User talk:Wyatt2050

Hi, Wyatt2050, I noticed you are adding items from other sites, or other wikis. On this wiki, the official wiki, we have a standard about how to cite sources, see: Help:Official_sources, where at the top it says:

Generally, sources are only required for information that cannot be easily tested in game. This includes information such as intentions of, quotes from, and information about Mojang employees. This also includes any game content that has not appeared in a development or released version.

And then it goes on to list what are the valid sources we can cite. Unfortunately, other minecraft wikis aren't one of them -- but this makes sense because, who knows, at any given time, what some wiki is going to say? You can say it's an always-improving site, but you can't rely on it like bedrock to be a real *source* of information. In this case, horses, mending enchant, these sound like community speculation. If they're not, then a developer will have said they're adding it, and then, you can just cite that.

Thanks! – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 18:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I looked at https://minecraftpocketedition.fandom.com/update_0.15.0 ...

#1 that isn't in Help:Official_sources, *but* it's easy enough to check *their* sources,^[1][2] and it turns out those tweets don't support the idea that trading is being added to PE. Tommaso is talking about dialog trees, and darkgeek is commenting on a PC screenshot about mending being an overpowered trade.

Hi Wyatt2050,

The general idea for version articles, when they talk about 'Version Exclusive', but they aren't exclusive anymore -- like Observer for instance -- the idea is to leave it saying 'Version Exclusive', because at the time of the release of that version, it was exclusive. The general idea is, the version articles describe things as they were. Cheers! – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 01:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Now i get it.--Wyatt2050 () 12:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)