Changes: Feed The Beast Wiki:Centralized discussion

Revision as of 19:52, 27 June 2017

Random TODO

"Stained clay blocks are renamed from '<Color> Stained Clay' to '<Color> Hardened Clay'."-mcw:Hardened Clay -Xbony2 (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Official wiki renaming proposal

I propose for the renaming of this wiki from the "Feed The Beast Wiki" to the "Feed The Beast and Modded Minecraft Wiki" (FTB&MM Wiki for short). Originally when this wiki was created, it was purely an FTB Wiki. This is no longer the case. This wiki has been open for all of Modded Minecraft for a very long time, and I think it's appropriate our name reflects that.

Our rival wiki, ftbwiki.org, did something similar to this almost two years when they turned their wiki into an FTB/ATL Wiki rather just an FTB Wiki. However, I think adding other specific modpack names for us would be too exclusive, as there are many more modpacks and mods outside of Feed The Beast and ATLauncher and other popular mod ecosystems, hence why I'm proposing it be "and Modded Minecraft" rather than "and ATLauncher" or "and Technic" or other options.

According to my survey, 44% of our users don't use the FTB Launcher, 75% don't use Curse, and 30% don't use either. For the amount of users who don't use FTB, you can round that number up a fair amount if you consider that Curse (and also the FTB Launcher) don't exclusively host FTB packs. This wiki is marketed as a "Feed The Beast Wiki", even though it's more of a general Modded Minecraft wiki. Like I've said, we've been very welcome to the documentation of mods outside of FTB for a long time, and I think it's important we reflect that to potential editors and viewers that may not think of us as that.

Lastly, this allow us to do a proper "merge" with Modpedia, which is something that has been discussed in IRC and the Gamepedia Slack for a while but hasn't been done yet.

To clarify, this is a request to change the website name and how we refer to it. This does include this namespace (we'll probably make "Feed The Beast Wiki:" redirect to "Feed The Beast and Modded Minecraft Wiki:") and how the name will display in certain places (like the "wikis" section of the Gamepedia main page) However, I do not want to change the url of this wiki and the location of the main page (although I would like to update as well as improve the main page). -Xbony2 (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't like to change the name since it is too long (that is my first opinion without thinking much about that subject). -IndestructiblePharaohVII 14:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that too, but it's not like "Feed The Beast Wiki" is already pretty long. You can still call it the FTB Wiki, or the FTB&MM Wiki, or the Modded Minecraft Wiki, or whatnot, it's just that we'd refer as the Feed The Beast and Modded Minecraft Wiki formally. -Xbony2 (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with changing the wiki name, however I'd strongly prefer something that isn't too long. Also, we'd need to have it approved by FTB to make sure they're okay with it. 🐇Retep 998🐇^{🐰Bunny Overlord🐰} 15:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

We should be either FTB/Feed The Beast Wiki or MM/Modded Minecraft Wiki, not both. Also what Peter said about talking to FTB (mainly Slow, Quetzi, and Tfox). -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 04:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Combing them both allows us to still have a focus on FTB while at the same time not being exclusive. I don't see why it has to be either or :P I do get that it's rather long, there's not many wikis that we can compare with. It's worth investigating if we can use something smaller, like "Feed The Beast Wiki and Modpedia", but I don't really like the sound of that. -Xbony2 (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably more like Feed The Beast and MineModPedia Wiki? (I know I am good with coming out with names :P). IndestructiblePharaohVII 07:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

That sounds rather silly :P -Xbony2 (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm just curious about why do we even consider a merge on a wiki that has ~200 articles (compared with the 13k articles on here), and the last edit was made about two weeks ago. On the other hand, I don't agree that the wiki should cover all the mods for minecraft, as there's problems even covering the ones that already are available on FTB alone, such as forestry or Thermal Foundation are kind of outdated, with no mention on popular but not so complex mods such as Extra-utils or decocraft, that integrate most of the official Modpacks of FTB, but yet we don't have pages for their mechanics or items that come with them. Frenchiveruti (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

We already DO aim to cover all mods for minecraft. That's kind of a pillar of this wiki, although FTB is somewhat of a focus (or it should be, ultimately people document what they want to). We're never going back to the dark ages of being only FTB :P Anyway, the reason I want to merge the Minecraft Modpedia with here now, even though it's tiny, is because it would very much easier to do now, while it is easy to do and small, instead of when it has a large content base, since it would be very complicated to do so then, which could potentially happen if we don't do this now. -Xbony2 (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

It's worth noting "merging" at this point basically means making the entire wiki redirect to this wiki, since there's no content worth moving over :P -Xbony2 (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I see, well, what about if instead of naming "and modded minecraft" FTB, like separating the terms, we integrate the fact that the modded minecraft experience it's intrinsic to FTB, as Modded minecraft probably wont be able to distribute its mods in other platform that it isn't curse. Just to be clear on what I mean, FTB IS modded minecraft, but modded minecraft isn't necessarily FTB as there are mods that don't form part of FTB official packs. Frenchiveruti (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you mean :c -Xbony2 (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

For the record both DecoCraft and Extra Utilities have some very basic documentation here. I started DecoCraft a while ago, but it was really redundant and boring so I stopped. ExU was being documented by someone who I can't remember off the top of my head. -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 18:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

It was Warlordjones, although other users have contributed a bit here and there. Currently nobody caries that torch, although I might aim to document Extra Utilities 2 since it's very different. -Xbony2 (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Wiki renaming proposal 2

Yes, I'm going to revive this proposal. Most of you guys opposed the original on the account of it being too long. Although, I have another opposition to add of my own- being FTB-focused. If we were, say, going to collaborate with another major modpack, they might not want to be under that banner. Not saying I have something planned, but who knows what is in store for the future? Anyway, that's why I propose this wiki be renamed to the "Modded Minecraft Wiki". It's short. It's direct. And it doesn't hurt that it might be the first thing that comes up when you google "modded minecraft wiki" :P certainly is pretty marketable.

Anyway, just to extend this a little bit, I'd like to propose a little something more. To keep the FTBness of this wiki, I'd like to suggest the addition of a "Portal:" namespace. The main page we currently use would be moved to "Portal:Feed The Beast". Potentially there will be other portals too- I definitely have "Portal:ATLauncher" and "Portal:Technic" in mind, but there's also potential for portals for specific mods or maybe other future concepts. The regular main page would include a blurb about modded minecraft, a few links to the main portals, and an expanded mod list. I'll try to make a conceptual version in my userspace I suppose. -Xbony2 (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if I have any say in this but here are my two cents anyway. I discovered this wiki (well, I discovered the unofficial one first) not because I was playing an FTB pack (it was an unofficial technic pack), but because I was playing with a mod that I wanted to learn more about. What was the first thing I found when searching for that mod or item in the mod? These FTB wikis. They generally seem to come up as the only wikis pertaining to Modded Minecraft unless the mod itself has a wiki of its own. I feel like this renaming would take that extra step to place the wiki in the spotlight of the Modded Minecraft community forever. Crazierinzane (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I am personally fine with the name "Modded Minecraft Wiki". I really do not want to name it "Modpedia" (Benjamin mentioned that in a private convo I had recently; that name sucks). We have to talk with the Gamepedia people (really we should just talk to Benjamin about it). Benjamin said he would "put out some feelers and try and get some info from within Curse" and the Curse people that work with the core FTB team. We also have to discuss this with Slow though I doubt he'll care one way or the other. I can do that if you don't want to. -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 00:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I really have no idea what to expect from slowpoke or the FTB team. It would be good to do it as a team (multiple people arguing can create a very good persuasive effect), but if you don't think he'll get in the way you can take care of it. -Xbony2 (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It's hardly like they're very attached to the wiki, we're very infrequently mentioned (if at all by FTB itself). It's not even like we even focus on documenting the mods that are in FTB packs anyway. Chocohead ^{Nag• Edits• Staff} 02:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I probably would document their mods if they ever gave a shit about us. We've never been mentioned in their news (even when I explicitly told them every time we had newsworthy shit happen), and none of the important things I've requested (giving us easy access to up to date MineTweaker scripts without having to download their entire modpacks, attempting to get editors, etc.) have ever been done. -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 02:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

We'll still serve as the Official FTB Wiki, it's just that we'll be more :P -Xbony2 (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

A new main page might looks like this, btw. Obviously I'm not a web designer, but you can at least get the idea. I'd like it if the links at the top were images instead of just text, but maybe that can be done later. The main portals put forth are "ATLauncher", "Feed The Beast" and "Technic", the most biggest modpack groupings. I wouldn't add any more, unless something else becomes especially popular in the future or if we partner with someone. -Xbony2 (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Logo

If we're going to rename and remarket our wiki, we're going to need a new logo. If anybody wants to play around and design something, go ahead and throw it here :P -Xbony2 (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Give me a general theme/concept and an idea of what sort of color scheme you'd like to see, and I'll see if I can cook something up. Do need at least some starting point for an idea from the rest of you. DSquirrelGM𝓣𝓟 𝓒 02:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, since I can't seem to get any suggestions on the logo, let's try a different approach... Which of the following ideas would you prefer to see?

Design based on an anvil with text stamped or chiseled into it
A representation of various production machines stacked side to side or staggered like stairs
Command block as a background with various tools and weapons in the foreground

Or suggest some alternative based on these suggestions. DSquirrelGM𝓣𝓟 𝓒 03:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

All my ideas involve rabbits. 🐇Retep 998🐇^{🐰Bunny Overlord🐰} 03:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

There's been some concerns about the lack of a logo, but have no fear. This will be our new logo henceforth.

-Xbony2 (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

eat my ass xbony you made my dog have a nightmare with that image -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 20:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

These were created by Drullkus. You can click them for a bigger picture. -Xbony2 (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

This is completely serviceable but also completely un-Minecrafty. My thought is that below the underline, maybe the icons of some iconic modded blocks could be arranged. Alternately, work the Forge logo/loading screen icon in somehow. Lady Oolong (talk)

Renaming the wiki to the "Modded Minecraft Wiki" vote

I think everybody agrees with it (or doesn't care), but because it is a big change, I'd like to do this the formal way. This vote is on renaming and remarketing the wiki from the "Feed The Beast Wiki" to the "Modded Minecraft Wiki". Keep in mind this not a change in policy- this wiki has long been more of a general modded Minecraft, and it's allowed for non-FTB mods for years now. A large amount of our users don't play FTB modpacks at all, and I'd say most of our editors don't either. This change should allow us to be more marketable to potential editors and partners who don't want to be under the FTB banner. For a bit more on that, go through the #Official wiki renaming proposal discussion and #Wiki renaming proposal 2 discussion. This vote will end in one week. If passed, we'll send a message to Gamepedia to proceed.

Support

Support. -Xbony2 (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Support. Then no problem with that :P -IndestructiblePharaohVII 10:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Support. --sokratis12GR ^Staff 10:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Support. -Moritz30^{German translator} 18:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Support I spoke with Benjamin from Gamepedia a while ago and he says the Gamepedia folks support the change. It would require a complete overhaul of the main page, which Benjamin briefly described in private with me. Slowpoke also supports it, basically as long as we don't document the Jadedpacks– fortunately those were never intended to be documented here, but instead to just link straight to Jaded's wiki. It should be stated somewhere on the main page that we are still the official source of information on FTB content, though. I propose we change the name of the wiki to "Modded Minecraft Wiki" and the URL to "moddedmc.gamepedia". Once this is all done (as in, the wiki is renamed and the main page is redesigned), we can begin working with Lordofediting and the rest of Gamepedia to transfer any content from modpedia that was not copied from here over here, and then deprecate/delete that wiki to prevent segregation. -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 19:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
*cough* sample-ish main page here.

I want to argue against the subdomain "moddedmc.gamepedia". "MC" just seems like a shitty partial abbreviation. Maybe "moddedminecraft.gamepedia" (15) is long, but it wouldn't be the longest subdomain- pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com (17), totalwarwarhammer.gamepedia.com (17), strongholdkingdoms.gamepedia.com (18), orcsmustdieunchained.gamepedia.com (20), civilizationbeyondearth.gamepedia.com (23), everybodysgonetotherapture.gamepedia.com (26), legostarwarstheforceawakens.gamepedia.com (27), loversinadangerousspacetime.gamepedia.com (27) to name a few. Other alternatives could include "mm.gamepedia.com" if we wanted to go short, maybe "modminecraft.gamepedia.com"? (I really don't like that one tho) -Xbony2 (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I think all of those URLs you proposed are ew. Perhaps we should see what Gamepedia people think? -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 02:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Aye, and/or if anybody else has any ideas. I'm learning towards "mm" myself, although I will admit I am not 100% satisfied with that option either -Xbony2 (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd lean towards moddedminecraft.gamepedia.com. CrsBenjamin (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Support. Slowpoke is okay with it, Gamepedia is okay with it, therefore I am okay with it. 🐇Retep 998🐇^{🐰Bunny Overlord🐰} 21:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Support I'd lean more towards "minecraftmods.gamepedia.com" for domain name. DSquirrelGM (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think "minecraftmods" is all that accurate because we document, and plan to document, quite a bit more than just mods. -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 18:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
True. I thought about that name myself, although I didn't suggest it because it doesn't match the name of the wiki as a whole (Modded Minecraft Wiki), which I think is important. -Xbony2 (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Support T³==Thaumic Tech Tinker, Urey.S.Knowledge ^{Welcome back, commander} 23:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Support. Good idea ! --LuminousLizard ^{FTB Wiki Staff} _{de-N / "en-2"} (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Support Why the hell not? LordofEditing =(Talk)= 21:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

~~I'd rather we confirm whether FTB peeps are okay with this before making a decision here. 🐇Retep 998🐇^{🐰Bunny Overlord🐰} 21:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)~~

Against

Against Slowpoke is against it, therefore I am against it. 🐇Retep 998🐇^{🐰Bunny Overlord🐰} 14:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Would we still be the Official FTB Wiki? Meaning that we are still FTB's official wiki? -IndestructiblePharaohVII 10:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes (unless they change their mind, but I doubt that they will be dicks about it). -Xbony2 (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I still have not talked with slow or tfox or anyone high up in the FTB bureaucracy about it. Bony did you or are you just assuming they'll be fine with this? -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 21:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I am saying if they do not agree that it will not be their call. Nowadays, they don't host us or manage us any more than Microsoft does the Minecraft Wiki. Now, I don't want to be a jerk to them, but we will be jerks if necessary. But I don't think we'll have to. -Xbony2 (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

And an update on this- slowpoke has stated he is okay with this, as long as we generally focus on FTB modpacks (which I generally plan to do), and also that we don't include modpacks that contain mods without consent from the mod author(s) (with a few exceptions for the historical Technic packs), which I think is reasonable. -Xbony2 (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

What about creating a new wiki as modded Minecraft wiki? -Moritz30^{German translator} 18:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, take all the years of hard work and start over at a new wiki. -IndestructiblePharaohVII 18:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe one could copy articles over but I think this wiki should still be focused on FTB modpacks and not small mods. Documenting small mods is good, however I don't think it should take place in a large scale here. This wiki is optimized for FTB modpacks and large mods but not really for small ones. -Moritz30^{German translator} 19:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Creating a new wiki just segregates the community even more, makes it a royal pain in the ass for users to find documentation, and doesn't even make sense because we've already been documenting non-FTB mods for at least a year. The wiki isn't "optimized" for any specific set of mods; it works fine for any number of mods. -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 20:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It's optimized for all the mods \o/ -Xbony2 (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

BTW what will happen with the old existing links and pages that linked to this site ? will the other URL redirect them here ? --sokratis12GR ^Staff 12:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

If the url is changed, the old url will redirect to the new url. Links will not be broken. 🐇Retep 998🐇^{🐰Bunny Overlord🐰} 12:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Final Decision

This has been supported unanimously. It'll take a while to fully update everything, and for Gamepedia to do their part. In the meantime, we can probably work on making some base documentation on other modpacks or making new portals or whatnot. Also above this, we need to decide on a logo (I really don't like Modpedia's logo, no way we're going to be using that) and other stuff. -Xbony2 (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's a list of things that need to happen:

Decide on Wiki Name
This seems to have consensus as "Modded Minecraft Wiki"
Decide on URL
There seems to be some discussion, but best practice would be to use the wiki name, so moddedminecraft.gamepedia.com
Create a logo
I can get assistance from Curse's design team if its necessary, with about 1 week lead time. But there would need to be a fairly clear idea of what was wanted.
Mock up new main page
I think someone had started on this, but happy to get some help from our wiki team as well if its desired.

Once all of these things are ready, then we can set a date to make the changes, which we'd be happy to support via social media, etc. We're excited about this. Even though the wiki has covered mods of all varieties for some time, I think this change will be a great move towards making it really clear what the project's mission is. We get not infrequent requests for wikis for minor mods, and its been a little confusing to people sometimes for us to send them to "FTB Wiki". CrsBenjamin (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

CrsBenjamin- I'd rather not set a date currently so we don't have to rush. I'd like to work a bit more on making a few pages to bind everything together before calling one. By the end of the month is entirely possible, though. -Xbony2 (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. But yeah, definitely no rush, I just mean once everything is ready we'll want to coordinate. CrsBenjamin (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Guide credits

I really don't like the fact that we put "credits" at the tops of our guides. In many cases that information is accessible via the history. Furthermore it creates a sense of ownership on the articles, potentially discouraging new users from editing it. See also: Wikipedia:Ownership of content. The only case I can see this making sense is for guides which were written by someone, but then put on the wiki by someone else. I don't have a proposal for that situation, but I do propose that for the other cases, we do not put credits on the page. -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 20:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

As a general principle we should only include credits when content was written by someone not on the wiki and then copied over to the wiki. 🐇Retep 998🐇^{🐰Bunny Overlord🐰} 22:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The thing I don't like is that it gives more respect to guides that were created elsewhere rather than made by the editors here. I'd be okay with it, however, maybe if the note was at the very bottom of the page (ex wikipedia:Foreign relations of Armenia#References, although probably a bit large than that) instead of blatantly at the top (change would be like this). -Xbony2 (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. It's not the best format but it's definitely better. -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 19:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Just a thought on this, what about having a fixed-position small link image, or even just an "@" character, in the bottom right of the content area that links back to the original source in this sort of case? Not too intrusive, and easy enough to write a template for. DSquirrelGM (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Not all of them have original sources, like Getting Started (Flaxbeard's Steam Power). I think something that links to the original source for those applicable could be useful though. -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 18:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Or, we can add credits but the ones made by the editors should have the name of "Made by the community" or "Made by FTB Wiki Team" or something. So it's enough to say that it was made for this wiki but not too much sense of ownership. -IndestructiblePharaohVII 17:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It's on the wiki so it's obvious that it's made by the wiki community. -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 22:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

April 17 2017 update

I've removed the credits from non-controversial guides (those which credited only people listed in the history for the page, many of which were mine >.>). I have left the credits in the ones in which credited people were not listed in the history, since we did not seem to reach a consensus for that. -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 05:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

When two items are merged in one

Ender IO in 1.10 has removed Redstone Conduit and given what used to be Insulated Redstone Conduit (the version that handles bundled redstone channels) that name. What's the correct way to handle the pages? Lady Oolong (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Chocohead described the solution in the Gamepedia Slack

“

Different sections for different versions most likely

The page would describe the latest logic then have a section below it describing legacy

„

-Xbony2 (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Category overhaul

Everything related to categories is terrible. To start, we have changed the policy to allow for multiple categories per page. To make this more useful, we will be creating more descriptive categories. The following list of new categories will be updated as we add more:

We are also going to be renaming some categories and reevaluating their usefulness. The following categories need to be renamed and/or reevaluated:

Base
Resource Page
Transformation
Other
Converters
Portable
Sorting
Pipes
Tubes
Conduit
Modules
Attributes
Redpower
Miscellaneous Automation

The following categories have been replaced:

Documentation has been replaced with In-game documentation
Electric has been replaced with Powered tools
Attributes has been replaced with Bee Attributes

This project is more clearly documented on its project page.

Please discuss stuff. -- Satanic Santa^{FTB Wiki Admin} 22:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay so I have a few ideas with some of those; namely pipes, conduits and tubes etc..

My suggestion is to use categories that are bit more inclusive such as Fluid Transportation, Item transportation, Energy transportation which could each respectively classify things like BC pipes, IC2 Cable and Fluiducts. Another group of categories to assist this could be Item storage, Fluid Storage, and Energy storage which would classify items such as IC2 Batteries as well as BC Tanks

These could then also be supplemented (only for the energy ones) by the specifics such as RF Power or EU Power.

To recap how this would look

A BC Wooden pipe would be categorized as (BuildCraft)-(Item transportation)
An IC2 Cable would be (IndustrialCraft 2)-(Energy transportation)-(EU Power)
A TE Energy Cell would be (Thermal Expansion)-(Energy storage)-(RF Power)
An OpenBlocks Tank would be (OpenBlocks)-(Fluid Storage)

Wolfman_123_ · ✉^{FTB Wiki Staff} 04:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Small continuation after looking through some more categories; I believe Modules is perfectly fine as it's simply just Steve's Carts modules which would be categorized as (Steve's Carts)-(Modules)

I also believe Attributes is fine however it may need a renaming to Genomes or something like that (I think this is the word Forestry uses to describe them, but please don't quote me on that)

Wolfman_123_ · ✉^{FTB Wiki Staff} 04:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Last one I hope...

Can someone please explain what the hell Base is supposed to be as I don't really see much of a link between all of the content.

Wolfman_123_ · ✉^{FTB Wiki Staff} 04:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Base is being used for machines that would be part of a large-scale industrial base? I'm not entirely sure though, there's one or two outliers in that.

Maybe it's for for pages that act as the base point for some form of industrialization, and are built on from there? Like 'components' but larger scale?

You're right though, there is not a lot of consistency across that category. PaladinAHOne ^Staff (talk) 07:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh god then I realized that Forge and FML were in Base... What the hell was this category even?? PaladinAHOne ^Staff (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Base is one of those categories that you just wonder what the hell went wrong. Really, it should either just have base mods like Forge and FML in, or they should go in Base Mod and I guess Base deleted. Chocohead ^{Nag• Edits• Staff} 19:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what to do about Forge and FML, but I have an idea for all the generators in that category sticking with the theme above.

* (IndustrialCraft 2)-(Energy producer)-(EU Power)

* (Thermal Expansion)-(Energy producer)-(RF Power)

Wolfman_123_ · ✉^{FTB Wiki Staff} 23:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Base was for energy generators. The problem with Modules is it's too broad. It could mean SC modules, modules of mods, etc. Same goes for Attributes. I agree with your transportation stuff. -- Satanic Santa^{FTB Wiki Admin} 02:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you continuing on doing this? — NickTheRed37 ᐸ t · ru.MCW user
c · ru translator 13:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been busy with other stuff, but it will be completed at some point. -- Satanic Santa^{FTB Wiki Admin} 19:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I may later think of an image of what I want to have as a category tree. — NickTheRed37 ᐸ t · ru.MCW user
c · ru translator 06:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

For those interested, I have been working on the categorization stuff. I moved Energy Transport -> Energy transportation. -Xbony2 (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

So, uh, what is a consumer called? Like, Macerator (IndustrialCraft 2) or Induction Smelter. I'd propose something like:

Macerator (IndustrialCraft 2): (IndustrialCraft 2)-(Energy consumer)-(EU Power)-(Crushing) (btw, should we do anything about the Crushing category, or not?)
Induction Smelter: (Thermal Expansion 3)-(Energy consumer)-(RF Power)-(Smelting)
Remote Thermal Monitor: (IC2 Nuclear Control)-(Energy consumer)-(EU Power)-(Nuclear) (nuclear may need to be re-evalulated too)

-Xbony2 (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Why did you put Miner in Cables? :P Chocohead ^{Nag• Edits• Staff} 22:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't do it! :P I'm not even listed in the history of the page. -Xbony2 (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

So you just edited Cables... Alistaire14820 added Miner to it years ago. :| Our categories are so screwed up. Chocohead ^{Nag• Edits• Staff} 23:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

btw, can you look over Energy Units? Thanks. -Xbony2 (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

since nobody loves me, I'm going ahead with my proposition :P -Xbony2 (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I have created a utility that can help us along with phase 1 of the Category Overhaul greatly. It requires Ruby, and the mediawiki_api gem created by wikimedia (be sure to use 0.3.1 as the newer versions are broken). You can find it in the SatanicBot repo. You will need to create your own secure.txt file with the formatting "USERNAME \newline PASSWORD". Alternatively you can just edit your clone of generalutils to use your username and password. -- Satanic Santa^{FTB Wiki Admin} 23:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Templates that may want to be made

~~{{Cg/Runic Altar}}~~ -PaladinAHOne ^Staff (talk) 07:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
~~{{Cg/Blood Altar}}~~ -PaladinAHOne ^Staff (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

(Altars are popular these days) -Xbony2, Master of Feed The Beast Wiki (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

{{Cg/SAG Mill}}
~~{{Cg/Alloy Smelter/Ender IO}}~~
{{Cg/The Vat}}
~~{{Cg/Slice'N'Splice}}~~

-Xbony2, Master of Feed The Beast Wiki (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

~~{{Cg/Chemical Decomposer}}~~
~~{{Cg/Chemical Fusion Chamber}}~~

The Fusion Chamber isn't needed because there are dozens of possible combinations for every element to create it. --LuminousLizard ^{FTB Wiki Staff} _{de-N / "en-2"} (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

{{Cg/Chemical Fission Chamber}}

All from MineChem. -- Satanic Santa^{FTB Wiki Admin} 20:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I think over the free days I'll create the template for the Decomposer. --LuminousLizard _{de-native / "en-B2"} (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

~~{{Cg/Alloy Smelter/GregTech 4}}~~

-Xbony2 (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

~~{{Cg/Extruder}}~~

-Xbony2 (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

~~{{Navbox Mariculture}}~~

-- Satanic Santa^{FTB Wiki Admin} 02:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I will do that in the next days. Should I create a normal navbox or a module ? --LuminousLizard _{de-native / "en-2"} (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

From quickly looking at the mod, it looks like it adds a lot of content, so I'd recommend a module if it doesn't make you uncomfortable. -Xbony2 (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Done from my side ! Navbox created and tilesheets uploaded. Problem not solved .. should someone else make the rest => Section: Problem with SheetImporter -- Preceding unsigned comment was added by LuminousLizard (talk • contribs)

New version is available and the mod has become a lot bigger. I'll update it when I find time. --LuminousLizard ^{FTB Wiki Staff} _{de-N / "en-2"} (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Navbox updated ! --LuminousLizard ^{FTB Wiki Staff} _{de-N / "en-2"} (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

~~{{Cg/Infusion Altar}}~~ -Xbony2 (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
~~{{Cg/Animal Trap}}~~
~~{{Cg/Apiary/Pam's HarvestCraft}} (these are all PHC btw)~~
~~{{Cg/Churn}}~~
~~{{Cg/Fish Trap/Pam's HarvestCraft}}~~
~~{{Cg/Oven}}~~
~~{{Cg/Presser}}~~
~~{{Cg/Quern}}~~

All of the GUIs can be found here. Thanks -Xbony2 (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll make the last 3 in the list this weekend. Btw your link is broken ... but I can extract the GUIs out of the mod. --LuminousLizard (Wiki Staff and Editor) _{de-N / "en-2"} (talk) 07:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Pam removed her machines in 1.8. Your link looks broken too :P In your preferences, you can set the "page type" to "Use a standard user wiki page" so User:LuminousLizard is your regular page, and UserProfile:LuminousLizard is the default global one. -Xbony2 (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Done ! The link to my page is ok for me. One page is for a brief overview and the other for more, if interested.

{{Cg/Tool Forge}}
~~{{Cg/Stencil Table}}~~
{{Cg/Part Builder}}

The working stations from Tinkers' Construct. I will create the Stencil Table this weekend. --LuminousLizard (Wiki Staff and Editor) _{de-N / "en-2"} (talk) 07:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

~~{{Cg/Brewing Stand}}~~

Why don't we have this... -Xbony2 (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

~~{{Navbox RFTools}}~~ --LuminousLizard ^{FTB Wiki Staff} _{de-N / "en-2"} (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I will do that. --LuminousLizard ^{FTB Wiki Staff} _{de-N / "en-2"} (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

{{Navbox Hbm's Nuclear Tech}}

Done ! I will check for updates in the future. --LuminousLizard ^{FTB Wiki Staff} _{de-N / "en-2"} (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

~~{{Navbox Psi}}~~
I'm already taking on Psi ^^ I'll probably work on Quark, too, but maybe when it's out of beta. -Xbony2 (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Done with that \o/
~~{{Navbox Actually Additions}}~~
Also working on this. -Xbony2 (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
{{Navbox Extra Utilities 2}}

{{Navbox Magicum}}

Some more navboxes ! --LuminousLizard ^{FTB Wiki Staff} _{de-N / "en-2"} (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

{{Cg/Drying Rack}} from TiCo, since it got a shit ton more recipes added to it in 1.9/1.10. -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 01:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Does this require a crafting template though? You just put the to-be food item on the rack and that's it. --SirMoogle (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there is a JEI thing for it, which is what we'd use. This is pretty common for us to do. For example, Witchery's Witch's Cauldron has no GUI, but it has an NEI thing which we use for {{Cg/Witch's Cauldron}}. -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin}

{{Navbox Mekanism}}

I will do Mekanism in the next time. --LuminousLizard ^{FTB Wiki Staff} _{de-N / "en-2"} (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

{{Navbox RFTools Controls}} ... including the mod page (it's an addon mod for RFTools)

{{Navbox TAIGA}} ... including the mod page (it's an addon mod for Tinkers' Construct)

{{Cg/Resonator}}
For Extra Utilities 2. It's more or less like a furnace without a fuel slot: one input, one output. I think it uses a flat 15 Grid Power to run +1 for each speed upgrade but double check that it's not recipe dependant. Lady Oolong (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

{{Navbox Forbidden Magic}}

Blocking policy

Feed The Beast Wiki:Blocking policy should be a thing. And while this message sits in this noticeboard, someone at some point will do it. That someone is not me because I worded it badly when I tried and it looked stupid. -Xbony2 (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the whole principle of a noticeboard is rather undermined if things are done after the requests are removed from it ;) Chocohead ^{Nag• Edits• Staff} 23:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Modpacks reform

I'm proposing a few ideas on how to reform the documentation of modpacks on the wiki.

Removing "Mods Included" sections on modpack pages, and linking to its auto-generated list on CurseForge instead (ex). Virtually all mods in modern modpacks are hosted on CurseForge. There may be a case or two where this incorrect, but the stubborn ones that come to mind (IndustrialCraft 2, Twilight Forest, etc) are all up there. GregTech is the only "big" exception, but I wouldn't be surprised if it followed IC2 in the near future.
The "Mods Included" section really serves little purpose; it's absolutely tedious to update and create (speaking from experience), thus they often aren't really updated. Lastly, they are pretty much unused- It's not 2014 anymore; if you want to know what mods a modpack includes, you go it's CurseForge page, or go the launcher; the wiki is not the first stop.

There should be exceptions to this rule, of course. Historical modpacks not moved over, like the Ampz Modpack, should allow for a mod list. This rule is mainly meant for future modpacks and current ones, like Infinity 1.7.
Changing {{Infobox mod}} to convert "Modpacks" to a normal argument, instead of a section, and making it link to its auto-generated list of CurseForge instead (ex). The Modpacks section in mods is also not really updated, or even that used.
It's a good thing it isn't that updated, or pages like BuildCraft would go on forever with the list of every modpack it's been in. The only downfall to this is that it will be incorrect for historical packs.
With the current (unwritten?) policies, "listed packs" are the only allowed modpacks. Technically, all CurseVoice packs are listed, meaning they can all be documented. I think this should be kept as it is.
Policy-wise, modpacks should be treated like mods (Technically, modpacks are mods, just a mod with many components from many people.). All modpacks should be allowed to be documented here, just like all mods can be documented here. Of course, like mods, FTB Wiki Staff should focus on documenting FTB packs. But, who are we to point away other users' modpacks? That only pushes users to host their documentation elsewhere, on other wikis or their own wikis.

One point that has been used to counter against letting other modpacks be documented here is that it would clutter {{Navbox Modpacks}}. My solution to this is pretty simple- just keep FTB-created packs on that navigation box. A proper list could created like our mods, but I think keeping {{Navbox Modpacks}} FTB-only would be a good thing.
Anyway, the point of these changes is to allow modpack documenters to focus their time on useful things, like creating modpack guides and better descriptions. It's to allow information better hosted elsewhere to be better hosted elsewhere, and to bring our modpack documentation and policies from 2014 into 2016.

Thoughts? -Xbony2 (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the main reason we still have Mods Included is because you can use that to navigate from modpacks -> mods. I know I personally use this all the time, even if it is absurdly outdated. I think some sort of automatic way to do it, or to get the modpack team to update it themselves would be good. I agree it needs to change.
I have been thinking about this for a long time. Perhaps that is a good idea, though not all mods utilize that dependency feature (e.g., Flaxbeard's Steam Power).
Agree. I think they could be listed as Unlisted Packs in the navbox.
k

-- Satanic Santa^{FTB Wiki Admin} 02:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Get the modpack team to update it. Ha. Automatically generating would make the most sense if we want to keep it. -Xbony2 (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Vegan/Vegetarian Categories

So, the Vegan and Vegetarian Food categories are shit. Most of the things in them are not inherently vegan, but have the option to be made with vegan things (e.g., Apricot Glazed Pork can be made with Tofu since it is made with the listAllporkcooked oredict). We need some sort of change to the way these categories are set up. I don't know how though. -- Satanic Santa^{FTB Wiki Admin} 00:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

How about having the sub-category substitute for them both, and things that can be cheated using Tofu can go in those. Chocohead ^{Nag• Edits• Staff} 00:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposing the categories of-

Non-Vegan Foods (anybody have a better name?)
Meats (subcat of last cat, for pure meats)
Pure-Vegetarian Foods
Pure-Vegan Foods

To replace the current categories. I don't think we need to have a category that includes cheaty substitutes, since most MC foods can use said cheaty substitutes. -Xbony2 (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

And a philosophical question- if I cheat in a Raw Chicken from NEI, does it count as vegan/vegetarian because no chickens were hurt in the process? -Xbony2 (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I live with vegans and am friends with a lot of vegans, and I hear "non-vegan" quite a bit when referring to food made with animal. So I think that's a fine name for a category. Otherwise, there's also omni/carnivorous which get used a lot as well. -- Satanic Santa^{FTB Wiki Admin} 00:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarifying sentence casing for disambiguations

I propose that the sentence case style that is already established for articles be extended to disambiguations. Here is a set of examples to show how this would affect things:

Thing (GregTech) -> Thing (GregTech) (unchanged)
Concept that is not referenced in the game as a proper noun (Esteemed Innovation) -> Concept that is not referenced in the game as a proper noun (Esteemed Innovation) (unchanged)
Thing (GregTech) (Item) -> Thing (GregTech) (item) (Item -> item)
Not a proper noun (Concept) -> Not a proper noun (concept) (Concept -> concept)

Basically, this will just require a slight modification to Project:MoS#Article titles to clarify that the sentence casing is extended to the parenthetical disambiguation of article titles. -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 18:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The Minecraft Wiki does something similar (see mcw:Clay (block) and mcw:Melon (block)). It makes sense. -Xbony2 (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I never liked that, the fact it was extra in the title rather than the item/block's name made titlecase make more sense IMO. Chocohead ^{Nag• Edits• Staff} 22:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you're just used to it, it looks strange at first. -Xbony2 (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguating things with slightly different names together

Right now, the general standard is that things are not disambiguated on the same page unless they have the same name exactly. I don't think this is very useful. I think that we should be disambiguating things that have close names on the same pages. Right now, from what I know, there are two pages which do do this: Porcelain (disambiguation) and Vinegar. Part of this also has to do with naming. I think that Wikipedia's "(disambiguation)" thing is fine for right now, but eventually if the disambiguation overhaul is a thing, that can be phased out. -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 05:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Only thing I would suggest is that for the more uniquely named items (e.g., Grape Vinegar compared to the other Vinegar entries) shouldn't need a link back to the disambiguation page. --SirMoogle (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

If the overhaul goes through, it would be far easier, I think a few disambig pages already have a See also section with similarly named pages. These pages don't link back either. I think that for now having the "(disambiguation)" thing would be fine, the current way of disambiguating is a bit annoying at times so I kinda want to see that changed. -- Hubry ^(talk) 16:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I also agree, as someone searching for porcelain from Ex Nihilo has a very good chance of hitting Ceramics instead which no link telling them the proper name. And in the case of porcelain versus porcelain clay, they might as well be the same name, one just sounded redundant to me. –KnightMiner ^t/_c 22:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I've made my position fairly clear- in the case of a page like Vinegar, I'd rather Grape Vinegar be put into a "See also" section. I'm not explicitly against " (disambiguation)" pages, although I'm skeptical of its usefulness in the case of Porcelain (a simple {{About}} could be used at the top of Porcelain to link it to Porcelain Clay at most).

Also, something that's been brewing (well, more that's been brewed) at the back of my mind for a long time, since we're on the topic- I'm an advocate for disambiguation discrimination. Sounds pretty evil I know, but I think it makes sense. I don't think A) mods should have to disambiguate for items (like Engineer's Toolbox but not like Roots (Mod) or Aether (Mod)) B) Vanilla should have to disambiguate for modded stuff (like Dirt/Dirt (Witchery) but not like Granite) and C) material pages should have to disambiguate for anything else (don't really have any examples, but I'd argue there's not a Diamond material page because of disambiguation confusions). Wikipedia does something similar (ex. wikipedia:China and wikipedia:China (disambiguation)). I think would be logical. -Xbony2 (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Most of that made no sense. -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 16:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I think what he said is...

If there is both a mod an an item that have the same name, currently we do Foo (Mod) and Foo (Item) with Foo being the disambiguation, xbony2 is proposing Foo to be the mod page and Foo (disambiguation) to be the disambiguation page. Under my overhaul I'd probably have Foo be the mod, SomeMod/Foo be the item (regardless of disambiguation), and Foo (disambiguation) be the disambiguation.
When a mod has an item with the same name has vanilla, xbony2 is proposing Foo be the vanilla page Foo (Mod) be the page for the modded version and Foo (disambiguation) be the disambiguation. Under my overhaul it would be Mod/Foo and Vanilla/Foo with Foo being the disambiguation.
When a material has the same name as an item, xbony2 is proposing that Foo always be the material page with Foo (disambiguation) being the disambiguation. Under my overhaul an alternative would be to have a pseudo mod for materials such as Material/Foo so that Foo would always be the disambiguation/redirect.

🐇Retep 998🐇^{🐰Bunny Overlord🐰} 19:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Well then I disagree with xbony and agree with you. -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 23:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You do realize a disambiguation page is literally an {{about}} for more results? All three of the unfired porcelain, the decorative block, and the Ex Nihilo version are able to be called simply "porcelain", thus that title needs to link back to all four pages. I would have skipped the disambig page if I had fewer items to redirect to, but 4 or more is the Wikipedia standard.

It is also why I had porcelain clay listed on Unfired Porcelain, as it is unfired porcelain as you might expect when looking for unfired porcelain had you not known the proper name (or played a pack where my clay came up first then played a pack with just Ex Nihilo). –KnightMiner ^t/_c 01:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I just remembered. If we as a community are deciding to include similarly named items in the same disambiguation page then {{Disambig}}'s text will need to be changed as it currently says:

“	This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title.	„
	— Template

--SirMoogle (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: Perhaps a new template can be created that resembles {{About}} so that instead of "This article is about X from Y. For other uses, see X" it'll state "This article is about X from Y. For similarly named pages, see Z"? --SirMoogle (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Eh, I disagree. That is what the Wikipedia disambiguation template says (well, it says "associated with the title <title>") and I think it still makes sense. The key word is "associated," as "associated with" does not mean "equal to." -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 19:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

ModOff

Me and ImmortalPharaoh7 are representing the FTB Wiki in ModOff! In case you don't know what it is, ModOff is a modding competition where participants are tasked to make a mod in a 5 day period (similar to ModJam). Me and Immortal, and any other interested editors, are sponsoring the event by documenting the top three mods from it (plus any mods we particularly like, of course). On April 26th to 30th, the ModOff server will be opened for modders to display their creations and for viewers to vote on which one(s) they like the the most. We have our own plot as well, as you can see above, and I highly encourage you to visit it. On May 1st, the results of the competition will be released (it's also my birthday too btw), and me/Immortal/any interested editors will start documenting the top three mods shortly after. -Xbony2 (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Update: it is open currently. Support the wiki and the event by coming out, yo :P -Xbony2 (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Update- if you're interested you probably already know anyway, but the winners of Modoff are Wearables, Skillable and Augmented Interactions. And just for funz here was a picture from the event.

(ImmortalPharaoh7 took this one I believe which is why his name is missing) -Xbony2 (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

lol, I had no idea a picture of me was ever taken. Nice. I wonder if Tartaros was ever fixed... -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 21:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure you were lagging there, and right after the picture was taken, you left the game. -IndestructiblePharaohVII 14:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Mod and modpack contest categories

I just had a thought. It could be useful to create categories for mods and modpacks made as part of a contest, for example "Mods created for Modoff". If nobody opposes I can just do it since I don't think it's controversial enough to need a full scale vote. -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 16:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking about something like that. I don't know if we should use specific "versions" of competitions in categorization, though (like "Mods created in ModJam 1" vs. "Mods created in ModJam" or use both at the same time [which I would prefer]).

I wouldn't recommend even bringing up voting for this or anything else that isn't super huge anyway. -Xbony2 (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright, so I've done this. Unfortunately, ModJams have been horribly documented so the only ones I know of for each ModJam are the very popular ones (iChun's mods and Translocators). I've asked both Searge and iPixeli on IRC about getting a list of each ModJam's submissions, which could also be helpful for finally creating ModJam articles. I've also asked Slow for a list of all JamPacked submissions. -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 02:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-merging of GregTech 5 Unofficial and GregTech 5

I propose the "merging" of GregTech 5 Unofficial and GregTech 5 content: moving everything in {{Navbox GregTech 5 Unofficial}} to {{Navbox GregTech 5}} and making GT5U stuff be part of the same tilesheet as well. GT5U content should be noted as GT5U-only still, but it should not be segregated completely. GregTech 5 Unofficial has more or less been accepted as the continued iteration of GregTech 5 so I think this would be for the better, but at the same time I think any potential people that only use the official version wouldn't really be hurt by this. -Xbony2 (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It may be a continued iteration, but they are still different which merging them doesn't show. If the navboxes were merged in any way, the extra things should be clearly labelled as part of GT5U not GT5, otherwise it doesn't make any sense to point out that it's different in the page. Really, just putting GT5U navboxes at the bottom of GT5 pages is probably sufficient (which could just be the GT5U navbox at the bottom of the GT5 navbox's template). As for tilesheets, keeping them split might be necessary to avoid GT6 style problems of having multiple sheets anyway for blocks/items/other things. Chocohead ^{Nag• Edits• Staff} 01:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

From my minimal understanding they are still pretty different, so I agree with Chocohead that they should not be merged. I think it could also be confusing because they are still separate mods and someone who downloads one might expect to see stuff from the other after looking at the wiki. -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 05:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

We should have a clear warning at the top of every GT5 page where the given item only exists in one of the two mods, regardless of whatever else we do. I do think both navboxes should be visible on all GT5/GT5U pages though, but it should be clear in the navboxes what stuff is only in GT5U and what stuff is in the original. As for tilesheets, I'm not sure whether I want to give GT5U its own full tilesheet, or just items which aren't in GT5. If any textures were changed in GT5U then that would provide more of a reason to give GT5U its own full tilesheet. 🐇Retep 998🐇^{🐰Bunny Overlord🐰} 06:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

GregTech 5 Unofficial doesn't appear to change any textures (except maybe GUI textures but not in any official releases yet according to JohannesGaessler, but that doesn't affect the tilesheet obviously). I see GT5U as being the community-accepted continuation of GregTech 5 (like Nuclear Control 2 or Extreme Reactors), and that we should treat it more like that. Oh, and also it would be good to bring BloodyAsp and maybe others into this discussion. -Xbony2 (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Both examples you provided were separate updates for mods on new Minecraft versions, not full continuations of the same (if decompiled) code base for the same Minecraft version. Especially as there's scope for items in GT5 to be changed by GT5U, they cannot be considered the same the way you could with Nuclear Control for 1.6 and Nuclear Control 2 for 1.7. The only situation where what you suggest does apply is GT5U for 1.10 (which is another problem in itself), but that's still WIP whilst being slightly rewritten, so it probably isn't a concern right now. Chocohead ^{Nag• Edits• Staff} 16:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't really see why it has to be on a different Minecraft version as long as it's considered the de facto continuation by the community (which is perhaps debatable if the mod is, but I would argue it is, we could do a poll or something if necessary). -Xbony2 (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

A different Minecraft version at least separates the original mod out from the clone/continuation a little more, the fact GT5 and GT5U are so close together already means merging much further will make it quite hard to tell what is actually added in what. The difference between them is quite important too, as there are old packs that have GT5 in them (from back when Greg was still developing it), which obviously won't have the content from GT5U. Having the differing Minecraft versions means there is at least no doubt in which one you are running as there's no choice, in GT5's case there very much is. Chocohead ^{Nag• Edits• Staff} 23:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

We can set it up where the differences are noted but at the same time they are together, where content that GT5U-only is marked as such. I don't think having separate navboxes would be particularly useful; someone looking for something from the original GT wouldn't be bothered that there's some things listed that aren't in their version, they'd just skim over it until they find what they are looking for. -Xbony2 (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I would definitely be mildly annoyed having to figure out what things I could do with GT vs. GT5U instead of just going to the specific place for the specific mod I had installed. -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 20:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

As long as the GT5U exclusives have their own section in the navbox to make it clear they're not part of the base GT5, every page for a GT5U exclusive has a notice at the top indicating its exclusivity to GT5U, and articles clearly document functionality changes between GT5 and GT5U, then that should be fine by me. 🐇Retep 998🐇^{🐰Bunny Overlord🐰} 21:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I think an average page should look like this. I don't think it is mildly annoying to use. -Xbony2 (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

What exactly does merging the GT5 and GT5U navbar and pages help? As i see it, it would only be more work with no real improvement. That work would be better invested in finishing the missing GT5U pages and GT5U addon stuff.--BloodyAsp (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

BloodyAsp- I don't think it would be a lot of work, wouldn't take very long for us to do so it wouldn't really compromise any GT5U work (currently there's not really any work going on for it that could be compromised x.x having this discussion debatably would take longer than moving navbox content over or merging the tilesheets). As for the improvement, this would treat GT5U more like an updated version of GT5 rather than a one-off fork or an addon. -Xbony2 (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Ore Dictionary Requests

It's my first time... Is this the right place for this? Did I do this right? ~~storagedrawers~~ Thanks! Andyglover (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup, perfect, thanks. I've been meaning to dump this mod. Done. -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 01:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Sweet. My pleasure. Just realized I did make one typo in my submission: "Basic Drawers 1x2(Spruce)" should be "Basic Drawers 1x2 (Spruce)". Sorry about that. Here's an updated txt if you need it: ~~storagedrawers~~ -- Preceding unsigned comment was added by Andyglover (talk • contribs)

I updated it manually. Be sure to always include a signature using ~~~~ when communicating :) -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 15:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Railcraft 10.1.2 Thanks! Andyglover (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This dump was somehow compressed into 4 lines. Could you upload the raw dump as provided by OreDictDumper without alteration? Thanks -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 05:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

RC.txt Sure, here you go. Sorry about that! Andyglover (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Done -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 17:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

FTB forums wiki section

Currently there is a wiki section on the FTB forums which is quite inactive. Should we keep the wiki section around or should we replace it with a redirect to a discussion page on the wiki (like this one)? Please provide your questions and comments and at midnight UTC at the end of July, a decision will be made based on the consensus of the community.

Comments

I personally think the wiki section on the forums serve no purpose anymore and should be replaced with a link to this page. 🐇Retep 998🐇^{🐰Bunny Overlord🐰} 18:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I personally think the public wiki section on the forums serves no purpose anymore. It should be replaced with a link to this page, and all discussions from the section should be archived here on the wiki. I think the secret section can be safely removed entirely. The secret removal should not be archived publicly as that violates the privacy of posters who posted under the assumption the public would never see their comments, regardless of the seriousness of the content. I don't think there's anything remarkably important there, anyway. -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 18:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Why is this section organized weirdly? A normal talk page comment would have been sufficient. Anyway... I agree that the two sections on the FTB Forums are basically useless. Everything should be archived. The public stuff could be archived to [[Feed The Beast:Public forum archive]] or something (that's a bad name, someone suggest something better). I would like the private stuff to be archived publicly, but I realize this is unrealistic and inappropriate for the reason Santa provided. From what I've seen, ~90% of the stuff I think would be fine if made public but without consent from everyone (which is obviously impossible, since most of the people there have moved on, some of them have disappeared completely, some have been banned from FTB, and for all I know some have literally died) it still would not be appropriate. Perhaps some portions of it could be archived publicly if it was uncontroversial and maybe interesting, like old guides and whatnot; I don't think that it would be a big deal for some certain stuff. Also it should be noted I would like access to the private archive. -Xbony2 (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- For discussions involving parties we can still contact, we could request consent to archive them publicly. -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 19:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Enhanced ore dictionary descriptions

Currently the description in the tooltip for {{O}} is just the ore dictionary tag, for example
. I propose that we also display the mod name that a given item comes from, so you can more clearly see the various mods that provide items which satisfy a given oredict tag. Please indicate whether you are in favor of this change. If you are in favor of this change, please also help us decide which style to use for the tooltip description by providing a ranked vote of the options available on User:Retep998/OredictDescs. If you do not like any of the options on that page, please add your desired style variations to the end of that list. 🐇Retep 998🐇^{🐰Bunny Overlord🐰}

Votes

Support. I support this change and my preferred style is option 6. 🐇Retep 998🐇^{🐰Bunny Overlord🐰} 18:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
#6 -- Satanic Santa🎅^{FTB Wiki Admin} 19:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Option 3 Chocohead ^{Nag• Edits• Staff} 19:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@@ Line 515: / Line 515: @@
 * {{Support}}. I support this change and my preferred style is option 6. {{User:Retep998/Signature}} 18:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * {{Support|#6}} -- '''[[User:TheSatanicSanta|<span style="color:red">Satanic</span>]][[User talk:TheSatanicSanta|<span style="color:green">Santa</span>]]'''🎅''<sup><span style="color:#1868A5">F</span><span style="color:#13A425">T</span><span style="color:#A12122">B</span> '''Wiki Admin'''</sup>'' 19:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
+* {{Support|Option 3}} '''[[User:Chocohead|<span style="color:green">Chocohead</span>]] <sup> [[User Talk:Chocohead|<span style="color:red">Nag</span>]]• [[Special:Contributions/Chocohead|<span style="color:blue">Edits</span>]]• <span style="color:orange">Staff</span></sup>''' 19:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 <!-- do not edit below this line -->