Template talk:Snapshot

From Minecraft Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Solving Edition conflicts[edit]

When an edition like Bedrock fully releases content that is not released yet from a Java Edition snapshot, we have a conflict between what is "to come" and what is "out already". So we cannot simply use this template anymore just to denote that the content of the page has yet to be included in a following update. I suggest to change the link in it as well as the text, to clarify that this messagebox only relates to the Java Edition, and that this content is expected to be released later in the Java Edition, rather than in general. I really believe this template should only be used in regards to the Java Edition, and not for any other, seeing only Java uses "snapshots". Then editors won't mistakingly remove this tag from an article anymore when it has been released in Bedrock Edition, like in this edit (fixed in next edit). I can fix this but what do you think of this first? – Jack McKalling [ Talk Contrib ] 11:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. The page inherently applies to both Java and Bedrock, so how could this template "only be used in regards to the Java Edition" on this page?
Note that removing the template was only a "mistake" from the Java player's point of view; from the Bedrock player's it's a mistake to leave it in or add it back, because it's disinformation in that context. The problem is how it's phrased: We need to modify the message box to restrict the scope of what it says. I would suggest changing the first line to "The features described in this article may be included in the next update to Java Edition". We also need to be able to generate the same thing for Bedrock, with the link modified appropriately. I'd prefer to modify {{snapshot}} to do this with a parameter, rather than having separate templates. I don't think the name "snapshot" is that much of a problem, but if it is we can rename it; there are only about 50 transclusions that would need fixing. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 15:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was suggesting. Reduce the scope of the template to just Java Edition, by rephrasing and fixing the link. But you're suggesting to potentially rename the template so it can also support other editions by switching with parameters, and although I did not originally think of that yet, I do support that even more. – Jack McKalling [ Talk Contrib ] 15:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 Support the extra parameter to specify editions. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 15:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

A mockup of the documentation for a modified template is here. If we want to use a less Java-oriented name, I was thinking of {{in development}}. We could repeat the template call for each edition, generating multiple message boxes—that would be the easiest way to fix it—or we could rewrite the template to list all the development editions in one message box. I favor the latter, though it's more work. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 16:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with the mockup and using a single message box. Message boxes are already quite clumsy, no need to add several almost exactly identical ones. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 17:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no created a mockup of the template itself here. The only problem is that if there are multiple editions, it doesn't make sense for the "development versions" link to be a link any more. I thought about listing the links separately, but that would really be ugly because everything in a message box gets centered. So for now, if there's only one edition I link it in the second line, otherwise I don't link to any of the development versions pages. What do you think? – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 17:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The documentation would really benefit from some examples. They would also make it easier to provide opinions on the template itself. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 17:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I think the link for Java Edition should be more specific, just like for the other editions. I've edited it in, but you may revert if you think I made a mistake. Also, if there are multiple editions, why not link to Development versions or Version history (both point to the same page currently)? Also, if currently no edition is specified, the link syntax becomes visible. You should probably add a default value to the dvpage variable outside the loop to prevent that. The same counts for the editions variable, which would cause an empty place for a word to appear if it isn't specified. Otherwise I think this is a very good solution altogether. – Jack McKalling [ Talk Contrib ] 08:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)