Talk: Wiki rules/Archive 1

Rule #2

I don't like it. First, "spam" has no meaning in this context. Second, "absolute no-no" sounds like you are scolding the editors. Can we reword this one? –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.162.35 ^(Talk) 21:19, 6 July 2010‎ (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

I agree with this as well. I suggest an improvement to Rule #2 that also includes advertising, since it is implied, but not specifically mentioned. My proposal is: "Spam/advertising/vandalism is not allowed. This includes posting off-topic, repetitive, offensive, libelous, or advertising content." - Asterick6 07:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. 'Repetitive' is a good addition, as there have been a few cases of people posting the same content/link over and over. -- Orthotope 06:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ya, I agree three. the "absolute no-no" part does sound like you are scolding the editors. Also Respectably speaking, it does not sound very professional.

Maybe we could fix this. What do you guys think? Spencer10APSC 15:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The admins have been scolding me for 5 DAYS' about vandalism I didn't even do. This seemed like an appropriate place to put this. Meeples10 20:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Your account performing vandalism is the same thing as you doing it yourself. —User:Kanegasi User talk:KanegasiUser:Kanegasi/edit count 04:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed

A bunch of these rules arent followed a lot of the time.

• "Pages about very simple things, e.g. "House", "Deleting", "Bed" and others, are not allowed. These topics are very unnecessary as they are plain tasks anybody with a tiny bit of intelligence can do."

There is a page about houses.

• "This includes pages about so-called "games" that are played in Minecraft. The only exception to this rule is Spleef as this is widely played and recognized by the entire community."

Im pretty sure I have seen pages about games on here. I cant remember the names, so i cant check. They might be deleted but I dunno

• "When creating a page, at least include 3 paragraphs of text and, if possible, an image. Pages that don't meet these requirements will be easily removed without a warning due to lack of content!"

Quite a lot of pages dont have 3 paragraphs of text. It is kind of a lot to be asking about most of these articles.

• "Please, use the "Show preview" button before saving your page."

This doesnt have to do with anything, but you are forced to do it now, so should it still be here? lol

• "Stick to the facts - Don't create parodic/comedic/nonsense pages or pages that could mislead players."

Why do we have a joke page template then?

My suggestion is rewrite some and remove some.Toadbert

I can't speak for the last one, but the others are simple demonstrations that the either the rules are out of date, or are reactionary rules that someone has implemented to stop a small number of infractions by users, and that have created double standards among articles that have a right to be there based on the content of the game. A lot of the low-content pages that are here are as a result of a gameplay addition that is either new (and not elaborated on yet) or things that don't have much information or depth to them but are a core part of the game design and as such, should stay.

Also worth mentioning in regard to your notice of "house" existing is because the concept of a house in Minecraft is imperative to staying safe in survival mode and therefore actually more than enough to base an article on, it is fundamentally different in purpose to obvious ones like 'deleting' and 'bed'. Of course this is an error on the writer's part.

You're right, a lot of this needs fixing. The top three are out of date and currently are unenforced (and if they were it'd only harm the wiki akin to shooting the fly with the rocket launcher) and should be modified or removed. In the utopian world this page would be scrapped and we'd have an administrative system set up where users can submit bad information that is under deletion criteria and it can be deleted or put to vote, the same way many wikis (including small community based ones like this one) have in place already. But it would take a lot of work and would require sysop approval.

For now, I think it's safe to say that this list needs to be updated, or if not that, scrapped, for lack of use/reliability.  ACLECTASIS  11:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

the rules are severely messed up. I'm going to organise a staff meeting, seeing as we NEVER have any on IRC. I'll talk to them about the rules.--Kizzycocoa 08:02, 18 November 2010 (CST)

Tutorials-actual consequence

can we make the tutorials rule have a consequence? I have seen two new ones appear just this morning. and over 6 per week. this ALSO outlines a major problem that no new users read the rules.

frankly, if we aren't going to enforce the rule more than a simple "oh, you've done this, let me just put it there for you", it is nothing more than a guideline, and does not belong on this page in the first place in my opinion.

rules are made to be upheld. not to be ignored, with no consequence. not even the equivalent of a slap on the wrist! hell, a 6-hour ban would be nice to get the message across, yet we can't even verbally warn them.--Kizzycocoa 05:19, 21 October 2010 (CDT)

you may verbally warn them even as a non-sysop, wiki's are built on the "be bold" policy and you have every right to point someone to the rules, and also show those pages to a sysop and explain to them that it should be deleted. Nothing wrong with showing initiative.  ACLECTASIS  05:34, 18 November 2010 (CST)

well, when you have to move a tutorial page every week, you feel that no-one looks at the rules.--Kizzycocoa 08:01, 18 November 2010 (CST)

Yeah, well if rules were in place to allow you guys (I didn't know you were a sysop when I initially replied here and in the above topic, sorry) to officially warn users or ban repeat offenders, then everything would be fine. For now, you might as well wait until the above topic is resolved, as the rules to the wiki may change rapidly if people jump onto the bandwagon. Scykei outlined on his talk page a couple of problems and while I don't really agree with his proposals, he offers some good examples, including UDWiki, of which I'm also an old member. The help and administration setup there works well to streamline a lot of the tasks, and also help to make preventative action against newbies making crappy pages or tutorials. However, it also helps regulars understand the rules too. For example, I would help you move tutorials but I don't know where they are supposed to be moved, a help page like [1] could help.

As for the point of this topic, yeah, consequences for breaking the rules and putting others at an inconvenience to fix it should be punishable by warnings or bans. It's up to the admins on how they want to implement that though.  ACLECTASIS  19:06, 20 November 2010 (CST)

Dot Points or Numbers?

I often see people citing rule a rule number and I have to count down the page... this isnt a biggie, but can we change the dot points to numbers like this?

1. Anything that is against the Minecraft TOS is not allowed on the wiki, no matter what.

2. Spam/vandalism is an absolute no-no.

3. Pages about very simple things, e.g. "House", "Deleting", "Bed" and others, are not allowed. These topics are very unnecessary as they are plain tasks anybody with a tiny bit of intelligence can do.

3.1 This includes pages about so-called "games" that are played in Minecraft. The only exception to this rule is Spleef as this is widely played and recognized by the community and Notch himself. -F1racer101 03:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Donezie. Except for the 3.1 thing, that's not actually possible with html lists (It doesn't allow any special characters like . in the value field), you'd have to make the list manually with a table to have that. –User:Ultradude25 ^{(User:Ultradude25/t|User:Ultradude25/c)} at 03:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

sorry!

just wanna say sorry for breaking it D:! I swear I didn't notice that at all--Kizzycocoa 08:20, 11 December 2010 (CST)

Regionalisation

Due to a recent conflict on the Notch page re date formatting, I'm curious: is the English version of this site supposed to follow any particular standard in terms of language, and if so, should that standard not be mentioned on the rules page?

For example, some sites use British English, and some sites use the American spin-off version. Is a mix of the two different spelling methods acceptable here, or is one preferred over the other?

Frankly I prefer to see the original version in use, myself, for what that's worth. I certainly strongly recommend against using the American date formatting system as it's backwards compared to what the rest of the world uses, making it easy to misread. - Bomb Bloke 07:32, 12 December 2010 (CST)

Usually in wikis I use it's localised to either the server location or the location of the game developer. I don't think a real language argument has ever come up before, though I'd prefer British English over the Americanised one.  ACLECTASIS  13:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I just now happened to come across this, coincidently - there was no real conclusion reached, though it's probably worth a read. - Bomb Bloke 13:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It may just be the way I've set my preferences, but the dates on the talk page come up as "12 December 2010" which is clear and unambiguous. I propose we make this a standard for the way dates are written in the articles on the wiki as well. Most articles will need to be tweaked a little when Beta comes out, it would make sense to set some wiki writing standards now rather than just leaving everyone to decide for themselves how it should look. --DannyF1966 13:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This might also be a useful read, it's from the mediawiki manual. --DannyF1966 13:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be all for adding a rule that states "Either you write your date as YYYY/MM/DD or DD <monthname>, YYYY or your date gets removed."

As for language, I would rather use British English as it looks much nicer, but as long as the whole article is in the same English I'm sure it's fine. –User:Ultradude25 ^{(User:Ultradude25/t|User:Ultradude25/c)} at 19:36, 12 December 2010 (CST)

In my opinion, if we write dates in YY MM DD order, then they should be written YYYY-MM-DD rather than YYYY/MM/DD. This happens to be the ISO date standard. —KPReid 13:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That's more of a personal preference since it doesn't actually affect the date. –User:Ultradude25 ^{(User:Ultradude25/t|User:Ultradude25/c)} at 00:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It does, though - how can you tell whether 10/09/09 is YY MM DD or DD MM YY? -  Bomb Bloke (Talk/Contribs) 16:31, 14 December 2010 (CST)

That's the thing though, you wouldn't be writing it YY, it would be YYYY otherwise it's completely defeating the point of doing it the backwards way in the first place. Whether you use forward slashes or hyphens doesn't make any difference. 2010/12/10 is exactly the same as 2010-12-10 in terms of interpreting the date. –User:Ultradude25 ^{(User:Ultradude25/t|User:Ultradude25/c)} at 10:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, my previous comment was irrelevant nonsense. That's what I get for skim reading; I saw the YY bit and figured that was the point of it - somehow managed to miss the / or - bit. -  Bomb Bloke (Talk/Contribs) 12:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we defer to Notch's spelling/grammar/style in all situations! (rule #18 ? :) E.g. Seecret -- Ephemeris 14:16, 15 December 2010 (CST)

I propose that we write the dates in full, with the month name (i.e. 15 December 2010) - it's completely unambiguous that way. --DannyF1966 23:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

as this is the universal date for our sigs, I agree. but I would like to add, the other propose backwards date is RIDICULOUS.--Kizzycocoa 17:19, 15 December 2010 (CST)

Deletion alternative

When a page isn't fully appropriate for a main article but still contains valid/good info, I propose that it instead gets moved to the userspace of the original creating user. This will keep the article around so that any further discussion has something to refer to, and deletions tend to be taken as an affront to the user. --JonTheMon 08:42, 27 December 2010 (CST)

If I may be as bold as to throw my opinion in here, if no-one's READ the rules, surely, they, well, I wouldn't put it as strong as "deserve" it, but a page deletion seems like a minor thing compared to banning for not reading the rules. Idk, maybe I'm talking about an idea where people do read them before editing, but in my opinion, any page that's blatantly not allowed should be deleted.--Kizzycocoa 14:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, right, but off the top of my head, I was thinking of the Materials page. It wasn't quite appropriate (somewhat redundant, i believe), but not blatantly disallowed. --JonTheMon 15:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It needs to at least be deleted with explanation, however. Too often there are prolonged edit wars that end with an admin banning a user because the new user has no idea they are dealing with an admin and the admin never bothers to communicate beyond the occasional 'stop this' which doesn't explain aanything. There are a lot of communication issues on this wiki, and a failure to read the rules is one of them, but there are plenty of others! --JohnnyMadhouse 09:26, 27 December 2010 (CST)

failure to read rules is the main one. once solved, all others will be ok.

materials is already split. It is like going into category:items. it is redundant, and it is said elsewhere. –The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kizzycocoa ^{(Talk|Contribs)} . Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Why not put a link to the wiki rules at the very top of the page with 'read before editing' or something similar? That way more people are likely to see it. The sidebar link is all very well and good, but it's definitely not the main thing users are looking at when they first visit the wiki. As for the materials split, could you link to the discussion elsewhere? This is exactly the lack of meaningful communication that creates butthurt-ness where there should be none. --JohnnyMadhouse 09:36, 27 December 2010 (CST)

A general complaint follows. It won't get better even if users read the rules, because the rules are intrinsically vague. For example, rule 3 states that simple, unnecessary, and plain topics are not allowed. But what's the criteria of that? Now it's only at administrators' discretion which might be understood completely differently by others. Will administrators always be fair and knowledgeable and never make any mistakes? What if a administrator fails to recognize the significance of one topic and immediately delete it? There is no interaction, no consensus, no warning, no chance of appealing. Users come here to voluntarily share knowledge and contribute to the community with content of quality. I understand you may need tighter management considering your userbase, but I don't understand why you must be so arbitrary and hostile to your volunteers and their contribution when you actually need them. Maybe you think they are all inferior than you? I've been a Wikipedian since 2005, in my point of view your way of running this wiki is against the collaboration nature of a wiki community. Xfs 10:18, 27 December 2010 (CST)

Perhaps there needs to be a more formalized deletion policy. Particularly to point out articles that can and can't be deleted without discussion. Some articles are just vandalism or woefully incomplete and off topic, but for others, we should probably stick with the lifeblood of wikis aka discussion. At another wiki i've been at, non-vandal pages are allowed 3 days of discussion (after being tagged) before being deleted. I've just looked at Talk:Materials, and it seems like there the discussion did happen properly. --JonTheMon 11:05, 27 December 2010 (CST)

There was a discussion about the deletion of the original page, yes (which contained notes on about four items and that was it). For the complete rewrite I did later, detailing what you needed to acquire ALL usable resources, whether they were renewable, and what you could make from them? Nothing, it was deleted within five minutes. The page contained plenty of information NOT visible while viewing a category, or any one other single page in this wiki for that matter. I'm lucky enough that I saved a copy of my work before posting it (hence I could at least put it back up within my own userspace), but users such as Xfs have apparently also put in hours of work only to see it removed completely due to a matter of one single person's opinion (and as he didn't make backups (not as cynical as myself it seems), and the admin in concern refuses to allow him access to his own content again, he's stuck - no one else can review what he wrote). -  Bomb Bloke (Talk/Contribs) 18:07, 27 December 2010 (CST)

Rule #6

This rule is going to create problems. It already is in fact. Pages about specific people in the mainspace should be limited to the game developers only. -- Wynthyst 19px talk 12:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not just change it so? That would make more sense. And help us all... I have already today had a page deleted for breaking rule 6... --TheKax 16:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Rule for mods in articles

I was pretty sure that it is not allowed to mention mods in not mod related articles, but i cant find that rule now. So does there exist such an rule but not mentioned on the rules page or is it allowed?

Asking because i just undid an edit in the sponge article because it stated that sponges are usable in beta with a mod an im unsure now if i was right to do that. DerGraph 23:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Templates in signatures

I believe that a "No templates in signatures" rule needs to be added. There are a few reasons why templates in signatures are bad things.

1. They can be used to create signature code that is longer than the average talk page post.
2. They become targets for trolls/vandals.
3. Changes to the templates can cause extreme server load as the changes are parsed throughout the wiki.

A long time, active editor can place their signature on tens of thousands of posts over the life of the wiki. A signature's primary purposes are identification and ease of communication. They are not intended to be a user's creative expression, users have their entire user space to be creative in. -- Wynthyst 19px talk 12:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the last thing we want is major pageloads along with downtime due to overloads. Signatures should be simple, both visual and behind the scenes.--Quatroking - Garble Garble! 13:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Images and templates in sigs, have long been forbidden at Wikipedia, for exactly these reasons. -- Ephemeris 20:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment/question. What are the prior incidences of "downtime due to overloads"? Kytti khat 19:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, just last week, it was discovered that the Blocks template was causing stress on the server due to it's call of over 70 images and it's transclusion on almost 100 pages... that's why the templates were all changed to use sprites instead. This is not something that is a "current" issue, however, addressing it now, will eliminate it from becoming one in the future. This site is receiving quite a lot of traffic, there are currently 7518 registered users, with 3000 of them being active (editing within the past 30 days). As the game grows, and the community grows, this can become a serious issue on the servers. -- Wynthyst 19px talk 00:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This is something I would agree with (for whatever my opinion may be worth, given I'm not terribly active and am still a very new editor on this wiki). However, I'd like to point out that a substituted template in a user's signature is a potential compromise on this issue - my own signature is a substituted template in my userspace, and is set up exactly the same on this wiki, Wikia wikis, Wikipedia, and whatever other wikis I leave comments on, where the necessary functionality exists. (note that I don't use this system to allow my signature length to bypass the system-imposed limit, but rather because I like the idea of having a "signature history" that works in the same manner as page history) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 01:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Substitution does work, and I have no objection to that, however, at that point, you might as well just set up your preferences (I have my preferences set up exactly the same way on all the wiki's I'm active on) so that you can utilize the signature button in the editor bar. Also, setting up a sig template and substituting it would not violate the rule, as long as it was always subst: I do have a problem with signatures that produce code that is more than 250 characters as that is larger than the average talk page post, and because disruptive to editors. -- Wynthyst 19px talk 01:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This is how my preferences are set (the signature field just contains {{subst:User:Dinoguy1000/signature}}), so I can sign my posts with the signature button (though I personally just type the tildes out; I never use the editor bar, though I may intentionally keep it displayed on some wikis for one reason or another). My signature is actually longer than 250 characters, but it's not because of a lack of effort on my (and others') part to shorten it (it's actually only a few characters longer than the limit on Wikipedia via a serious abuse of HTML Tidy, but I had to make it somewhat longer to correctly work on wikis where Tidy wasn't installed; doing a quick bit of experimentation, though, it looks like Tidy is installed here, which means I could switch to the shorter Wikipedia version of my sig). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 03:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. I've just finished subst:ing all my signatures and have managed to reduce my signature to 252 characters. I too like the idea of a sig history so I'm using the same method as Dino. –User:Ultradude25 ^{(User:Ultradude25/t|User:Ultradude25/c)} at 04:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There's really no reason anyone needs anything in their signature. (Except their name.) JesusChrist666 02:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)JesusChrist666

I disagree [= Of course, I'm of the opinion that signature should be simple, but IMO must have a talk link, possibly contribution link. And why not use a template? Template is the best option, if I change my sig, it's change my sig on every page, where I posted discussion. Notwithstanding should be a rule about this. :pl:User:Lewandowski^PL (T/D # C/W) 22:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion, templates can't be used for signatures unless they are subst:, this is because (according to Wyn) when the sig is changed the huge amount of transclusion the template would have (depending on how much you use talk pages) would slow the server down significantly when it trys to update them all. –User:Ultradude25 ^{(User:Ultradude25/t|User:Ultradude25/c)} at 22:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Not only that, but if someone then vandalizes your sig template, the vandalism is visible on every page your sig is transcluded onto (this is still a concern with a subst:ed sig template, but not nearly as much so, since you would presumably notice and revert the vandalism before it makes it onto any other pages). Protecting the page doesn't really help either, since the only way to prevent vandalism for sure would be full protection, which means you'd have to go pester an admin every time you wanted to change your sig. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 01:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Some people use a more complex signature, and in the edit window, that can be up to 2 lines of code. Dinoguy's for example. Real Not Pure 13:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warning for YouTube videos

There have been a lot of YouTube videos posted on pages recently and while some of them can be seen as flagrant vandalism/disregard, some of the time the contributor may just think they're being helpful by posting it. May I suggest that MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning2 be edited with a red box and big bold warning about YouTube videos? This way the warning will be below edit boxes but above the Save/Preview buttons, which should get the message across and hopefully reduce all these YouTube submissions. --Gnu32 05:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer not. That message is for copyright information and is being composed by the Curse Legal team. I am also not a big fan of big red warning boxes of any sort. It is enough that it is spelled out in the rules, and up to the community and admins to enforce. -- Wynthyst 19px talk 08:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair does. I've got another idea related to videos: Barring bad quality/blatant self promotion videos, could tutorial/related videos perhaps be put under a "Related media" section on pages or should they simply link to relevant tutorial pages under "See also"? --Gnu32 18:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a though, why not create an official MC wiki Youtube channel for tutorial videos and only allow links to videos on that channel from articles? If users think they have a better video, or want to fill a gap, there could be a page where they would be able to submit links to the video they're wanting to post, and if it's accepted, it would be uploaded to the official channel and linked from the wiki as appropriate. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 18:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

wow

rules have gotten even more asinine since I left.  ACLECTASIS  14:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Care to elaborate on what you feel is "assinine"? -- Wynthyst 19px talk 06:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, rule 19 is fucking stupid and just prohibits you from having an actual metagamining community on the wiki (see herobrine etc). It also is more or less exactly the same as rule 7, sigh, didn't anyone READ the rules before adding 19? Rule 3 is (sigh, again) redundant, it ties in with rule 4 which in itself is awful (because good mods/community members don't just delete a page that doesn't have enough content- they try and add to it -.-). Rule 5 is immature and written by someone most likely the mental age of 12 and inhibits free speech. What a joke.  ACLECTASIS  00:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well, here is where I propose you create a change proposal. Minecraft Wiki:Wiki Rules/Revision 1 Work up the changes you'd like to see, ask for input from the community by placing a link to it on the Community Portal under requests for comment, and see what you and the community can come up with. That's how you get things changed on a community based wiki rather than just commenting the "rules have gotten even more asinine..." -- Wynthyst 19px talk 02:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No, community based wikis are changed without idiotic red tape that you mentioned above. This page shouldn't even be protected since vandalism is reverted on sight and people are watching the wiki constantly. Alternatively, and better yet, instead of having EVERY SINGLE PROTECTED PAGE/editcopy like a retarded wiki would, they could have a Minecraft Wiki:Protections that contains universal protection edit requests and discussions for all protected pages on a case by case basis. See? Easier yet.  ACLECTASIS  00:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Since "rule 19 is fucking stupid", why couldn't we make a single project page, where we could categorize metagaming stuffs, while the actual articles would reside in userspace (just like herobrine does currently)? This could blow up pretty easily, but with slight admin cooperation and good old revert tool and public votes this could work. And if it doesn't, we can choose someone to host this "project page" in their own userspace. That way it would completely follow the current rules and maybe work. And BTW, offtopic, since spleef got a mainspace article because Notch has supported the idea, twitter stuff, etc. you know, so why something as famous as Herobrine has NOT got a mainspace article? Two reasons why it should get mainspace article: 1. Notch's replies on questions of herobrine have shown that Notch may have liked the idea 2. Herobrine is all over the community. And then, when a newbie searches the wiki for info, what do they find? Nothing. Useful. --TheKax 16:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Direct links to file downloads

I suggest a clear rule against directly linking to file downloads, such as Mediafire URLs. This caused an issue in the past with a keylogger added to the wiki and it's quite difficult to test files that are linked to, especially when they're particularly crafted to harvest Minecraft login data (such as the previous example) and thus escape anti-viral detection. It's better to just link to the topic's trusted website/homepage. --Gnu32 23:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

 Agree I welcome this rule asap. We don't want another situation like last time, where I had to test the files myself using virtualization.--Quatroking - MCWiki Administrator 23:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

 Agree In-fact, direct links to mediafire, dropbox, rapidshare and other hosting sites like that should be added to the spam blacklist as they can easily be used to host malicious content. –User:Ultradude25 ^{(User:Ultradude25/t|User:Ultradude25/c)} at 04:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

 Agree Direct links cannot be immediately identified whether they are harmful or not. I agree. Drenay 03:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

 Agree Why in the heck would you even need them? Only situation I can come up with is mod/texture pack download, but then, they should about all have a custom home page to link to. At least they should, since I'm not going to download, for example, a texture pack without first seeing a screenshot of it. Agree! --TheKax 16:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

 Agree Per all Ajax2422 05:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Spelling Mistake

13. Do not directly copy over articles from other wiki's that discuss Minecraft.

should be

13. Do not directly copy over articles from other wikis that discuss Minecraft.

Mikeh269 17:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Some Comments about the Rules

Rules #9/#10 seem to conflict. One says that server pages aren't allowed. While the other gives an example of putting a mod under a server page. After reading it a dozen times, I'm wondering if the difference is between custom server software and specific server pages?

Rule #8 has Tutorials/Stockroom design as its example. But the page is actually a redirect to the rules rather than a valid example.

General comment about Tutorials. It looks like anything that is a guide should go under Tutorials. Yet the Tutorial page's first paragraph mentions that the section is for players new to Minecraft. I would think that guides and tutorials would also be appropriate for people who aren't completely new. It'd also be nice if there were some verbage about the various tutorials and sections rather than just a list of them.

Tulonsae 19:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It means pages about actual servers, not server software. The example is an example of the link, therefore it redirects back here as it's not an article. –User:Ultradude25 ^{(User:Ultradude25/t|User:Ultradude25/c)} at 23:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, it's weird how we enforce writing in third-person all the time while I cannot ONE line that comments that you're not allowed to do so. Drenay 16:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a general feature of educative/documentative writing; Wikipedia enforces the same rule for content namespaces. It shouldn't *need* an explicit rule, but I suppose it wouldn't hurt to add one. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 16:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This would be helpful because if there are some people who have never edited a wiki; they might not know this. Drenay 16:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Rule 19.

Maybe exception for well known legends/myths? Example Herobrine? I really unsatisfied, when people say "Herobrine is really exist!". IMO, on Wiki's in main namespace should be article about Herobrine, and possibly about other legends. Lewandowski^{pl.Wiki Admin} talk 19:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

We used to have a Herobrine article, but people couldn't stop being retarded about it, so it was deleted. There's a userspace draft of the article prior to deletion somewhere around here, though. On an unrelated note, you need to change your signature so that it auto-substitutes. This should be as simple as replacing the current contents of the "Signature" input box in your preferences to {{subst:User:Lewandowski/sig}} 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 00:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If people couldn't stop being "retarded" about it, why not simply lock the page? Jstaque 14:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Because Quatro doesn't want it in the mainspace. –User:Ultradude25 ^{(User:Ultradude25/t|User:Ultradude25/c)} at 14:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is here. JesusChrist666 00:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I know where this article is, but it isn't in main spacename and thus seems to be unofficial. :pl:User:Lewandowski^PL (T/D # C/W) 06:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is here: it is unofficial… – Scaler (t) 07:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Texture packs, mods and programs are too unofficial, but they have article in mainspace..., right? :pl:User:Lewandowski^PL (T/D # C/W) 14:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Unofficial is the wrong word. Texture packs, mods and other 3rd party programs actually exist in the game, Herobrine doesn't, never did, and never will. Also, the restrictions on how these things are documented on the wiki are pretty stringent. -- Wynthyst Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png talk 17:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Herobrine is a simple modification of texures ^^. I've heard (only heard) of a more complex modification, where Herobrine is AI (stupid, but is). :pl:User:Lewandowski^PL (T/D # C/W) 17:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that Herobrine is a myth, not a texture pack or mod. -- Wynthyst Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png talk 17:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Herobrine started his life as a myth, and is now added to at least one mod (Humans+). Frankly, Herobrine has enough attention that a short, factual page about him would be a worthwhile addition to the wiki (like the userspace one). I agree that just any random Minecraft myth or story is not a good addition; however this one is actually helpful in making sure that new players know that Herobrine isn't actually a game entity. It seems like it is a page that the community in general wants. What is the objections around adding the page, beyond "It's against rule #19"? --Jonnay 18:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

New rule - Assume people want to help

The idea would to be to stop people assuming bad faith. Most users are good editors, and there's no reason to assume things like "IPs are all vandals and can't edit properly", or "Bob had an argument the other day and lost his temper, he'll probably do it again at this discussion". In addition, new users can make mistakes - a user blanking a section or removing large amounts of content were probably doing something wrong - but quite possibly accidently. Revert and explain, and if they do it again and again, then you stop assuming good faith.

In a nutshell, expect the best from EVERYONE, regardless of status and background, but use your brain to work out when to stop. Real Not Pure 21:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Really, there's no reason not to follow many of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines here; most of them are not intrinsically Wikipedia-specific, and I have yet to hear someone complain about me following them on non-Wikimedia wikis (other, perhaps, than the rare vandal). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 07:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Since this isn't Wikipedia, I figure their rules don't apply here. As will many other editors. Adding it to the list of rules will do no harm whatsoever, and if it's used once to justify an argument, then it has done some good. Real Not Pure 10:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

While a good guideline for the wiki, I don't know if it is really appropriate here without a slight rule-focus modification. Except rule 5, all the rules deal with content and mainspace, not user interaction or talk pages. --JonTheMon 14:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

So what? Just because only one exists at the moment, doesn't mean a second is impossible. Real Not Pure 14:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Technically, Wikipedia's rules don't apply here, but that wasn't my point. ;) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 02:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to copy wikipedia's rules, then people will come up randomly and making humour pages such as 'assume good wraith', 'assume bad faith' and those humour pages around wikipedia, because lots of the editors here originated from wikipedia, like me --Rocĸetor ^talk 03:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

People dissobeying the rules

I saw an article about the 'herobrine hoax' this morning, i don't know if it's deleted already, but it was in someone's user page! (i don't remember the name, but if you search: Herobrine Minecraft wiki. it should be the first one!) there are also some weird articles about minecraft minigames, other hoaxes, very basic thing, etc.! you should check better and have more consequences for dissobeying these rules! most people end up with a simple warning, i think if dissobeying a rules 3/4 times in a row should get you banned for a week, then they would get the message! my minecraft wiki page :P 19:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Scorpiboy

YOU disobeissed the rules with your book of records. Wikis are made for information, not games/contests. Calinou - talk × contribs » 19:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that these pages are consider ok because they are in somebody's userspace were they are allowed. I'm not sure of this but that's what I believe. Timberdoodle 19:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The Herobrine page is tolerate, because it is on an user page (Minecraft Wiki talk:Community portal/Archive 3#Herobrine). The Minecraft Wiki:Projects/Record Book is not and should be removed or move to an user page. – Scaler (t) 20:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

sorry dude, but i'm pretty new with this wiki and i didn't know that a record book wasn't allowed! plus i don't know how i delete the page, i already transfered it onto a project but i can't delete the page itself since i don't know how! –The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorpiboy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:21, 19 May 2011. Please sign your posts with ~~~~

You can't delete pages, but you can use the {{delete}} template and an admin will take care of it. – Scaler (t) 14:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If you really want a record book you could put it up on your userspace. Timberdoodle 15:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Signature policy

This proposal does not have anything to do with templated signatures.

Signatures are pretty random at the moment. There are people with no name on their signature, only a link with text like "My userpage", and some with no link and a nickname, so you can't tell who it was without checking the page history. I suggest that a new rule is added:

Signatures must contain at least one link to the user's userspace, and must contain either the user's full username or a nickname by which they are commonly known. Formatting is left to the user's choice, as long as the user's name is clearly legible.

So signatures like these aren't acceptable:

• Real :)
• My page
• Real Not Pure

But these are:

• Real^Talk
• Real Not Pure (the default signature)

Discuss. Real Not Pure 12:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, signatures should offer one link that identifies the comment's author - be that a link to the editor's user page, talk page, or contributions list. Ideally, though, yes, every signature should have the editor's username in plaintext somewhere. Needless to say, signing a comment with a name other than your username is right out - either request a username change/register a new account, or note on your userpage what other names you go by (or both). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 23:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There should be a bit of headroom in there - if it's an obvious abbreviation, like you using "Dinoguy" or me using "Real" then it's still pretty obvious who it is. User:Real Not Pure 17:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As long as it is a good copy/representation of your user name. If it conflicts with another user, you will have to adjust your signature. Also, long signatures make editing extra hard and shouldn't be allowed. --JonTheMon 18:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to take any agressive stance against custom sigs, but I must say, signatures with no link to user's page should be forbidden. There's no good reason for having one, and then it's impossible/hard to find the user's talk page to notify if you have something to say. You get the idea. --TheKax 16:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Rule 17, a question...

"Using our hosting for GUI screenshots, userspace images and general wiki-related images is allowed."
Does this mean we can upload our own "logos" or something like that, and use them on our userpages? Can we use them in our signatures (that is, if they're small and fit there, obviously)? What does this actually mean? Couldn't that allow users to spam the wiki (at least their own pages and wiki HDDs) full of custom logo images? Doesn't that lag or anything? Talk 08:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You can. If you're worried about disk space, ask the users (or do it yourself) for compressing images ;)

If the HDDs were to overflow, we can remove old unused pics (such as the old pics in Natural Structures, Inventory... which I replaced with updated ones). Calinou - talk × contribs » 10:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Uploading images for use on your userpage (and signature, as long as it's REALLY small (see Wynthyst's signature)) is allowed, yes. As for filespace, you'd have to ask Wynthyst about that, but as long as you use common sense and don't use crap like RAW and BMP you should be fine.--Quatroking - MCWiki Administrator 10:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Filespace is not an issue, however, the point of the rule is any image you upload to the wiki has to be used ON the wiki. Do not use the wiki to host files that are linked to on other sites as that will affect the performance of the wiki. We are not that kind of hosting service... use photobucket or imgur for that. Generally speaking if an image is not used or linked to on the wiki within a month of being uploaded, it's potentially in danger of being deleted as an orphan file. Extensions that are allowed are png, gif, jpg, jpeg, dat, txt, zip, svg, ico, though ico files will not render due to media wiki limitations. Also, images larger than 12mb are not allowed, and the general rule of thumb is that any image that's larger than 250 mb is going to cause issues on the page it's on for anyone with a slower internet connection (and yes.. they do still exist....). Feel free to decorate your userspace however you wish, and as Quatro said, a single small image (no bigger than 19px in height) is allowed in your signature. -- Wynthyst Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png talk 13:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Usually the unused images would get cleaned up, but I've stopped doing that due to the image sharing. I don't have time to check every other language to see if they're using an image before I delete it. –User:Ultradude25 ^{(User:Ultradude25/t|User:Ultradude25/c)} at 09:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Also (pointing this out because it was mentioned, more than because it's relevant to the rule in question), uploading smaller versions of images (be it "smaller" as in "smaller file size" or "smaller image dimensions") and deleting images do not free up more room. When an image is deleted, it is simply moved to a different directory on the server (which may, at Curse's discretion, be periodically emptied), and when a new version is uploaded, all old versions are kept. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 06:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Minecraft TOS link has broken.

This article's 'Minecraft TOS link is "http://www.minecraft.net/copyright.jsp" but responce status is "Not found". I guess a correct url is "http://www.minecraft.net/terms". I have no permission to edit this page so could someone modify this? -- D5884 15:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Wynthyst Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png talk 03:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

FULL RELAEASE OF MINECRAFT-NOVEMBER 18, 2011 by creator NOTCH at MINECON*

Full release of MINECRAFT will be on November 18, 2011 on stage by MINECRAFT CREATOR: NOTCH. Pre-orders begin on November 13 of 2011.- MORPHINGASSASSIN

What are you talking about? Release date had been known for month, tickets for minecon has been sold a week ago, an you could buy minecraft anytime. — MiiNiPaa^T|C 17:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Rules 9 + 10

From the rules:

9. Pages about custom server modifications/topics should be linked to their main article. For example, a mod called "Lots'o'booty" for the server "Yarrcraft" would go into Yarrcraft/Lots'o'Booty.

10. Pages about servers are not allowed.

9 says to put that content on a subpage of a server page, and rule 10 says server pages aren't allowed. What's the ruling here? Mason11987 15:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

A custom server like bukkit (rule 9) is not the same as a hosting server (rule 10). – Scaler (t) 16:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Could this be rephrased? I had the same confusion. Perhaps this,

9. Pages about custom server modifications/topics should be linked to their main article. For example, a plugin called "Lockette" for the server wrapper "Bukkit" should be placed under Bukkit/Lockette

10. Pages about personal servers are not allowed.

What do you think? (Using Lockette and Bukkit as examples because they are popular and easier to understand.) Ajax2422 05:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyediting is always helpful. :) But adding it in /revising it depends on the admins' opinions. I would do it. - Asterick6 06:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks reasonable to me, but you'd probably want Quatroking's and Ultradude's opinions first. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 16:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

So can you guys revise this info into the page now? - Asterick6 23:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Leave a note on User talk:Quatroking and User talk:Ultradude25 asking them to have a look and comment, and if they don't oppose, one of us'll probably revise the rules as requested. =) 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 05:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Rule #10 is about pages that only purpose as advertising, pretty much. Let's say I know this guy who knows a guy whose dad hosts a server called "Schwoopytoodles" and the guy makes a page about that server on the wiki, then it'd be removed because of rule #10. I agree that it could be reworded a bit better because this has caused confusion to more people than just you guys, so if any of you have suggestions, do say!--Quatroking - MCWiki Administrator 15:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

How about: "Articles created for the purpose of advertising specific, non-notable servers are not allowed; however, articles about legitimate, notable servers utilizing unique modifications or themes are allowed as long as they are not written as an advertisement." - Asterick6 21:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional link for Minecraft Brand use and terms

I think Mojang wrote another page on it policies and terms of service regarding the brand name. This should probably be included as well after the TOS link. - Asterick6 04:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure anything there is really directly applicable on-wiki, though. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 16:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Then why would the TOS be included? It's the same type of terms. The linking and mentioning of the Mojang terms is to inform the wiki editors that they should not submit copyrighted content on this site, such as people submitting content about Minecraft clones or other copyrighted material. I really don't see a problem with adding a link to a new update or addition of the terms/conditions. Is it that hard to edit a page...? (-_______-) - Asterick6 22:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No, editing a page isn't all that hard. Trying to figure out how to properly work an addition into an existing page, though, can be, and I'm not sure of the best way to add this link (and am still not sold on its necessity, for that matter). 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 07:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking: "Anything that is against the Minecraft TOS and brand guidelines is not allowed on the wiki, no matter what." - Asterick6 02:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk page rules

In addition to signing posts, should there be rules here about proper Talk page protocol? The most obvious rule being "Do not modify Talk page comments by other users". Others rules I've seen elsewhere include:

• Do not edit your own Talk page comments if someone has replied to them, as this creates an inaccurate record of the discussion.
  • If you must change your comment, <s>strike out</s> the old, do not delete it.
• Do not remove old Talk sections, unless adding them to an archive.
• Article Talk pages are for discussion of the article and ways to improve it, not a forum for suggesting changes to the game.

These apply to both Article Talk and User Talk pages, except where indicated. On the same note, I didn't see a rule to the effect of "Do not modify another user's userpage (except to revert a violation of this rule)". Many of these are common sense if you're familiar with wikis, but a number of users here aren't so experienced, so I think having these rules spelled out explicitly wouldn't be a bad thing. Thoughts, comments? Thanks! --timrem 07:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

 Agree I came here to suggest just that. It is an internet-wide no-no on all wikis to even touch anything on a talk page not yours or edit other user's namespaces if you aren't an admin or mod of some sort, but there are still new people running around doing just that. My added suggestion is to say "not a forum" period as well as include namespaces. Also, Rule #3 needs its grammar revised. --User:Kanegasi User_talk:KanegasiSpecial:Contributions/Kanegasi 18:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Change at #5

Can you change personal insults to user attacks? That's the proper term. Webtv7 16:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I've cleared it up a bit. I hope this'll be easier to understand.--Quatroking - MCWiki Administrator 18:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Section 11.1 ocd

Section 11.1 has a typo: In the second sentence, "this" should be capitalized. Pokechu22 19:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. =) 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 21:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Minecraft 2.0 rule

I think there should be a rule relating to Minecraft 2.0. It's been quite problematic with users posting 2.0 related information on articles without really realising that it's not allowed. –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk
Contribs
Edit count 23:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

 Agree. –- ^(T) Numbermaniac_(C) 03:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

 Agree. --70.181.68.226 03:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you watching my contributions and/or the recent changes? –- ^(T) Numbermaniac_(C) 04:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Mostly the recent changes, but I am watching your contribs. --70.181.68.226 13:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow. –- ^(T) Numbermaniac_(C) 21:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is that so unusual? --70.181.68.226 22:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Continue this on my talk page. –- ^(T) Numbermaniac_(C) 05:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok? --70.181.68.226 23:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

?Rule Question?

Is it ok to post, on user pages, stuff that is non-minecraft? Mokiki 19:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

In general, yes, as long as it isn't outright spam or other objectionable content. -- Orthotope ^talk 20:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Mokiki 22:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Video Policy Question

Can i post my own videos in my userspace, even thought they are not official Curse.com videos?Mokiki 06:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes; see the note at the bottom about exceptions for the userspace. -- Orthotope ^talk 07:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Rule #20

It needs to be corrected to say that pages on texture packs are allowed to use texture packs. Pokechu22 (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Rule #3.1

Rule #3.1 needs to be adjusted to define what qualifies as a minigame. For example, Marc was in the original showcase video of SethBling's Blocks vs. Zombies, and various mojang members have tweeted endeavors on servers such as HiPixel and PlayMindCrack. Are we to create articles on those minigames, or is there some reason preventing that?

–KnightMiner ^(talk) 14:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for making that article, at least in the main-space. Ideas include making an article for mini-games, and making various mini-game articles as sub-articles of that (e.g. Mini-games/Spleef), as we do with tutorials. --Naista2002 ♦ 16px 16px 14:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I was actually leaning towards changing the rule so those minigame articles are not allowed, as with how active the mojang employees are with the comunity, we may get many minigame articles that within the rules, but we don't need. We should basically define a little more which minigames we discuss. –KnightMiner ^(talk) 14:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Rule about skins

As we no longer have the skin gallery, rule #17.1 needs to be adjusted to remove mention of that. –KnightMiner ^(talk) 03:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done. –Majr ᐸ Talk
Contribs 03:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming features without development versions

Can we add a rule disallowing articles on topics that either have not or are not in Minecraft? It would be nice to have some sort of official policy to refer to when someone creates an article based on a mojang tweet, of which the content belongs on mentioned features or another such article.

The new rule would be in the style of the rule about tutorials and would state as follows:

1. Features that are not currently in the game should be in the versions Mentioned features article.
   1. This excludes features with have been removed or features from development versions, which may be noted on articles affected by the feature and the relevant version article(s).

–KnightMiner ^(talk) 21:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Majr and Goandgoo? --User:Naista2002 | 16px 16px 18:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it looks good. –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk
Contribs
Edits 20:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Rule 11.1 and online tools

Does rule 11.1 (no links to "external communities") apply to online tools? Commands has had two external links to online tools for a while (bottom of section Raw JSON text), but a third link was recently removed from the article citing this rule. I think the link would be a useful addition to the article as long as it doesn't violate Curse policy. —munin · 16 px 16 px · 05:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Commented at the original discussion. In short, I think linking to online tools is okay as long as it can be done without linking to any fan communities. As far as I know, this isn't a policy imposed by Curse. -- Orthotope^talk 08:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

If we are to add them to articles, I think it should only in an external links section, rather than within the main body of text. The main problem though is the tools at any time may disappear, move or break at any time, so someone has to keep the tools up to date. We also cannot grantee the trustworthiness of the sites linked to, or prevent people from spamming their websites (then again, how many online generators could there be for a single topic?). –KnightMiner · talk 17:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)