38 replies to this topic

[felinoel]

We've mentioned this in the past but never really delved too deep into it, I think we should have full articles of all information for Vanilla items.

 

My position on this has changed since the last time when I said that only new info was needed but if we don't do this then how will someone know that with a pumpkin pie they can tame bats? I know I sure am better off knowing this.

[ZL123]

 

but if we don't do this

Aren't we doing this?

[felinoel]

Aren't we doing this?

Nope.

http://ftbwiki.org/Pumpkin_Pie

 

We talked about doing it, some rules were being written for it, but then we moved to this new site and then all talk about it stopped.

[ZL123]

If I'm understanding you correctly,

 

http://ftbwiki.org/F...e_Guide#Vanilla

 

 

If an article on a Vanilla block, item, or feature is written, it must focus on the aspects added by Feed The Beast. The article should center on the differences from vanilla gameplay and the changes made through FTB mods, possible differences in crafting, etc. Basic "non-FTB" facts should be kept short and concise.

.

 

Otherwise, can you please explain more clearly what you're onto?

[felinoel]

If I'm understanding you correctly,

 

http://ftbwiki.org/F...e_Guide#Vanilla

.

 

Otherwise, can you please explain more clearly what you're onto?

I guess what I'm "onto" is that the Vanilla articles aren't being made.

 

I would make the Pumpkin Pie article myself but according to the current rules all I'm allowed to say about it is that it tames bats.

Is that really a lengthy enough article?

[digitallyApocalyptic]

I guess what I'm "onto" is that the Vanilla articles aren't being made.

 

I would make the Pumpkin Pie article myself but according to the current rules all I'm allowed to say about it is that it tames bats.

Is that really a lengthy enough article?

 

Based on the current guidelines, you wouldn't necessarily be limited to that. "Short and concise" is not the same thing as "nonexistent". A brief summary of the item's vanilla function (but not an in-depth explanation of its function and history as the Minecraft Wiki would do) would be necessary as well as a summary of which mod changes what in regards to a particular item. Besides, "tames bats" is rather vague: what exactly differs a tamed bat from a regular bat? Does this process require more than one pie? Does one simply right-click on the bat with pie in hand, or is there a special item that one must use?

 

I feel like these guidelines, as things stand currently, are appropriate; we are, after all, a wiki focused around FTB, so any coverage of vanilla items really should center around what FTB changes. Interwiki links and the Minecraft Wiki can serve the purpose of covering vanilla functionality. If there's not much to say about an item, Template:Stub can always be used to mark it as needing expansion as new features arise added by other mods.

 

By the way, what mod packs can you tame bats with a pumpkin pie in? Do you know which mod adds this functionality? I'm curious now

[felinoel]

Based on the current guidelines, you wouldn't necessarily be limited to that. "Short and concise" is not the same thing as "nonexistent". A brief summary of the item's vanilla function (but not an in-depth explanation of its function and history as the Minecraft Wiki would do) would be necessary as well as a summary of which mod changes what in regards to a particular item. Besides, "tames bats" is rather vague: what exactly differs a tamed bat from a regular bat? Does this process require more than one pie? Does one simply right-click on the bat with pie in hand, or is there a special item that one must use?

 

I feel like these guidelines, as things stand currently, are appropriate; we are, after all, a wiki focused around FTB, so any coverage of vanilla items really should center around what FTB changes. Interwiki links and the Minecraft Wiki can serve the purpose of covering vanilla functionality. If there's not much to say about an item, Template:Stub can always be used to mark it as needing expansion as new features arise added by other mods.

 

By the way, what mod packs can you tame bats with a pumpkin pie in? Do you know which mod adds this functionality? I'm curious now

Before that it states, that "it must focus on the aspects added by Feed The Beast" which is why I worry that the article would be limited.

 

We are a Minecraft wiki, a Minecraft wiki about a set of modpacks, but still a Minecraft wiki, I don't think we should limit ourselves so much.

 

 

Sometimes I will hit the random page button several times just to be sure that there aren't any new articles I don't have on my watch list, recently I found this:

http://ftbwiki.org/Pet_Bat

[digitallyApocalyptic]

Before that it states, that "it must focus on the aspects added by Feed The Beast" which is why I worry that the article would be limited.

 

We are a Minecraft wiki, a Minecraft wiki about a set of modpacks, but still a Minecraft wiki, I don't think we should limit ourselves so much.

 

 

Sometimes I will hit the random page button several times just to be sure that there aren't any new articles I don't have on my watch list, recently I found this:

http://ftbwiki.org/Pet_Bat

 

The thing is, since any coverage of vanilla items that doesn't focus on their FTB aspects would essentially be a copy of the Minecraft Wiki's already present content, is it really necessary to even bother with this? Interwiki links, in my opinion, serve this purpose just fine.

 

Ah, New World Mod Pack. Right. The combination of the meteors, the fact that many names are misspelled in the list of mods present in the launcher ("Applied Energysticts", "Campact Solars", and three different spellings of "Immibis" to name a few) and the presence of so many seemingly weird and pointless mods (CameraCraft, DiamondBuckets, etc) have always made me thoroughly averse to this pack :/

[felinoel]

The thing is, since any coverage of vanilla items that doesn't focus on their FTB aspects would essentially be a copy of the Minecraft Wiki's already present content, is it really necessary to even bother with this? Interwiki links, in my opinion, serve this purpose just fine.

 

Ah, New World Mod Pack. Right. The combination of the meteors, the fact that many names are misspelled in the list of mods present in the launcher ("Applied Energysticts", "Campact Solars", and three different spellings of "Immibis" to name a few) and the presence of so many seemingly weird and pointless mods (CameraCraft, DiamondBuckets, etc) have always made me thoroughly averse to this pack :/

Interwiki linking gives someone else the viewers and not us.

 

lol idk what modpack it was in I just literally randomly found it.

[ViperSRT3g]

I... I did not know you could tame a bat with some pie. I'm sorry for not really contributing to the topic, but this one point was rather surprising. I do think a brief description of the vanilla item would suffice with an in-depth description of its FTB aspects would suffice. No point in re-inventing the wheel.

[digitallyApocalyptic]

Interwiki linking gives someone else the viewers and not us.

 

lol idk what modpack it was in I just literally randomly found it.

 

I don't feel that it's not so much a matter of "giving someone else the viewers" as allowing for others to go to the Minecraft Wiki for the already-documented vanilla aspects of a vanilla item and then providing more in-depth coverage of its FTB aspects, i.e. "sharing" with the Minecraft Wiki. There's not much that we can document about the vanilla aspects that hasn't already been thoroughly documented on the Minecraft Wiki.

 

Besides, it's not like FTBWiki is an ad-based thing and that we are therefore sacrificing profit in some way by sending viewers to check out the Minecraft Wiki on an article for supplemental information about its vanilla aspects.

 

I also see nothing wrong with providing a short summary of what the Minecraft Wiki would have to say about an item so that basic knowledge is present but so that in-depth coverage is not required, thereby enabling people to understand an item's basic function without overly cluttering the page with non-FTB-related information. This, in my opinion, is how vanilla item articles should be designed.

 

I... I did not know you could tame a bat with some pie. I'm sorry for not really contributing to the topic, but this one point was rather surprising. I do think a brief description of the vanilla item would suffice with an in-depth description of its FTB aspects would suffice. No point in re-inventing the wheel.

 

Unfortunately, viper, I'm fairly certain that this functionality is only present in the New World Mod Pack. I could be wrong, but I've not noticed this mod present in any pack aside from the New World Mod Pack from a cursory glance at the various mod lists in the launcher.

[Kahless61]

Most of our users here are looking for FTB-specific information. They already know how vanilla works, and they don't want to be innundated with details that they mostly already know - and then have to sort through it just to find how it differs in FTB. Personally, if I wanted to look up a vanilla feature in FTB, the first place I'd look is the Minecraft wiki. If I don't know if it's a FTB or vanilla feature (coal blocks, feeding carrots to pigs), I might look at the FTB wiki first just to see if it is a FTB feature, in which case the brief overview is all I'd need. If I want to know the detailed mechanics, I'd expect to follow the link to the Minecraft wiki.

 

Additionally, I think we'd be foolish to think we can compete with the Minecraft wiki. Their information is going to be more up-to-date than ours. Let them do their speciality and we'll focus on ours. Trying to keep updating vanilla articles will take our contributors away from the many many undocumented FTB articles just to write stuff that's already been written.

[ZL123]

 

Ah, New World Mod Pack. Right. The combination of the meteors, the fact that many names are misspelled in the list of mods present in the launcher ("Applied Energysticts", "Campact Solars", and three different spellings of "Immibis" to name a few) and the presence of so many seemingly weird and pointless mods (CameraCraft, DiamondBuckets, etc) have always made me thoroughly averse to this pack :/

Heh. I did notice the spelling mistakes. I did try this pack once with my friend, because he just wanted to try something different. But there's one thing which I don't know whether I like or not, and that is some ores that, normally, would spawn far underground, appear at the surface. For example, it would be quite common to find Silver and Gold at around level 60. Do you know what mod does this? I also watched a bit of CaptainSparklez recently, and noticed that this also happened in Hexxit, where he found diamonds on a hill.

 

But I'm sure there are people who like this pack; those who want to try a 'different' experience.

 

But I guess I should go back on-topic.

 

I don't really have anything to add, but I do agree with digitallyApocalyptic in that there's no reason not to link our pages to the Minecraft Wiki. Giving them the views doesn't mean anything to us, does it? Anyway, we do get views on the page that links to the MCWiki.

 

 

P.S. I find that the icon used for the Pet Bat isn't really great... it's the picture for the video by AdamZoneTopMarks (aka GameChap [and Bertie?]). Perhaps a more official one would be better. Off to find one now...

 

 

 

Edit: ... I'm back. Couldn't find one. D:

[felinoel]

I don't feel that it's not so much a matter of "giving someone else the viewers" as allowing for others to go to the Minecraft Wiki for the already-documented vanilla aspects of a vanilla item and then providing more in-depth coverage of its FTB aspects, i.e. "sharing" with the Minecraft Wiki. There's not much that we can document about the vanilla aspects that hasn't already been thoroughly documented on the Minecraft Wiki.

 

Besides, it's not like FTBWiki is an ad-based thing and that we are therefore sacrificing profit in some way by sending viewers to check out the Minecraft Wiki on an article for supplemental information about its vanilla aspects.

 

I also see nothing wrong with providing a short summary of what the Minecraft Wiki would have to say about an item so that basic knowledge is present but so that in-depth coverage is not required, thereby enabling people to understand an item's basic function without overly cluttering the page with non-FTB-related information. This, in my opinion, is how vanilla item articles should be designed.

 

 

Unfortunately, viper, I'm fairly certain that this functionality is only present in the New World Mod Pack. I could be wrong, but I've not noticed this mod present in any pack aside from the New World Mod Pack from a cursory glance at the various mod lists in the launcher.

 

Gotcha, so instead of bothering with writing articles, why not link to other websites that already have info? Like say the Nitro Creeper, why bother writing an article for that when we can link to somewhere?

[Kahless61]

I've found that oftentimes our wiki is more up-to-date than the mod wikis are - probably because we have more contributors than they do. There are some mods that have been out there for a while and their wikis are still dreadfully outdated while ours continues to stay updated.

 

Not to mention, sometimes theirs require different navigation techniques, which would confuse our users. Unlike the Minecraft wiki, which is already organized in a very similar fashion to ours (since we based our layout/nav techniques off of theirs).

 

And then there's wikis that document new (think 1.6) behavior and drop the old behavior documentation, even though FTB hasn't updated to their new versions yet. When I want to know exactly how it behaves in my current version of FTB, I go to the ftb wiki, only resorting to the individual mod wiki if our article isn't up-to-snuff yet or if I'm curious about upcoming changes.

 

 

That said, personally I'm not opposed to linking to the external article where ours are lacking, but probably only temporarily until we get ours up-to-date or in the rare cases where we know for a fact that their wiki will better reflect the mod in its current state in FTB than we can.

[ZL123]

I've found that oftentimes our wiki is more up-to-date than the mod wikis are - probably because we have more contributors than they do. There are some mods that have been out there for a while and their wikis are still dreadfully outdated while ours continues to stay updated.

 

Not to mention, sometimes theirs require different navigation techniques, which would confuse our users. Unlike the Minecraft wiki, which is already organized in a very similar fashion to ours (since we based our layout/nav techniques off of theirs).

 

And then there's wikis that document new (think 1.6) behavior and drop the old behavior documentation, even though FTB hasn't updated to their new versions yet. When I want to know exactly how it behaves in my current version of FTB, I go to the ftb wiki, only resorting to the individual mod wiki if our article isn't up-to-snuff yet or if I'm curious about upcoming changes.

 

 

That said, personally I'm not opposed to linking to the external article where ours are lacking, but probably only temporarily until we get ours up-to-date or in the rare cases where we know for a fact that their wiki will better reflect the mod in its current state in FTB than we can.

First of all, we need to update the front page a little bit, and we need whoever does those things to upload and insert the mod icon things (under the 'Modpacks' header). We also need the Direwolf 1.5 Pack article to be a bit updated. If no-one does this in a few hours, I'll do it. I need to go to sleep now, though.

[felinoel]

I've found that oftentimes our wiki is more up-to-date than the mod wikis are - probably because we have more contributors than they do. There are some mods that have been out there for a while and their wikis are still dreadfully outdated while ours continues to stay updated.

Not to mention, sometimes theirs require different navigation techniques, which would confuse our users. Unlike the Minecraft wiki, which is already organized in a very similar fashion to ours (since we based our layout/nav techniques off of theirs).

And then there's wikis that document new (think 1.6) behavior and drop the old behavior documentation, even though FTB hasn't updated to their new versions yet. When I want to know exactly how it behaves in my current version of FTB, I go to the ftb wiki, only resorting to the individual mod wiki if our article isn't up-to-snuff yet or if I'm curious about upcoming changes.


That said, personally I'm not opposed to linking to the external article where ours are lacking, but probably only temporarily until we get ours up-to-date or in the rare cases where we know for a fact that their wiki will better reflect the mod in its current state in FTB than we can.

I was being facetious...

First of all, we need to update the front page a little bit, and we need whoever does those things to upload and insert the mod icon things (under the 'Modpacks' header). We also need the Direwolf 1.5 Pack article to be a bit updated. If no-one does this in a few hours, I'll do it. I need to go to sleep now, though.

I think that person left, haven't seen them in a while...

[ZL123]

I was being facetious...

I think that person left, haven't seen them in a while...

Who actually made them?

EDIT: Artsja.

 

I found out that Artsja actually uploaded the files, but didn't actually put them on the main page. I'll do that now.

EDIT: Actually, Artsja only uploaded Unleashed and Unhinged...

EDIT: It's not easy to do if you don't know wiki-code...  So I can't do it.

[felinoel]

Who actually made them?
EDIT: Artsja.
 
I found out that Artsja actually uploaded the files, but didn't actually put them on the main page. I'll do that now.
EDIT: Actually, Artsja only uploaded Unleashed and Unhinged...
EDIT: It's not easy to do if you don't know wiki-code...  So I can't do it.

Link me?

[ZL123]

Link me?

http://ftbwiki.org/F...n_Unleashed.png

http://ftbwiki.org/F...on_Unhinged.png

http://ftbwiki.org/Feed_The_Beast_Wiki

http://ftbwiki.org/T...ate:MainButtons

http://ftbwiki.org/F...MainButtons.png