Talk:Redstone (disambiguation)

This page is NOT a disambiguation [1] -- RobinKanters 11:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I see it written with a small r more often than not. 99.253.198.49 22:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Its impossible to make a title without a capital.

Maxwell the scribblenaut 20:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This point was raised by user Orthotope and used as motivation to cull information from the disambiguation.

< response from original page author > There must be a clear and homogenous blurb definition if people searching Redstone are to find the articles they want.

The definition format is simple and is such; article subject | source | use this is a very common disambiguation definition format across many wikis.

Orthotope I will show some examples in the best interests of your understanding.

subject Source use

Redstone Ore -Redstone in its natural form. It's found deep underground and can be smashed producing Redstone Dust.

Redstone Dust -Redstone in a collectible form. Obtained from Redstone Ore it can be placed in the world producing Redstone Wire or used as a component in Crafting and Brewing.

Redstone Circuits / Advanced Redstone Circuits -projects built from Redstone components and regular blocks which accomplish work by routing Redstone signals.

As you can see the definition format works the same for simple highly literal articles, as well as for complex abstract articles.

The fact is that people seeking articles usually have some combination of source use and subject; referencing these in a disambiguation page allows for smooth and minimal page traversal.

Thank you for your concern on this matter; more help is always welcome and there is no reason these pages can't change for the better ! But please in future ask questions and collect information about pages before trying to critically analyse them.

Thanks, luke. ( if you want to say something Orthotope then please do; start a topic with the relevant name and I will be happy to listen to your opinions, I'm not Adare, but he's with me ) –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Adare ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 05:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

1. I consider it unlikely that Kizzycocoa would be unwilling to comment publicly.
2. However, that is irrelevant, as this is a wiki; pages are not 'owned' by anyone, nor does the original author have any more say over their contents than any other user.
3. Don't try to sockpuppet.
4. Don't insult the admins.
5. A brief description of what a block or item is used for is appropriate on a disambiguation page. The specific ingredients it is created from (such as repeaters being crafted from torches, dust, and stone) are not relevant, and do not help someone trying to find one of the linked-to pages. -- Orthotope 03:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, see wiki rule 18 about signing posts on talk pages, and rule 21 about multiple authors using a single account. -- Orthotope 05:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it's just a coincidence that you have the same IP address and user agent. Pretty funny you say this is not your first wiki, yet you don't even understand the basics of a wiki, like how to use a talk page, or that you don't own a page. –ultradude25 ᐸ Talk
Contribs at 05:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Also side note, you all shouldn't have gotten into a revert war, if they are just going to revert as soon as you do, there's no point and it just clutters everything up, so just leave it next time and report the reverter. –ultradude25 ᐸ Talk
Contribs at 05:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Adare here, I'm responsible for all the images on the Redstone disambiguation page, I have seen several waves of response regarding the large example image ( the switch on a block - powering the wire - powering the door )

Some people are unhappy with the formatting ( demanding a link and frame ) Others are unhappy with the image content ( requesting a less embedded and more Redstone oriented image )

I feel that both points have there merit.. However I have had trouble in the past finding a more suitable candidate which satisfies everyone's demands.

So I would like to open this as a place we can discuss the various constraints and ultimately select an image we can all enjoy seeing here.

please append this topic instead of replying in full. Thanks guys.

File:DoorPowered.png demonstrates a redstone circuit. It contains redstone wire, but none of the other items listed on this page. It's also not a very good image in its own right, being taken from an awkward angle. File:AllRedstone.png is modeled after the images on the Diamond (disambiguation), Emerald (disambiguation), gold, iron, and Lapis Lazuli (disambiguation) pages, which show most, if not all, of their disambiguation targets. -- Orthotope 05:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Admittedly, my image is a bit cluttered, given all the elements I was trying to pack into it. Anyone is welcome to replace it with a cleaner configuration of blocks. -- Orthotope 06:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I wrote an article (User:LB/Redstone Power Types) but I'm not sure what I should do with it. LB^(T|C) 23:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Tomorrow I intend to exercise my role in this creative community by making positive changes as best I can.

I've wrote several versions of this disambiguation previously ( including all definitions in the current one ).

Ultradude25 has been making reversion changes to the disambiguation without explaining why, he has as yet added no information to the page and I do not with to get into an editing tug-o-war with such an individual. So here i shall explain myself in a way everyone can understand.

My intent is to improve ( / repair ) sentence structure and include a small blurb equivalent to a term disambiguation as is commonly seen on Wikipedia's popular disambiguations ( eg. see; science, evolution, mathematics... )

I would be happy to hear other perspectives on these changes and I am in no way stuck or stubborn on the details.

But I do ask members to please show maturity and to please not meaninglessly revert my work.

Your friendly Redstone expert - 119.12.169.167 04:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Luke.

Look at the page history, and note that many of the major contributors to the wiki were in agreement about which version of the page to use. Exactly one person was pushing the version you reverted to, ignoring all arguments against it. I advise you to think very carefully about what you're doing before starting another edit war. There are many other, more constructive ways to contribute to the wiki than rephrasing a disambiguation page. -- Orthotope 04:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for responding; however your quite incorrect.

On a single-day, You changed the border of the photograph; i undid it, and asked you to "please" explain why the extra border was appropriate ( as you had not given reason in your edit summary )

You did not respond; instead you re-edited the page; this-time changing the photo and seriously mutating the article summary's. ( leaving some quite-long while ruthlessly reducing others )

I undid both changes and asked you once-more; "please" use the discussion box before making potentially controversial changes ( ie. butchering the pages format )...

You proceeded to remove my requests from the discussion page and redid the edit; again without descriptive a text; instead leaving the very insightful remark "this is the version 'everyone' wants"

As it stands; the current version contains not a single word typed by you. you simply butchered an article over the period of a day; written by someone else ( me ) and then reverted documented and discussed repairs until an admin Ultradude25 stepped in... who proceeded to use his impressive ability's of understanding of the situation to ban and threaten me to no-longer 'multi-account'???

You have nothing to add to this page and your actions have hindered it's improvement for a long-time, thanks. 203.59.228.97 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Luke

( Ultradude25's response to the OP *)

You're the only person that wants that version and all you give for a reason is that it is "your" version and even going as far as saying anyone who edits your version is vandalizing.

In the end this is a disambiguation page, it just links people to the relating Redstone pages, a lot of people won't even see this page and any that do will just spend a few seconds choosing which page to click on. I can't believe how worked up you're getting over such a non-critical page, you act as if the world will end if we don't use your version. –ultradude25 ᐸ Talk
Contribs 07:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your very logical and relevant response.

I'm glad to hear that you consider this page important and that you will do what you can to help it improve.

Of coarse You would understand why someone who has written a significant number of the pages linked by this disambiguation would take vestige in this title pages appearance and function, so i wont explain that.

To subject: "that version" including it's icons, images and descriptions were all planned, implemented and improved over several months.

Care was taken to include concise definitions as directed by my own experiences within the subject field ( eg. The number of people I've met who misconstrue the virtues of contextual capitalization and simply write Redstone led me to write the term headed which Orthotope so quietly deleted )

To give you an understanding of my consistency; or to explain why I'm all 'worked up' over a 'non-critical page' let me quickly review for you my interactions with this page.

Months ago i posted the first version of an 'instant repeater' in the Redstone circuits section... I noticed the redirect had no icon associated with it; so i proceeded to design one... this in-turn lead me to further explore the pages linked by this page.

I came-across 'advanced circuits' and was quite disappointed with the quality and lack of page coherency... I spent several days reorganizing and added a title paragraph to the page... however it was blatantly obvious that the articles were insufficient for the construction of functional Redstone computers...

As i mentioned in the personal conversation we conducted; I'm in the process of writing a long article; for which i would post a link in the disambiguation page. ( http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/Tutorials/Redstone_Computers )

And it was work on that article which kept me coming to this wiki on a regular basis... usually thru the simple Google searching of 'Redstone wiki'.

Obviously this landing-page was highly ranked for those terms and i ended-up viewing it many times.

When i decided to start maintaining the page it was as if i was alone; my edits laid there until i made further edits and this continued very slowly until finally conglomerating into the version you call 'That version no one wants'... later Orthotope removed the headers; took details out of the definitions and replaced the image with a smaller-noisier one... that day i was banned by you for 'pointless reverting' sided with as a series of irreverent accusations, the source of which i can only guess. ( Orthotope? )

In the months since then; nothing has been added.. we still use the words i wrote; but the sentence structure is damaged and not to mention the mess...

I would love to keep contributing to this wiki and i know i can. I'm not asking for precedence over this page.

Just a fair-shot to make improvements as in; don't vandalize ( by which i simply mean 'aggressively change work without giving reason' ...Orthotope... )

and maybe a little more care when banning would be nice. ( just in-case )

Thanks again, 203.59.228.97 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Luke

If it means anything to this "debate", I like the current version, without the ugly big picture and unnecessary description. Adding my two cents to make the very insightful remark "this is the version 'everyone' wants" more truthful. :) --Kanegasi ☺C 03:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Luke, let me add my name to those who think that no significant changes are needed on this page. I encourage you to please respect the community's consensus, and to put your energy into completing your Redstone Computers tutorial which seems like an amazing project. —Munin295 · 👁 Image
👁 Image
· 04:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Munin295; you are ofcoarse correct; and given only the knowledge of this incident it Would seem like I'm wasting myself.

However this is not my first incident with Orthotope ( hes shown himself to be extremely disrespectful with the hard work of others; there's a whole group of people who have had such experiences, and when i recognized Orthotopes name as having edited one of my pages i quickly became defensive )

My intention was to not-let orthotope make detrimental changes and that's exactly what he did. i personally told him that i was vested in the page and that it would unacceptable for him to make changes without first taking part in discussion... the next message i received ( minutes after ) was from an Ultradude25 who informed me that he had solid evidence that i was breaking a number of the forums rules.

I explained myself clearly and without room for misunderstanding. he still banned me.

This is the behavior i would expect from a little girl and her big angry sister.

of coarse I am not here to redeem the bad values of forum editors; I'm here for the fans of Minecraft.

..and don't worry now that i am unbanned i will resume work on the article, thanks 203.59.228.97 05:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)luke

The line including "Redstone in an ore state" is within the subject and definition of "Redstone ore" therefor the possessive article "it's" is much better suited than "an", which has no place in defining a singular definitive state. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 123.200.233.75 (talk) at 04:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

"it's" is a contraction of "it is" or "it has" . The possessive form of the pronoun "it" is "its".

These are deliberately not sentences or definitions, they are whatever gets the user to their destination the fastest. Space is used to explain the difference between redstone dust and redstone wire (which are not capitalized except in titles) because it's a source of confusion, but the other entries should be no longer than necessary. "its" might be better, and we can talk about it if you want (I'd have to look up some of the words you used in your explanation), but we should want users to spend as little time on this page as possible.

Whatever else you do, please do not remove interwiki links. You've done that twice now at least, and it puts your other contributions in a bad light. When I see that someone not logged in has deleted all the interwiki links on a page, my first instinct is to automatically revert it without taking a look to see if anything else they did was worthwhile.

—Munin295 · 👁 Image
👁 Image
· 05:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I dont know about 'its' but i can see that it was you Munich295. who was the editor of the first version removing the interwiki links... which makes any such decedent page mistakes your inherited error.

Also I've seen Redstone written as Redstone when not the subject matter and not the first word in a sentence and not in referring to Redstone as a subject; By Mojang... including Notch ( in his personal blogs ) –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.214.163.137 (talk) at 07:36, 3 February 2013‎ (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Please sign your posts. Please use indenting on talk pages.

The three edits I have made to this page (so far) all included the interwiki links.

It doesn't matter how Notch or Mojang spells something, only what the consensus of the wiki users is. They may choose to take that into account, or they may decide something else is important. But capitalizing all in-game names in text looks weird (except obviously in German) and it was decided not to do it, by the people interested enough to participate in the discussion.

—Munin295 · 👁 Image
👁 Image
· 09:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Redstone circuits contain redstone components, and i don't think anyone disagrees there.

But do all Redstone circuits accept input ? do all circuits produce output ? can all redstone circuits be said to 'act on' redstone signals ?

To those questions i think the answer is no, and so, for the sake of consensus ( and to save space since were apparently going for a minimal disambiguation page ) i have removed the excerpt 'generate, modify, or act on redstone signals'.

Here is my proof.

Small circuits ( eg. binary logic gates ) do tend to fall into the class of 'signal modifiers' they almost always have clear input and output channels, and the output usually changes in response to a change in the input.

Large circuits ( eg. self contained computers ) do not fall into the class of 'signal modifiers' there primary input is programming in the form of pre-placed torches ( as in torch ROM ) and or solid-blocks ( as in block data-drives )...

They do not necessarily produce any-output; and what output they do produce is usually not in the form of redstone charge; but instead abstract information consumable only by the player thru sight...

They could be said to 'act on' redstone signals. but this definition is so broad and so unspecific that everything from wooden doors to fence-gates, tnt ( indeed any block susceptible to localized block updates - and there are alot ) fall into this very poor definition.

I think the older version of the page with it's excerpt 'accomplishes work by routing redstone signals' is much more concise; it well classifies all types of circuits assuming some reasonable assumptions about the meaning of the term 'work'...

However since there is a pretty clear line forming regarding the syntax of page definitions ( something along the line of; "description - source" ) i think we can should leave this "how" part out.

180.216.58.131 00:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Zaelay

I think this rewrite is excellent.

Some people use the terms circuit and mechanism interchangeably for structures that use redstone components, but I think it's useful to draw a distinction between the two. A mechanism performs "work" (does something that affects the environment, like activating a piston or opening a door) while a circuit only operates on signals (logic gates, pulse circuits, et al.). By this definition, you really would never build a circuit by itself -- you build them as part of mechanisms to do something -- but by defining them in this way it allows you to devote entire wiki articles to categories of structures you would never build on their own, but are still worth talking about. The definition currently on the page for circuits ("structures built from redstone components and regular blocks") could apply to both circuits and mechanisms (as I define them), but I have no problem with that on a disamb page (it's easier to understand than the pedantic definition I used previously, so gets users to the page quicker).

Looks good!

—Munin295 · 👁 Image
👁 Image
· 01:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)