Forum:Page version selection template

A discussion in MCT:Community portal/Archive_50 § Add April Fools' information to regular articles about items, blocks, etc., where we thought the best way to add April Fool's Day information to regular pages was by showing me how it works on the Terraria wiki, here. I later discovered that even Wikipedia has something like that (exemple wp:Lua).

Basically, it's a namespace selection from the same page. But I see that this could easily be expanded to subpages, cross-pages or something like that.

It would be something with a functionality similar to {{About}}, but with much easier navigation.

I believe this can have many uses beyond the initial one I thought of (April Fools' version), such as:

• Navigating older versions of a feature with significant changes.
• Navigations in different namesapes of the same concept
• Navigation in different editions

I've already created the template and made examples of these cases here: User:Aloi4/test

It can also be used in MCW:P/DIG.

The issue is that this would significantly change the wiki's style, so it needs more general approval before we start using it, along with rules about where it can be used or implemented. Besides, there might be ways to improve my templates.

I tried to create a template that works well without having to change anything in MediaWiki, but the only thing I think would be interesting to change is that path at the top of the page that leads back to subpages. This becomes redundant information and misaligns the template bar on the main page and its subpages.

I believe a solution would be to create a magic word or category so that pages with that magic word (or in that category) don't have the path at the top. Possibly an edit in MediaWiki:Gadget-gadgets-definition-links.js, would be enough.

We can also solve this simply by not creating new pages as subpages (unless the main page is already a subpage). But I believe that sometimes it can be more organized to use subpages.

I would like to know your opinion on:

• Whether you approve of the use of such a template
• In what situations could it be used?
• If there should be any changes to my initial version of the template, and if so, what are they?
• If the media wiki should be changed to hide and return to the subpage.
• Or anything else related to the use of this template or something similar.

– Unsigned comment added by Aloi4 (talk • contribs) at 18:17, 5 April 2026 (UTC). Please sign comments with ~~~~

👁 Image
 Neutral I'm not sure if this is something I would actively want, but this could definitely be useful for historic information. LCE for one, I understand it's not going to be actively useful for players, especially not eight years into Bedrock's reign, but it does leave a vacuum for documentation that doesn't really apply to other wikis. I think the inherent problem here is where would you draw the line, we're certainly not splitting Java and Bedrock coverage, and we have multiple April Fools snapshots which indirectly change every single block in the game. Someone might try and create a zombie pigman page, because they recognize it as a classic version of the mob like old villagers are, even though all that changed was the name and model.

A similar idea was suggested for Dungeons earlier, where there'd be a button to switch between pages for any topics shared between games. Not quite the same since that would use namespaces and not subpages, but it might be good to try and implement that before or with this so we can see how it affects the style. Realshow19 (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I know few people will accept this, and even fewer would want to work with it, but I'm in favor of creating all the pages that change something in the first version of April. For example, creating pages for Craftmine that show where we can find the blocks depending on how we make the mines, adding exchange value information for each item, etc., changing the renewable status (in Craftmine everything obtainable is renewable!).

Or adding each item/block its behavior as a living block. In HerdCraft, the end portal frame is renewable, and some things (like neterite tools) are no longer obtainable.

But I doubt they will approve it, and even fewer people will work on it because it would be too much work.

Separation of Java and Bedrock is important in technical pages, where they are already separable. And perhaps some resources that have a lot of technical details could have three pages (a general one, a technical JE page, and a technical BE page), or even more depending on how the resource is divided in the wiki (an example is water).

I see many people wanting to know about older versions as well. Although my main interest is in early April versions.

A question that has to do with wiki rules:

Pages that are not the standard wiki pages (item pages, blocks, etc.) and where I also make the main edits (in this case Hardcoded item properties and Debug mode/Grid), can I use my template there? Or is that violating something in the style guide? Aloi4 (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The problem with any kind of larger April Fools coverage is that content is inherently disposable. I don't think we should avoid covering it or anything, but it's joke content made in like two weeks, made for the less popular version of the game and discarded a day later. By all means we should document it, but it's not essential information to have above the lede. It's historic more than anything else, I don't think we need multiple dedicated subpages just to say honeycomb blocks and shroomlights can be used in Herdcraft. Realshow19 (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I was thinking that a slightly less cluttered proposal would be to create a page like "Regular items in 26w14a" that functions like a normal item page but discusses all items in version 26w14a. I'd have to think more carefully about how to create it.

There could be a section dedicated to the infobox information in tables.

It would be lengthy but much simpler than creating a separate page for each item. But I still think this could be linked somewhere on the item page, perhaps in the history of the April Fool's Day version.

One problem with this would be knowing exactly how to describe properties that are not new or lost properties, as this would be compared to the previous April Fool's Day version, whereas the current wiki page can list new properties, etc. Aloi4 (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I oppose such a wide ranging solution to a smaller problem. This would open apparent floodgates for things like trying to document full version history on separate pages which aren't viable. April Fools' content can be more easily handled with specific pages. You can have "2#w14a/Block generation" with a table of   Block || Biomes || Generation pattern   or something. I feel these solutions should be attempted first before a big change like this.  Nixinova  T ⁄ C  00:25, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Currently, I am 👁 Image
 neutral on this. I do like the idea of having page switcher thingys like that, but I'm not too sure that these specific reasons for it would be accepted and implemented. Depending on what future replies say, my stance may change. 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
00:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Using templates on existing pages

What about using templates on pages that already exist, and that aren't among the "main" ones? For example:

• Item tag (and other tags)
• Recipes
• Debug mode/Grid

What's your opinion?

There are other pages that could benefit, but they are larger pages and possibly the use of the template is more questionable.

• Villager (and other pages that have the "(old)" version)
• Pages that were separated by DIG etc.
  • I know there's a navbox for this. But normally navbox lists a very large number of pages from a larger category. The template would be for fewer pages and more similar ones.

Aloi4 (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Of these I think old villagers would be the best use of this feature, though it’s worth mentioning they’re not split for historic reasons. On Bedrock old and current villagers are actually two separate mobs. Realshow19 (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong oppose
Articles should never be split because of a few JE/BE differences, it is only infinitely more useful to actually describe the differences. Technical only pages are mostly already split but that's because there's nothing comparable, not even the concept in general, so a tabber is unnecessary and "For the similar system in BE, see ..." is sufficient and more useful.
For navigation between the same concept in other samespaces, there's already Forum:Spin-off indicators. I strongly discourage to discuss multiple proposals on one forum.
For historical information, there was already a previous closed forum with the same idea. Conclusion: the history section is sufficient in most situations and no one bothers to create entire articles for every major change, nor do enough people bother reading those. They are for a reason so there's no point in documenting usage, only like "hey this is how it was before, this changed over the years". If something radically changes, yes, split a page like Villager (old), but those are exceptions and don't need such a prominent tabber.
For April Fools' versions: I say never document any joke info on other articles. April Fools' versions are exactly like DLC; optional content unrelated to general gameplay. So keep it within April Fools' (sub)pages, I wouldn't even encourage a hatnote. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
14:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

BE/JE division it would be for the tech sciences page itself, not new divisions (of course, unless the page doesn't exist, like there are no pages for the fluid water, which is a Java-exclusive feature and Its documentation is currently scattered across various pages, without specifying that it's all referring to the same thing. But whether or not there should be a page for that is a separate discussion).

The only difference would be that pages that are already divided like this (using tags) would now have a template connecting them. This would even benefit Business Engines because they sometimes require less technical that Java.

Again, the historical version would only apply to cases like the Villager's, nothing more. The only change will be the inclusion of the template. Other people suggested doing something for the latest version of other versions that are quite different from the current JE/BE, I have a neutral opinion on these. But I don't see why, if you're going to create these pages, you wouldn't use a template.

Precisely because April Fool's Day things shouldn't be documented on the main page, it should have its own page. The only thing I would do is create a link from the main page to the subpage.

Remember, the concept here is the use of the template; where it will be used is an important discussion, but you might be in favor of using the template while also feeling that there are few suitable places for it. Furthermore, it wouldn't be indiscriminate use of the template; if we allow its use for older pages, then it wouldn't be permitted for someone to create a page for each version and use it. Discussions about page creation are independent of discussions about using a template if the page were created.

If you could clarify your opinion on using the template on pages with Villager and tags, which already exist, I would appreciate it. And I would like to better understand your opinion on using the April Fools' sion on handnote.

And what is your alternative for linking the main page to a place (even if it's a section of another page) that better explains its differences in the April Fools' version?

It is worth noting that pages such as blocks It already has April Fool's Day content on it, so this proposal would be less drastic than pages that already exist. We could even redesign these pages by dividing the content. Aloi4 (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2026 (UTC)