Talk:Minecraft Wiki/editcopy/Archive 2

From Minecraft Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an archived version of Talk:Minecraft Wiki/editcopy. This page is decommissioned and not intended for discussion.
New conversations can be added at the current talk page.

Talk page archive for Talk:Minecraft Wiki/editcopy - Do not edit this page!

Jinx and Thinkgeek links[edit]

I definitely disagree. Neither of those are Curse or Mojang related. All Minecraft merchandise directly from Mojang is at, unless you can prove those two sites are also directing revenue to Mojang and/or they approve. Otherwise, it's just random advertising to list them. User:Kanegasi User talk:KanegasiUser:Kanegasi/edit count 17:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Uhm... wow... nevermind. Looking for some mention of these two sites, I actually looked at the product links on their store page. I'm stupid. Don't mind me. *whistles* User:Kanegasi User talk:KanegasiUser:Kanegasi/edit count 03:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Current price[edit]

First of all, Raffox97, a price change is not a useless edit. Secondly, 007a83, still says €19.95. Please provide a source for €20.56. User:Kanegasi User talk:KanegasiUser:Kanegasi/edit count 16:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Minecraft is sold in USD. Check the store. and The USD is now worth more than The EUR. --007a83 (Talk|Contribs) 21:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC) --007a83 (Talk|Contribs) 21:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Looked at the HTML code. GBP=17.95 USD=26.95 EUR=19.95. I will look in depth more next time. --007a83 (Talk|Contribs) 22:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I was actually not aware the prices were there in the code for the page. I used several random European proxies to verify the price, but I guess having them there is the easiest way to display them based on the IP of the visitor. Also, Minecraft is actually sold in EUR with the GBP and USD being manually set by Mojang based on the conversion rates last time Minecraft's price was increased. Think of the EUR price as the default price they went for. This is one of the reasons why USD is in parenthesis on the page with the other being consistency to the USD conversion for Microsoft Points further down. User:Kanegasi User talk:KanegasiUser:Kanegasi/edit count 04:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I checked a china proxy, The default for everywhere else is EUR. Have not checked a place like Canada to see if they are shown USD. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 007a83 (Talk|Contribs) 17:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~
Canada is shown the price in USD, and should we post the GBP price? --007a83 (Talk|Contribs) 17:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft Points Image[edit]

What do you guys think of "160010px Microsoft Points ($20.00 USD)" --007a83 (Talk|Contribs) 21:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

 Disagree - Personally I think that it's a bit unnecessary. The symbol doesn't really add much. GoandgooTalk
Edit count
06:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Changed to "160010px ($20.00 USD)" The symbol is well THE Dollar sign of Microsoft Points --007a83 (Talk|Contribs) 07:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Is now "160010px (US $20.00)"--007a83 (Talk|Contribs) 21:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 Disagree The image is too blurry and poorly aligned. ultradude25Talk
00:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The image is free to edit. I would love to see some pro work on it.--007a83 (Talk|Contribs) 06:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The bigger problem is that the image means nothing to everyone who isn't familiar with the Microsoft Points symbol already. Without the text, it's confusing for too many people; with the text, it's redundant and doesn't add anything. Also, compared to a good-resolution version of the logo (such as wikipedia:File:Mspoints.PNG), this tiny image is barely recognizable even for people who know what it represents. -- Orthotope talk 07:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
That is the same image used in the microsoft marketplace. and by hovering over the image it says Microsoft Points.--007a83 (Talk|Contribs) 02:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Can some one please edit the image and make it better. It can work. it just needs work I am unable to do.--007a83 (Talk|Contribs) 23:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

expanding reddit links[edit]

Since has been included on the main page; I propose we add links to platform specific communities within reddit, since there are two substantial communities currently operating (one for MCXBLA and one for MCPE) and one smaller one for Pi Edition....

I think it'd be nice to pull the 'reddit' link - create a new section within the official links page titled 'Reddit Communities' which would include the following links: - PC version - PE version - XBLA version - Pi version <- optional due to its significantly smaller size

/r/minecraft360 has seen participation from /u/4JSteve - QA Bug Tester @ 4J Studios relating to upcoming features and confirming bug fixes as well as utilizing community participation for assembling bug lists for the last title update.

as well, /r/mcpe has seen participation from /u/jbernhardsson - mojang developer working on Pocket edition - regarding upcoming features / bugs and bug fixes, etc.

reddit account confirmation for :

reddit account confirmation for :

unerds 21:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Heres the one for the Xbox One. --007a83 (Talk|Contribs) 21:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

here is the one for the PlayStation versions --007a83 (Talk|Contribs) 05:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


The "Wiki" in the box below is slightly of center on the vertical axis. --5ives 00:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It's exactly 5px from either side. ultradude25Talk
00:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I think he meant the word "WIKI" inside the MCPE-esque box below the word "MINECRAFT" isn't vertically centered, which it isn't because of the angled perspective of the box. I don't see anything wrong. User:Kanegasi User talk:KanegasiUser:Kanegasi/edit count 01:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


I've changed the header up a bit since there is already a lot of boxes on this page, so now it's styled more like an actual header. If this is agreeable I'd also like to take the opportunity to move the logo image over to the main page as well. It's been there so long that the original discussion has long since been archived, so I think it's about time it got added. ultradude25Talk
00:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you remove the line that is under "The official resource on everything Minecraft."?--007a83 (Talk|Contribs) 06:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Why? It's the same line used on headers. ultradude25Talk
06:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
because it looks like double because of the boxes below.--007a83 (Talk|Contribs) 02:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
This is what the page would look like if the image size was 400px: :File:Minecraft_wiki-editcopy_400px_logo.png--007a83 (Talk|Contribs) 03:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
We can't make that header too big. The ad space above already pushes the page down, don't make the header push it farther than it has to be. Also, don't throw images into a talk page, link them, unless absolutely necessary. An image smashed into the middle of a topic screws things up. User:Kanegasi User talk:KanegasiUser:Kanegasi/edit count 03:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Forgot about ad's, My Virus program thinks there all viruses .-. --007a83 (Talk|Contribs) 05:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

New Header, some other changes[edit]

maybe you noticed the edit which added a new header and the changes in the boxes below. The idea comes from the german Wiki and we want to change this. But the Main pages of the different Wikis should look similar. So we present our idea to the english Wiki, which has the biggest community and sets the standard for the layouts of the other Wikis.
1. At the top there is now a new header with information about the respective Wiki. The text can be copied from the page Minecraft Wiki:About. As you can see there are links to the content of the box Wiki community. At the moment they are the translated links of the german box "Wiki community". But every Wiki should customize their header to their box. Beside every link there are pictures of Items which fit to the respective link. We would replace the old header with our new header. We think, that we don´t need two logos of the Wiki. On the top left corner there is already the Minecraft Wiki Cube.
2.Because of the new header we don´t need the box Wiki community any more. So we would split the overcrowded box Updates, news and events to a box News and events and another box called Development. The advantages: We can display the news and events in a better (clearer) way. Another point is that we have more space for the Version history and Upcoming features. These changes would tell the user more about the Wiki, offers important links on a better seen place and prevents overcrowded boxes. What do you think about our suggestion? de.MinecraftWiki-Admin talk page 22:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The heading "Version development" doesn't make sense, "Version history" would make more sense although it conflicts with the "Version history" subheading. To fix this we could either change it back or rename the "Version history" pages to "Release history", unless anyone can think of something else? --5ives 07:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I actually like the look. It could definitely use a little more tweaking though, and more people should take a look at it first. As for the logo thing, we do have :File:Logo2.png that matches the new logo that finally got to the front page. It took quite a bit for the logo to make it to the front page since most of us weren't sure if it would be accepted, so I don't know if we'll ever get the blue logo changed, especially since Curse defines it as the main logo. I have custom css that alters the top left logo to that Logo2.png as well as a browser extension that forces the favicon to that. I personally like it better than the blue cube. User:Kanegasi User talk:KanegasiUser:Kanegasi/edit count 23:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
So, two problems I have with this: 1. Takes up too much vertical space, there's plenty of horizontal room that should be used. 2. The icons don't seem very relevant. What does a compass have to do with a community portal? What does a pickaxe have to do with help? Unless more appropriate icons can be found, I'd rather there be no icons at all. ultradude25Talk
05:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Do we even need all those links? Community portal, admin noticeboard, wiki rules, help contents, and recent changes are all in the left sidebar, create account is at the top of the page, and general disclaimer is in the footer. -- Orthotope talk 07:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not so much about efficiency as it is about making sure the, uhm, average user gets the point. We can worry about redundancy only so much before some people seem to miss things. I personally like the idea of those links being almost the first thing the user sees if they come to the site not following a direct link. It's not like we're throwing them into some header that shows on every page. I think the yellow box I threw into the talk pages is mostly redundant, but it felt necessary to try and deter useless posts. There's also plenty of other links that have been on the front page for a while that are also on the sidebar. It's not that bad of an idea to make parts of the front page a stylized version of the sidebar. User:Kanegasi User talk:KanegasiUser:Kanegasi/ec 07:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
@ultradude25: The community portal is a page where the most important links are provided and the users can orientate. Because of that we chose the compass as image. The pickaxe is a tool which helps the player and the help:Contents page does this, too. That were our thoughts.
@Orthotope: We also had the discussion about links which appear more than once at the Main page. But is it a disadvantage to have two or three identical links on the same page? The Main pages job is, to lead the users to the pages they want to see or such which are important for them. So we think that two links are better than one in the sidebar, which can easily be overlooked. The new header will be seen by every visitor of the Main pages. de.MinecraftWiki-Admin talk page 10:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I made some changes at the header. With some display settings the header looked very messed up. If the header was displayed in the right way before my edit shouldn´t made noticeable de.MinecraftWiki-Admin Diskussion 18:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
"Display settings"? ultradude25Talk
– 00:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
For some reason Chrome failed to render the multiple columns. — Hower64 06:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Safari had the same issue, though it looked fine in Firefox and Opera. Interestingly, OmniWeb (WebKit-based) rendered the text in multiple columns, but not the icons. The pure CSS approach is cleaner, but it needs to work in all the major browsers. -- Orthotope talk 06:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
What about the other multi-column lists on the page? Does Chrome and Safari fail at those too? ultradude25Talk
– 06:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

No, those work fine (once I stretched the window enough to get multiple columns - your monitor must be huge); it seems that specifying the number of columns is where they have issues. -- Orthotope talk 07:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Just standard 1080p, I'd even call it a bit small by today's standards. ultradude25Talk
– 11:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
What is your opinion about the design now? Can someone take it to the main page? Suchti talk EMail 10:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I fine with the design, however I would like to find some stuff to fill in the blank areas of the news (could just add more news entries) and version development sections. ultradude25Talk
– 17:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Some time ago I made a suggestion for the news section, but was reversed later.That one. This would prevent more entries in the news section and the single entries would be shown more clearly. Maybe we can integrate the Template:Version history nav in the Version development section? Extended with entries about the respective upcoming features. de.MinecraftWiki-Admin Diskussion 23:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
That just shows the same information, but takes up considerably more space, with no gain. The version development section already has everything the version history nav template has, plus some extra things. ultradude25Talk
– 00:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I hate it, takes up to munch room, makes it not look like the main page, and it ugly. I see you want to make it easier for people, but I think if you want to make account or report stuff on the admin notice board you shoulder by smart enough to find it. I do think it should be used, just not here. It think it would go good on Minecraft Wiki:Welcome.--007a83 (Talk|Contribs) 22:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
It's only 1 or 2 lines higher depending on your screen size. You suggested making the logo 400px, which would've been larger than the entire box that you're calling too large.
How does it make it not look like the main page? There's no set design that defines a main page, it can be whatever you want it to be. Additionally, this box is quite similar to the one on Wikipedia, so does their main page not look like a main page? ultradude25Talk
– 23:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
You just broke my brain. I sill think it looks ugly and should be on Minecraft Wiki:Welcome. But you just broke my brain--007a83 (Talk|Contribs) 05:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it does not look good on the Minecraft Wiki. the one of Wikipedia looks fine. But this is the Minecraft wiki. I don't think we should have all that info right there on the top of the main page. it pushes the content to far down down. I think we should sick with just the logo on the top.--007a83 (Talk|Contribs) 09:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The new header is only a little bit higher than the old one. And the messagebox on the editcopy page doesn´t appear on the Main page so the content is not really pushed so far de.MinecraftWiki-Admin Diskussion 11:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about the ads. And I just don't think is should be on the MAIN PAGE. Minecraft_wiki:welcome is a way better place for this. I don't think the main page should have this link block on top of it. Under maybe, but no on top.--007a83 (Talk|Contribs) 01:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is what it would look like on the main page. :File:Minecraft_Wiki-editcopy_New_Header.png--007a83 (Talk|Contribs) 01:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
So you don't think the main page should have lots of links to get around the wiki...? Those links are, if anything, bringing the content up higher (since they ARE content, too), instead of just having a logo with useless space all around it. ultradude25Talk
– 05:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Now that all the migration guff is out of the way, I think it's about time this was applied. I'll do it tomorrow if there's no objections. MattTalk
⎜ 22:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I just haven't been paying enough attention to what been going on here. There is a reason that the wiki community box was at the bottom of the page, and why certain links were not included in it. It is mostly information that is not of prime importance to the average visitor here, and as such does not merit prime placement (top right corner of the content space). None of the sidebar links are necessary to be repeated, and NO, you can't remove them from the sidebar to only have them in the main page header, as they are links that need to be available from any page on the wiki. I would suggest that you move the wiki related stuff back to the bottom right corner, where they were, and out of the header space. If you need more mainpage room to do this, I would rethink the whole news and events box, as very little of that is necessary on the wiki.... once a news item is a week old it is outdated, and can disappear, and there are links there that go back months.... so.. totally irrelevant at this point. -- Wynthyst Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png talk 12:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, it'd be nice if the average visitor did take up an interest in the wiki community, and perhaps started editing.
Either way, I think having prominent useful links at the top of the page (which I'd like to point out don't actually take up any vertical space, they're just filling in blank space around the logo) is a "good thing"™. But maybe changing the links to pages that would be more useful to readers would be better. MattTalk
⎜ 13:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
While I agree that getting more people editing would be great, however, I look at the numbers every day. MCW has 550 Active registered editors (people who have made an edit in the past 30 days), and yesterday alone had 358,025 unique visitors. With that in mind, catering to readers over editors is a must. Simply put, people aren't coming here to read the wiki rules, or visit the admin noticeboard, they are here for information about the game. You might want to think about rearranging the main page is other ways.... stretch the about the game portion across the entire page, and spit up your boxes in new and different ways if you are looking to simply revitalize the feel of the wiki. With the change of the logo, the blue header bar isn't really a tie in anymore (that blue was taken from the old logo), so maybe think about some color changes... maybe a light sand color background rather than the pale blue, you guys are pretty creative. I bet if you really thought about it, you could come up with something cool... or, make it a contest... I bet I could get Curse to come up with some sort of prize to give away (maybe something that doesn't have the US/Canada only restrictions). -- Wynthyst Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png talk 13:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect use of the term "computer" as opposed to "PC"[edit]

Specifically I'd like to point out the use of terms in the "Play it!" box.

Every link is suitably named except "Purchase the computer edition!". 'PC' does not strictly refer to Windows computers, in this case it generally should refer to Linux, Mac and Windows computers but not video game consoles, tablets/smart phones, and small single board computers (like the Raspberry Pi), which all come under the term 'computer'. It is inconsistent that each except one is suitably named.

It also may seem redundant to anyone who doesn't confuse the term. Reading "computer edition", then reading four other links for different editions which are also in a way, computer editions, because they too run on computers.

Of course it is not perfectly ideal to rename the link just "Purchase the PC edition!" because many people do confuse the term. I suggest renaming it "Purchase the PC edition! (Linux Mac, Windows)" which would avoid confusion but remain correct.

I have raised this issue before in the talk section of the main page here if you'd like to read the discussion that was had then. --5ives 10:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It would kind of work for that one particular link, but the issue is every other mention of the computer edition. You can't replace it with PC edition (Linux, Mac, Windows) every time, that would look messy and awful.
The term computer is commonly used to refer to just the PC, and not other electronics that are also technically computers, so it's fine. ultradude25Talk
– 07:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the confusion of the term 'PC' would matter too much elsewhere. It matters so much on the purchase link because some people may decide not to follow it if they are on Linux or Mac and think 'PC' means only Windows. --5ives 10:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"Create an account" link correction, possibility of plainlinks bug[edit]

I was going to correct the link in the header:


with plainlinks to:


But notice the color difference, the plainlink-link is slightly lighter, like Wikipedia links. As far as I'm aware the link should be the same color as internal links, since plainlinks is a workaround for internal links with parameters (they don't work with regular internal link syntax). After reading the MediaWiki manual for plainlinks, it seems the color can be changed in the css of the plainlinks class. However, this would create the issue that all Wikipedia links linked with plainlinks will be the wrong color, but I think internal links are more often linked then Wikipedia links.

I did try Template:Fullurl but it seems that it only works with the action parameter and not type which is in the link I'm trying to implement.

The same link is the implemented here with the correct color but I doubt it's done in wikitext.

Does anyone know any other workarounds? Where should I report this bug, assuming it is one? --5ives 04:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure fullurl works with anything, not just the action parameter. -- t numbermaniac c 04:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's a different colour because it's an external link. Plainlinks has nothing to do with it. {{fullurl}} works fine with the type parameter, but it is still an external link and is identical to just writing the url yourself. (Also, just use the parser function, there's no need for the template to ever be used now.)
I can make external internal links the same colour as standard internal links. Or perhaps all external links should just be the same colour as normal links. They already have an icon to differentiate them, after all. ultradude25Talk
– 05:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
If Template:Fullurl works with the type parameter. What's going on here? Am I doing something wrong? Compare my markup to what the link actually turns out to be.
I thought every link within the wiki was an internal link.
I don't know what the parser function is.
I think the different colors are also supposed to differentiate between internal links and Wikipedia links. --5ives 06:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
That's odd, but I don't see any reason why we shouldn't have the same colours for internal and external links.... -- t numbermaniac c 06:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I think there should be some kind of differentiation for Wikipedia links. --5ives 06:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia links don't have the arrow/lock symbol on the end. -- t numbermaniac c 06:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
If they were the same color, they'd look like internal links. --5ives 07:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's because you have an = which means it's looking for a parameter called "type" with a value of signup. To get around this you either have to explicitly give it a parameter (in this case the anonymous parameter 2) like this, or escape the equals sign (by using {{=}}, <nowiki>=</nowiki> or the HTML entity of =: &#61;) like this. This is the main reason the template should never be used. The fullurl template has an action parameter (since it's the most common), which is why it works without any messing around.
Any {{escaped link|}} link (except interwiki) is an internal link. Everything else is external, even if the link is to the local wiki.
I've edited your first post with an example of it. The fullurl template itself uses the parser function.
"Wikipedia links" (a.k.a. interwiki links) are "external interwiki" links. They have a different class to external links (although they use the same colour). ultradude25Talk
– 06:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Very helpful. Is there no way to make the link the same color as the others, and blend in (besides how it was before)? --5ives 07:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
As I said before, I could change the link colour of external links that are actually pointing to the local wiki to be the same colour as internal links. I could also change all external links to be the same colour as internal ones (that doesn't have to include interwiki, since they're separate from normal external links), but since that could do with more opinions on if it should be changed, I won't bother with it now. ultradude25Talk
– 07:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think there should be a color difference between links pointing to the local wiki, and links that point elsewhere. I'm not an expert though, it's just my opinion based on how much I do know. --5ives 18:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate links in the article, sidebar, footer and links from the previous "Wiki community" box that were not transfered[edit]

Duplicate links in the header (of article) and first section of the sidebar (of website):

In the header (of article) and footer (of website):

In "Useful pages" (section of sidebar) and "Popular and useful pages" (in article):

I don't really think there needs to be an always accessible section of the sidebar with general Minecraft articles.

Links from the previous "Wiki community" box that were not transfered:

I don't think there should be more than one instance of a link on a single page, at least not in this case, especially since there are two links that have not been transfered that could fit in the header (or even somewhere else like the sidebar or footer) if there were less duplicates. Maybe some of the duplicate and non-transfered links are ok, but I'd at least like to let it be known. --5ives 18:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The useful pages section was actually directly copied from the main page. See the discussion that prompted adding it. The only reason the section is still on the main page is because we've had nothing else to put in its place. I was going to put tweets from Minecraft devs, and even wrote a script for it, but I never got around to following it up to see if people actually wanted that.
As for the other duplicate links, if they're taking up space on the main page then maybe they can be removed. But if they're just a linked word that would be there anyway, it may as well stay. ultradude25Talk
– 21:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"In-Browser Play"[edit]

"can be played in the user's web browser, or using the downloadable launcher." Mojang quietly removed that feature from the site in July, 2013. Should be "Singleplayer and multiplayer, when purchased, can be played using the downloadable launcher." CanadianMike15 (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You are partially correct. is still available, but only 1.5.2. Newer versions use the launcher, which is a function that a browser cannot provide. There may be some way to reword that text, but that play url is only accessible by purchasers, so the text is still correct. User:Kanegasi User talk:KanegasiUser:Kanegasi/ec 03:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Lego Minecraft[edit]

Just a suggestion - do the lego minecraft sets deserve any recognition on the front page? GoandgooTalk
Edit count
11:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I would think not, but a small link might be nice. Meeples10t ~ c 20:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Pocket Edition Development Versions[edit]

Shouldn't the pocket edition have the development version link on the front like the PC version does? This should be added. --RLin (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

PS3 Version[edit]

who wants to add info on the PS3 Version of minecraft? heres the store link --007a83 Talk | Contribs 02:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Colored Logo for PlayStation[edit]

The colored logo I uploaded is still used on the PS3 ( ), and is replaced by a white logo on the PS4. So I suggest you use my logo for PS3 and black logo for other versions. — Itouchmasterpro d c 20:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I just noticed that the "fat" version of the PS3 is old and the recent PS 3 models have a white logo, sorry. But how will we make the difference between the PS 3 and PS 4 via the logo? — Itouchmasterpro d c 20:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, same problem with the Xbox version. We don't have so much space. -- Oliver Scholz Wiki Admin 21:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The Xbone's orb is coloured a bit different, so it should be enough to tell them apart. We can always add text if images aren't enough. MattTalk
⎜ 22:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyedit changes for introduction[edit]

I think the introduction summary still needs a bit more revision. It's the first thing people see when they visit Minecraft Wiki, so in theory it should be written well. Right now, the summary has some awkward phrasing and wrong comma usage that could be rephrased, so I've made a draft of some proposed edits:

Minecraft is a sandbox construction game created by Mojang AB founder Markus Persson, and inspired by the Infiniminer, Dwarf Fortress, and Dungeon Keeper games. Gameplay involves players interacting with the game world by placing and breaking various types of blocks in a three-dimensional environment. In this environment, players can build creative structures, creations, and artwork on multiplayer servers and singleplayer worlds across multiple game modes.

Rewrote the comma splices and rephrased the sentences to flow better.

Minecraft is available to all players for €19.95 (US$26.95, £17.95). When purchased, singleplayer and multiplayer game modes can be played using a web browser or the downloadable stand-alone launcher. Minecraft Classic is available to play for free. Minecraft development started around May 10, 2009, and pre-orders for the full game started being accepted on June 13, 2009. Minecraft's official release date was November 18, 2011. On April 5, 2013, Minecraft for the computer reached 10 million sales.

Reworded beginning to be more clear.

On August 16, 2011, Minecraft - Pocket Edition was released for the Sony Xperia Play gaming smartphone. After its exclusivity with Sony expired, it was released for Android devices on October 7, 2011, and iOS devices on November 17, 2011 for US$6.99.

Added additional descriptors to "Xperia Play" that removes some ambiguity with the Sony exclusivity, since people may not know what an Xperia Play is.

On May 9, 2012, Minecraft was released for the Xbox 360 on Xbox Live Arcade for US$20, and subsequently broke every previous sales record.

"Shattered" changed to "broke"

On February 11, 2013, Minecraft: Pi Edition was released for the Raspberry Pi. It is based on the Pocket Edition and is available for free at Mojang's dedicated blog. The Pi Edition is intended as an educational tool for novice programmers and users are encouraged to open and change the game's code using its API.

Removed "exclusively" since it is implied by the edition name.

On December 17, 2013, Minecraft was released for the PlayStation 3 on the PlayStation Store for US$19.99. The release was almost identical to the Xbox 360 Edition and was developed in tandem with the Xbox 360 Edition from then on.

Removed 18 since 17 is the earliest date that it was released.

Does this look ok for the main page? -- 22:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

game modes doesn't include spectator[edit]

I noticed the game modes don't include spectator mode. Is this because it hasn't appeared in a non-snapshot version yet? Or is it just work that no one's gotten around to yet?

Xbox 360 & PS3 versions[edit]

Please can someone change the Xbox 360 version to TU14 and the PS3 version to 1.04.


Dllis (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. -- Orthotopetalk 07:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

MC Realms[edit]

Can some add that the UK and the Netherlands now have MC Realms on their games please?

-- 15:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Should change "recent update: April 9th Minecraft 1.7.7 released" to "April 14th Minecraft 1.7.9 released"[edit]

Should change "recent update: April 9th Minecraft 1.7.7 released" to "April 14th Minecraft 1.7.9 released". 1.7.6 - 1.7.8 ended up unintentionally being "snapshots" (as in they had catastrophic bugs and were replaced within the same week, with 1.7.9 being the finalized one). WildBluntHickok (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Add Launcher Version to Version History[edit]

This is a proposed change for the main page, but I think that the current version of the standalone launcher client should be added with the current versions.

GunslingerN7, Technology and Gaming Freelancer (Talk) 09:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You may wish to ask on {{Version}}, since that is what controls the rest of the versions. --KnightMiner (t|c) 23:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I've added the launcher version to {{Version}}, but I'm debating where to place it on the page. Either it could be a subsection of the main version, or it could have an icon of its own. If so, we would need to find a suitable icon to represent the launcher. GoandgooTalk
12:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The launcher version is now on the editcopy. Opinions on a better location/not placing it on the main page at all? --KnightMiner (t|c) 03:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
It can be a subsection of the main version. GunslingerN7, Technology and Gaming Freelancer (Talk) 10:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks fine where it is. GoandgooTalk
15:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Since we've got such a clutter of version info in there now, I thought I'd try to redesign it to be better separate it out by edition and make it easier to understand. The colours aren't final (suggestions?), I just took them from Fenhl's suggestion for {{history}} so we had something to start with. It uses flexboxes, but should fallback pretty well for older browsers that don't support them, it pretty much just doesn't fill in the extra space, and still remains responsive to the window size.

While I was at it, I compacted the purchase links, and moved them under the version info. MattTalk
⎜ 11:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I like it. I noticed you set the pocket edition to always display all three, even if they are all the same, is that final? Other than that, the links for download with multiple editions (console, pocket) might look a little better as a list. --KnightMiner (t|c) 00:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'd expect them to either be on different versions or there to be an android snapshot most of the time, so they would have to all be displayed in those cases anyway. Collapsing them all down into one won't actually save any space, since the minimum width is set manually. MattTalk
⎜ 01:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I've changed the console edition colours to more neutral colours somewhere between PlayStation blue and Xbox green. If we can get some more feedback on the version section changes overall it can be moved to the main page. MajrTalk
06:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)