json. Making sure that tags are right,

For example, Grass block's blocktags is not right for now for missing tags that added in 21w44a.

In zh minecraft wiki, zh:Template:GameTag is proved to be working with no problems. So I would like to use it here.

Just type |blocktags={{GameTag|blocks|stone}} , then the module can automaticly output blocktags that stone has.

I would like to have a json model page in Module:Sandbox/GameTag/Data.json for testing (An admin is required to change the page content model to JSON ), If I may.

Thank you. --Snow dash（Talk & Contributions） 05:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I  Support storing data elsewhere, but  Not sure about storing data in some changed content model. Isn't it possible to have it in Lua too? --TreeIsLife (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Script proposal - DedicatedTalkButton

I'm making this section to discuss the possibility of adding a script to the wiki, or at least its code. I've seen on the Dev Wiki a script that moves the Talk page link from the dropdown below the language selector to be next to the edit button. On its script article (script called DedicatedTalkButton), it explains what it does, which isn't more than what I mention, but it may be useful to restore in some way the old behavior of the wiki with talk pages. I'm not the most supportive person for scripts, but I wouldn't propose it if I didn't see it being useful, at least here. Supeika (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

 Strong Support Talk pages are lacking their deserved visibility, ever since the wiki started to use FandomDesktop skin. And since we said "no" to these "discussions" features, this is our only option to recover talk pages. --TreeIsLife (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 Comment: While we can import it through ImportJS, we also can add it through either Common.js or Fandomdesktop.js. You can test the script's code on your own Common.js to make sure it works, but if no one opposes, maybe an admin should add it, since it would help a lot to make Talk pages accessible again. Supeika (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Sprites

How do you edit sprites on this wiki? Pi31-dot (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You go to the template, which contains them (like Template:BlockSprite). Wait few seconds, until JS loads. In side-tools (left toolbar) there will be an image icon. This icon is used to launch SpriteEditor. --TreeIsLife (talk) 07:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Pi31-dot (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://minewiki.pl/Specjalna:Obcojęzyczne/minecraft.fandom.com,Minecraft_Wiki_talk:Community_portal/Archive_35"