Feed The Beast Wiki
← 2017 | 2019 →

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. 🐇Retep998🐇🐰Bunny Overlord🐰


  • Considering how everyone so far is in favor of this change I have implemented the new oredict tooltip descriptions. The style is still up for debate and will be updated once the community has settled on something. 🐇Retep998🐇🐰Bunny Overlord🐰 06:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


  • Pictogram voting support.pngSupport. I support this change and my preferred style is option 6. 🐇Retep998🐇🐰Bunny Overlord🐰 18:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.png#6 -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 19:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.pngOption 3 Chocohead Nag• Edits• Staff 19:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.pngNumber 6 --Hubry (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Not much point in just jumping to a vote instead of just discussing it and going to the vote if we need it, it's not that big. I Pictogram voting support.pngSupport the idea of having the mod name shown. I'd prefer the mod name to be blue, and I would prefer there to be no italics, it just looks strange and out of place. I guess that leaves 4 and 7. I'd lean towards 7 I guess? -Xbony2 (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.pngOption 9000 / 1800 - IndestructiblePharaohVII 20:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.png第二の選択 Would really help compared to going to the page it links to and determining which mods are classified under it. --SirMoogle (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2017 (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. -- SatanicSanta🎅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)

Honey Comb issues

Fix the searching for the images of the bees depicted here: https://ftb.gamepedia.com/Honey_Comb Frenchiveruti (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that's an issue related to this. -Xbony2 (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see, well then I'll stop trying to fix it. --Frenchiveruti (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Material infoboxes

I want to make all the material pages use {{Infobox material}}. The advantage is that it automatically fills in everything from the oredict extension, so much less effort is needed to actually create a material page and keep the infobox up to date. What do you think? How should it be improved? 🐇Retep998🐇🐰Bunny Overlord🐰 20:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

We still have to add each mod apparently that adds the material so it's not really fully automated (which in at least theory should be possible). It's nice though.
This should not be implemented by just replacing infoboxes. Copper (and all the other pages) have tons of items on them that are not registered in our Ore Dictionary, and items without icons, and those should all be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. -Xbony2 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree that we should take care to check whether each existing tile has an oredict entry to ensure there are no unintentional regressions. And yes, still gotta manually fill in the list of mods, but it's much better than the current situation. 🐇Retep998🐇🐰Bunny Overlord🐰 05:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it would be too painful to remove the mods parameter once it's figured out how to be automated. I agree with Peter here that even though it's not perfect it is far superior than the current infobox. -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 19:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
At the simplest level of automation you can just have it always specify GregTech 6 in the mod list. 🐇Retep998🐇🐰Bunny Overlord🐰 06:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
We should not assume GregTech 6 adds support for every material every mod adds, because it doesn't (think materials added in MC versions GregTech doesn't support). This wiki is firstmost a modded wiki, not firstmost a GregTech 6 wiki. -Xbony2 (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I think the crates should be moved to at least below the plates. The docs are still missing some parameters (quality, speed, durability, handle, class). I also still do not understand why there is an oredict and a material parameter. -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 21:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Documentation has been updated to include those parameters. I also updated the documentation to show that the oredict and material parameters can be different. The crate position may make more sense once I add in the GT6 crate oredict entries, because crates are blocks in GT6. 🐇Retep998🐇🐰Bunny Overlord🐰 05:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Well sure but I think general non-GT users will care more about ingots and stuff than they will this obscure crate type. The rest is good :) -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 19:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey 2

I'd like to create a second survey, similar to the one that we did last year (which is archived under this year). I've created a prototype of it here. I would like to issue this out on December 1st and probably close it early January (6th sound good? don't want it to be the 1st since I'll have to make a big write-up and that'll be right after the next editathon) instead of letting it go for 3-4 months like last time. If you have any feedback for it before it goes out (which is in like 22 days) please leave it below. The language questions I very much abridged; if you want me to add a language feel free to suggest it but I don't really want to have every human language (no Lojban this time :P). This should be fun to compare with the last one. -Xbony2 (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

add the irc server to the contact section -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 20:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
In the "Before you go" section? Um, it was already there. -Xbony2 (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
No it's not. It only says the channel. -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 20:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
You mean Espernet? Yeah, sure. Done. -Xbony2 (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Now that I'm looking again you should add a platform question (Mobile/Desktop). Our mobile stuff is not that great but I have a feeling lots of people use the mobile site. -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 19:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Question added. -Xbony2 (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Been released, obviously. Will get back to ya'll in a month~ -Xbony2 (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Probably will close and release results on the weekend (going to take time to compile it and write stuff). -Xbony2 (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Small convention for guides

I've noticed this in a few guides already, but...

When talking about <material> ingots, can we please add the word "ingot" right after "<material>"? While in most recipes it usually refers to the ingot form of the material, it may be unclear to readers as to which form of the material they should be using.

Also if uncountable nouns could be given a countable descriptor (e.g., 4 piles of Redstone instead of 4 Redstone) that would be nice.. --SirMoogle (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean like saying "you will need 4 Iron Ingots" instead of "you will need 4 Iron"? Sure, makes sense.
I don't see your latter point though, "4 Redstone" sounds fine. "4 piles of Redstone" just sounds strange. -Xbony2 (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, why not "4 Redstone Dust" or something? --Hubry (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with both of you here. "4 Iron Ingots" is far better than "4 Iron," and "4 Redstone" refers to the Redstone item but it could also be ambiguous whereas "4 Redstone Dust" is not. I don't think this should be a guide-specific convention; we should always avoid ambiguity. -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 19:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I must note Redstone is actually the real full name of the item, not “Redstone Dust,” so I must protest that. -Xbony2 (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah actually, now that I think about this more this'd be weird. We'd have to do "Diamond Gems" and that's very bizarre and redundant. -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 01:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Just use whatever the actual item name is. 🐇Retep998🐇🐰Bunny Overlord🐰 02:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
^ -Xbony2 (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey results

Here is a link to the entire results dumped. Some info:

  • This survey started out on December 1st, and ended on January 6th. It did not go months overboard like last time, which is good. At some point you have to say no and I had no trouble with that.
  • We got 816 responses! (not including 1 deleted response). Many of these responses, probably more than half of them, are from me sharing the survey on Reddit. I think about 400-500 were from Reddit and 300-400 were from the site notice. The wiki gets more views than that one Reddit thread, but I suspect people are used to clicking x when they see a site notice or ignoring it, whereas Redditors are big about getting their opinion out given the chance.
  • Let's say 300-400 were from just the site notice over the period of a month. ~500 were from the 3 months that the last survey was up in 2016 (July 9th to October 1st), so maybe you can take something from that popularity-wise.
  • Here is a link to the last survey results. I will be comparing them.

Question results

  • What Minecraft version(s) do you usually play on?
    Survey 2 1.png
    • 1.12 was the most answered with 61%. This is worth sharing with everyone who thinks 1.7 (48%) is still the dominant version (which it was last survey, with 33% playing 1.10 and 80% playing 1.7). 1.10 had 40%, and the other versions weren't particularly notable.
  • What Minecraft version(s) should the editors of the FTB Wiki focus on?
    Survey 2 2.png
    • 1.12 clearly won with 86%. Second was 1.10 with 36% and third 1.7 with 29%. Clear contrast between last survey and this with last one which had 55% for 1.10 and 67% for 1.7.
    • Combining this question and last question, I conclude focusing on 1.12/the newest version has been the most useful thing done for the community and we should continue to do that, although we shouldn't be against documenting 1.7 completely as it's still a thing.
  • What particular mod(s) should the editors of the FTB Wiki take attention to/document?
    • No screenshot. I compiled a spreadsheet counting each one here. There were 279 responses total.
    • Most notable (>= 5): 24 Astral Sorcery, 17 CoFH Team mods (6 "Thermal mods/CoFH mods," 11 Thermal Expansion, 1 CoFH World), 12 Extra Utilities (3 "Extra Utilities," 1 Extra Utilities 1, 9 Extra Utilities 2), 11 Tinkers' Construct, 11 GregTech (8 "GregTech," 2 GregTech 5 Unofficial, 1 GregTech 6), 10 Botania, 8 Immersive Engineering, 8 Ender IO, 8 Reika's mods (5 "Reika's mods," 3 ChromatiCraft, 1 ReactorCraft), 8 IndustrialCraft 2, 8 Thaumcraft (7 "Thaumcraft," 1 Thaumcraft 6), 8 Industrial Foregoing, 7 Applied Energistics, 6 Forestry, 6 Draconic Evolution, 6 Blood Magic (2 "Blood Magic," 1 Blood Magic 1, 4 Blood Magic 2), 6 Mekanism, 5 Advanced Rocketry, and 5 Embers.
    • If some of those don't look like they add up that's because they don't. One person requesting "GregTech 5/6" for instance would mean +1 for the total GregTech group and +1 for both GregTech 5 and GregTech 6.
    • So! The most requested mod was Astral Sorcery by a strong margin. Hubry, Lykrast and SirMoogle have all contributed to it a little bit and I encourage them to continue off their work. Anyone interested is welcome to contribute, of course, to anything (and I encourage them to). Second biggest was the CoFH Team mods. It helps that I grouped those together, but Thermal Expansion would of been pretty high on the list even if I didn't.
    • There were plenty of responses like "all mods," "undocumented mods," "popular mods," "unpopular mods," "big mods," "small mods," "tech mods," "magic mods," etc. etc etc. I didn't tally them since I don't think they're super useful.
    • Comparing to last survey: Last time GregTech won with Thaumcraft right behind it. Despite 300 more total responses, GregTech dropped from 17 to 11, Thaumcraft from 16 to 8, Mekanism from 13 to 6, IndustrialCraft 2 from 11 to 8. I think this definitely has something to do with users leaving 1.7 for the new versions (although Mekanism is for 1.12 now, it was more established on 1.7 than it is on 1.12, and with IndustrialCraft 2 many of those votes were together with GregTech).
    • Comparing to viewing statistics. I should note that the viewing stats are not public and will not become public since Gamepedia doesn't want them to be (and for pretty good reason, since we wouldn't want to give malicious bots targets). However, I don't mind informally sharing what the most popular pages are, just not the numbers. Extra Utilities 2 is the most viewed mod page, which fits with its many requests as it is about halfway documented. The second most viewed mod page is Immersive Engineering. Because it is mostly documented, it wasn't at the top of the list but still got some requests. Now Astral Sorcery... in the month of November, it was the 23rd most viewed page on the wiki, even though at that point there was no tilesheet and little documentation. In December, it was the 11th most viewed page on the wiki, despite being partially (like 20% I'd say) documented. The requests connect considering that. The CoFH Team mods aren't very viewed on the wiki (not in the top 100) because we don't have much documented (for Thermal Expansion 5, we don't even have a navbox. I intend to make one soon).
    • I should note we editors will document what we want to anyway, but we'll have all of these in mind.
  • What modpack launchers/mod managers do you use regularly?
    Survey 2 3.png
    • The most used launcher was the Twitch Desktop App with 66%. Second was MultiMC with 30%. 25% used the FTB Launcher.
    • In comparison with last year, it seems a lot of people switched from the FTB Launcher (56% -> 25%) to the Twitch Desktop App (25% ->66%). More people used MultiMC (21% -> 30%), which I think had something to with sharing it on Reddit. Lastly, ATLauncher (27% -> 15%), Technic (24% -> 12%) and the vanilla launcher (35% -> 19%) all went down both in percentage and in the actual amount. That latter point suggests they didn't just go down because of us sharing it on Reddit.
    • Just wanted to say although ATLauncher and Technic appear to be part of a smaller userbase (respectively at 15% and 12%), they still are a userbase on the wiki, even if they are a niche userbase. In other words, having some information on them and their top modpacks is not a total waste of time.
  • What language(s) are you proficient in?
    • So, the actual image is messed up here thanks to an excess of custom responses. But here are the results anyway (everything above 0.5%):
    • 97% English, 12% German, 7.2% French, 4.4% Spanish, 3.5% Dutch, 3.5% Russian, 2.5% Portuguese, 2% Polish, 1.9% Chinese, 1.2% Swedish, 1.1% Japanese, 0.7% Italian, 0.6% Norwegian, 0.6% Bulgarian, 0.6% Czech, 0.5% Arabic, 0.5% Greek. Plus programming language jokes.
    • I must note that I believe the Chinese demographic would be larger if, well, Google Docs was not blocked in China. As according to 3tusk from last year "if you can access google docs in China... you really wont mind whether the documentation is Chinese or not."
    • I think this mostly the same as last survey, but last survey I split this into four different questions based on skill and it was a mess. This survey was better.
  • If you speak a language other than English (if you don't, skip this question), how interested are you in documentation translated to your language?
    Survey 2 4.png
    • Most people responded not interested, but plenty of people said they would be. A lot of people that responded to this question only spoke English which was annoying Q.Q
    • Not really comparable to last year since I did that differently. I kind of preferred the way it was last year to be honest.
    • Of course, I must note this question (and the last question, and the entire survey to a small extent) is biased as it alienates those who don't speak English or those who only speak a basic amount of it (the kind of people that would probably want translated documentation). So yeah.
  • How often do you contribute to the FTB Wiki?
    Survey 2 5.png
    • 74% didn't, about the same as last year. Two of the choices kind of felt the same, which isn't what I intended. A few people definitely had an interesting idea of what contributing very frequently meant :P (one or two people answered "very frequently" but then "I didn't even know you could" for the next question)
  • If you don't contribute very much, why not?
    • Image messed up here too. Results are: 1% "I contribute all the time," 18% "Lack of interest," 30% "Lack of time," 8% "It's too technical," 12% "I didn't even you could," and 48% "never really thought about it."
    • There were many other ways to say "lack of interest" that people put in :P although there were a few other decent responses that I'll keep in mind for next time.
    • I removed "I edit another wiki" from the last survey, which I think maybe like one or two responders put in this one. Same with "Wiki Staff turned me off." No one complained about the staff although a few felt the rules could be too restrictive.
  • What platform do you usually use when viewing the FTB Wiki?
    Survey 2 6.png
    • 95% used the computer, 18% mobile. 1 guy uses a 3DS (nice). This was not on last survey.
  • What platforms should the FTB Wiki improve accessibility to?
    Survey 2 7.png
    • In-game Minecraft was especially popular, and more popular than last year. I would suspect people who regularly visit the wiki (all responders from last survey) don't mind online documentation as much as Redditors would. If you are a mod author interested in collaborating feel free to poke us. It would be a big but cool project to work on.
  • What web browser(s) do you usually use to browse the FTB Wiki?
    Survey 2 8.png
    • Google Chrome won by a lot (73%) with FireFox next (37%). Plenty of nerd browsers that nobody uses. Last survey it was mostly the same.
  • When using the wiki, which skin do you regularly use? (you can change the skin in your preferences, under appearance)
    Survey 2 9.png
    • This question is awesome because it doubles as advertising/informing people about the dark skin. Slightly more people used the dark skin than last survey. ~300 use it so that's cool (clearly worth having).
  • Do you have any final suggestions or words for the Official FTB Wiki?
    • Obviously there were many responses. Many thanks; I didn't really mention them in Discord since there were a lot of them and they were repetitive (which is cool). Plenty about versioning, which is something we need to discuss at some point. I'm not going to reply to them all here. I've shared the more interesting ones in Discord over the course of the survey, but I will (or other editors can) put out specific responses and respond to those suggestions.

A few changes for next survey

It will probably be in mid-2019.

  • For "What Minecraft version(s) do you usually play on?" and "What Minecraft version(s) should the editors of the FTB Wiki focus on?" put a "(latest version)" on the latest, since people kept replying with "latest." Include "latest snapshot" in what is being played.
  • For "What particular mod(s) should the editors of the FTB Wiki take attention to/document?" maybe use the word "specific" instead of "particular." Also end with "(besides from "all" or "tech mods")."
  • For "What modpack launchers/mod managers do you use regularly?" include Hearth Launcher (assuming it is around then).
  • For "What language(s) are you proficient in?" just use the stuff above 0.5% as provided above for the "default" responses.
  • Change "...how interested are you in documentation translated to your language?" to "What languages do you prefer to use while reading documentation?".
  • For "How often do you contribute to the FTB Wiki?" remove "I've done some editing in the past but don't really do it anymore" since it's kind of the same thing as "I've made a few edits here and there."
  • For "If you don't contribute very much, why not?" specify all the ways you can not be interested. Other reasons though: "I'm not that familiar with modded Minecraft," "I think the wiki is complete enough," "I'm not that good at English/explaining things" and "I don't even play modded Minecraft."
  • For "Do you have any final suggestions or words for the Official FTB Wiki?" note this section is not a way to get into contact with FTB or Curse. Really don't need the modpack suggestions.

Final notes

Thanks for responding if you did respond. Shout out to me for writing all of this and going through every response (which was a lot of work but I think it is still worth it. If you came from Reddit or Discord and don't know how to add a comment to this page, this page gives information on that (just put it under the horizontal line/the four -s). Like I said I'll be going through some of final suggestions later and responding to them. -Xbony2 (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

A "current bugs" or "known incompatibility" sections to mod items/blocks would be nice.

As an unwritten policy we don't really document bugs, except on final versions. It's better to just report them to the mod author and have them fix it.

Accessibility to the FTB Wiki from In-game Minecraft sounds very interesting and I can imagine it would be incredibly convenient.

Yes, it definitely would.

add spawn conditions for mobs

Mob pages should have the spawn conditions, it would be considered an incomplete page if there was no information on that.

Add support for third party modpacks!

I half-way feel that this was aimed at FTB and not us. If so, can't help with that. But if you mean we should document non-FTB modpacks, well, we do and people are welcome to document their modpacks here. Examples include All the Mods 3 and Hexxit. In theory we focus on FTB but in reality we mostly focus on mods over modpacks, though.

Ahoj jsem velkým obdivovatelem módu Gregtech 6, velice rád hraji, líbí se mi myÅ¡lení GregoriusT a zpracování celého módu GT6. Moc rád bych byl přínosem a podporou pro tento mód. Chybí překlady. Chybí návody a to se musí změnit. ;) Player -> Ray_CZ ->

Translation: Ray wants more GregTech 6 guides. Retep998, you heard the man, get on it!

bony is a butt/Bony is cool


Break the wiki into 1.7, 1,10 and 1.12 categories/sub sites.

Finding version-specific information is probably the biggest issue with the wiki. I don't think having a page (or different website) for each version would be generally practical for us. I have an idea that I've played with a lot in my head that I want to try out and discuss, and in theory it would be fairly easy for editors to use and extremely user-friendly.

Can you add a list of machines/items to a mods info page? I love browsing on the go or at work looking at the machine chain I need.

Kind of like the Russian Minecraft Wiki? Well, I'm against this kind of set up for two reasons. One is that it takes a lot of time for an editor to do. Another is that it's slow; until it was collapsed, RU.MCW had a GregTech article that had a load time of like 30 seconds (literally). This kind of information is best covered in a getting started guide (which we're lacking for many mods, but still).

combine articles that describe in-between items into single pages

We do that sometimes depending on the page. It's a case-by-case thing.

Despite having to work with a game as complex and messy as modded minecraft, you folks have managed to keep its wiki looking really clean and professional. Keep up the good work. :p

thanks ^^

eat grass


eat my ass homos

only for money

For every article on an item/block/feature, it would be nice to have a very clear indication for which version of the mod it is relevant to. Since so much of the wiki is outdated, it would be nice to at least easily know when that's the case.

Talked about this a bit earlier. It's something we really need to discuss.

Have a wiki page for each modpack that lists all the mods in that modpack, along with summary of the modpack and it's history. On the main page, have a section that lists all the modpacks. The old unofficial FTB wiki has this, and it makes learning about all the different modpacks FTB offers really easy.

In future surveys, when asking people what minecraft version they play, also give the options ""whatever the newest version of minecraft is"" and ""whatever the modpacks I play support"". I only marked 1.10.12 because that's what Skyfactory and Beyond support, but wouldn't play an older version otherwise."

Okay so, in theory we should have an article for each modpack with a mod list. Some are missing and some are incomplete but yes.
I agree that the current main page sucks. Going kind of beyond the question but it needs improvement. Because of DPL being broken, it's capped out at 500 mods. That probably should be fixed, but I'm actually more in favor of removing the mod list altogether. We've documented so many mods and that's only going to grow more and more. It already takes up an absurd amount of the main page at 500; if had 1000 it would be completely useless. We should instead link to a page dedicated to listing the mods (List of mods) and have that page be well organized via ABC order.
But uh, back to modpacks. I don't really like the way the unofficial wiki does it. It's too exclusive for an open wiki. I'd argue most of the people coming here are looking for information for the mods rather than information for the modpacks so I wouldn't want to prioritize those.
The earlier option I will be noting. Playing an older version for a particular modpack counts as playing on that version. I don't see why it wouldn't.

have an option to filter by mod pack so only relevant data comes up (example: knowing the best y level to mine copper is not going to help me in skyfactory)

We don't really have that much modpack information in general (besides from articles for them). But I don't feel the need to filter out ore spawning mechanics because it's not relevant for a modpacks; obviously if the information isn't applicable for you, you can just skim over it.

Have users dedicate theirselves to making pages on mods if such mod has much content.

Document mods with a lot of content? Um, sure.

hi bony/Hi. :)


"I expect this might be challenging, but finding articles that are out of date is very challenging. I rarely search Wiki as I assume what I will find is out of date. Mods change recipes or mechanics and I don't see how this is captured. 1.7.10 mods and 1.12 mods may be very different. Reading an entry based on the wrong mod or minecraft version creates more confusion than it should.

I'd suggest tagging each article with version the article is relevant to rather than last version. I would also suggest trying to capture articles for a version, and making them obvious (colour coding at least major versions over some critical threshold)"

I agree. Documenting stuff across versions has been the biggest accessibility problem the wiki has currently. Don't know about color-coding (seems weird and would be bad for color blind folk) but I appreciate the suggestion. It's something we need to discuss.

I get that the bit about having information on multiple versions of mc mods would be tough, but, having that legacy information available would be awesome. There are tons of people still on 1.7.10, and I myself am bouncing between 1.7.10, 1.10.2, and 1.12.2. Knowing what mechanics are exclusive to which version would be great.


I hate gregtech, its too vast and I don't wanna go edit this.' -Freebles


I like how receptive it is to the community (it has its own Discord). The main wiki that I edit, Minecraft Gamepedia, has a "community" but they're not really a close one, everyone mostly just does their own thing.

Yeah, we try to be good about that.

I like it when I find wiki pages with no unfinished pages, I'd prefer mods pages to be completely filled before moving on to another.

Easier said than done. People lose interest in mods, and people lose interest in wiki editing, and often before they are done with documenting a mod. And of course, we editors often aren't interested in finishing off other people's tasks; we have our own mods to finish off! So yeah, sorry. Having more editors would be great in this though if you're interested~

I think it's just Gamepedia that causes it, but regardless, it often seizes while banners are loading and then crashes Chrome/Safari for iOS 8 (yes, I could update, but... muh jailbreak... and yes, I've tested this on non-jailbroken devices.)

TheSatanicSanta is in charge of improving the mobile skin ^^

I think the main problem is just a lack of content, especially for recent mods and modpacks.

Send more editors, thanks.

I think you have a bit of a paradox on your hands. The wiki is incomplete because you don't have enough people who understand the mods, and you don't have enough people who understand the mods because the information isn't on the wiki. I'm far from an expert with the mechanics in any of the modpacks I've used, but when I need help with something I usually find my answer in an ancient reddit thread rather than here.

Interesting thought. But, a lot of documentation for me is self-discovery (figuring out things and then documenting them) so I would have to disagree. Plenty of people can learn from just messing around the mod, or looking at the source code, or looking at other sources of information (in-game manuals, videos, etc). I'd rather have information here than ancient Reddit threads though, since those aren't quite as user friendly.

I would prefer that the dark skin be made default.

Eh, no, since less people seem to use it despite being informed of its existence, and because I'd be really annoyed if someone accused of copying the unofficial wiki (because everyone knows they invented the dark theme). The current skin is suppose to look like the FTB websites. But mainly I don't dark themes (although other editors disagree)

I'd suggest breaking up the mod list on the front page by Minecraft version, or alternately, the list of modpacks. As it is, those lists are essentially unreadable, being one huge clump of links.

(Kind of goes back to an earlier statement)

I'm really impressed with all the work that has gone into this wiki, and hope to see it further expanded in the future. Thank you

Thanks ^_^ I'm going to stop here, I need to head to bed. Will respond to other stuff later. -Xbony2 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If possible, please add a way of filtering the results to desired modpacks. It's handy to view the wiki with a certain modpack and its included mods in mind without being show extraneous mods.

Talked about this earlier. Not sure how practical it would be.

if you could make pages for mods have links to every item that mod adds that would be great

A navbox for every mod? That would be good, sure.

in game mod summary of it's purpose with link to it's wiki for all the mods installed

I don't know how useful that would be? Mods already have a summary in the mcmod.info file, and you can just visit the wiki to go to the mod page you want.

In-Game wiki mod using the ftb would be AWESOME!!

Yes, it would be.

Keep on updating and overworking the wiki and try to interact on Bugs (maybe through a bug section?) found by players on specific modpacks or even specific mods.

Mentioned bug stuff earlier.

Keep up the good work (x10)

Thanks ^^

Love HQM packs! Would love one from FTB!

Can't help with that.

Make the wiki look better

Sure, but feel free to suggest what it can be done to make it look better.

Making the pictures and recipes load faster. They always take too long to load. (everything else loads very fast.

I have not had this problem and unfortunately am not sure how we would. Maybe make sure your cache isn't disabled.

More bunnies


Needs more editors

Send them on down!

Please but much more effort into the wiki. This will help out accessibility to the game drastically.

Please put much more effort into spelling your suggestions correctly, thanks.

Please focus more on 1.12 and all the outlier, less popular, non mainstream mods

Realistically, we'll all document what we want to. However, I (personally, and probably other editors feel the same) would rather focus on documenting something that more people want than something obscure (particularly if it's a big time commitment). Of course though, anyone is free to document what they want if they so desire (as I repeat many times).

Please, put all the recipe in the Recipe Book. It's real frustrating to figure out how to make things.


Really hope the FTB Wiki becomes the go-to wiki for the majority of users. Good luck

Thanks, I hope so too.

Remove video ads. Separate from Twitch accounts.

This might be targeted at FTB with the Twitch Desktop App. But uh, if the ads are bad, you can report bad ads to Gamepedia here. Accounts won't be separated from Twitch accounts.

Send nudes

Only for a select few~

Since mods are increasingly going with in-game documentation that's actually decent, the FTB wiki might be a great place to document cross-mod interactions and tutorials instead, since those things aren't explained as much in ingame docs.

I'd love to see more guides, including mod and modpack guides. A lot of the most popular pages on the wiki are guides, although most of us editors are more interested in making block and item pages than guides. So yeah.

Stop keeping shit secret.

??? We don't. Here is the very official spoiler policy (that's a joke but it gives our position, basically). If something on our articles has been censored for whatever reason please report it to us. If you mean transparency with wiki stuff in general, then um, we are very transparent; the vast majority of wiki-discussion is in public places (IRC/Discord, talk pages) and we generally don't keep anything particularly secret besides from the viewing numbers. If this was aimed at FTB though, that would be understandable, they suk.

Stop wasting time with stubs. That's so infuriating to search for a mod, see it in search results, and find it's only a stub. It's false hope and frelling frustrating!

Sorry. But a stub is a start to something and intended to be expanded, and often, even if incomplete, the info is better than nothing. Ideally people will see it's a stub and expand it, but with nothing that won't happen at all.

Tell Hubry to quit putting numbers in the Botania articles. Also in game minecraft wiki sounds lit.

Hubry already responded and said nah :P

Testing things in creative is frequently more useful than reading a wiki because describing mod items effectively with words is often difficult. A middle ground approach would be to provide "small world downloads" which have "showcases" of the mod items. I can see though how managing this idea across modpack environments could prove impossible. idk.

Interesting idea but I don't think we have time to work on such a project. There are a few quest modpacks for learning that you can find around, though.

Thank you (x10)

You are welcome ^^

The main problem with wikis, is knowing which one is the *actual* wiki these days. Using Google will return 4 sites, all describing different versions. Promoting your wiki, and ensuring it is 100% up to date should always go hand in hand. No point knowing about an out-of-date site, and no point updating a site no-one knows about.

I hope with time it will be this one. I don't know the best way to promote the wiki, but sharing some information (like this survey) on Reddit I believe is a good thing. Keeping stuff up to date is also important; I think more people will contribute to an updated and growing wiki than a dead-looking one.

There are a LOT of smaller mods that could be documented in under an hour with a single wiki page that aren't. Bonsai Trees is a good example.

I (or maybe someone else if they beat me to it) will document Bonsai Trees I suppose. Though if you think it's that easy, feel free to help us out :P

Try to keep up with the newest mods and try advertising:).

Like I said I don't really know how to advertise. We're always in need of new editors, but repeatably asking for them would be silly. Advertising editathons every now and again on Reddit would be good, as well as getting FTB's Twitter account to advertise us with that too. Generally sharing information with the broader modded community I think is good (like this survey) as well as "sponsoring" events (BTM, ModOff) I think is also good, even if the effect of that is not measurable. I feel that having wiki editors in the community is a good thing for our outreach, instead of us being invisible warriors hiding behind the page history.


I'm down for that.

we should put it forward because when we search ftb wiki on google, it is the unofficial wiki which is shown first.

It depends on where you are, as it isn't the unofficial every time ^^ continued growth and being linked in places by us being updated helps and stuff, which is all going on.

You guys are doing a great job. The Immersive Engineering stuff is particularly great.

Thanks. I mostly just wanted to pull that one out since I'm the main editor for that section Kappa.png (some stuff needs updating and improvement though, which one day will be done)

You need more how to get started tutorials

I agree.

Слабые компьютеры не тянут много сборок из за конфликта многих модов пофиксите это

Yes. Anyway, I've gone through everything I've wanted to go through. If there's anything anyone wants to pull out and respond to or add on to my response (or disagree with it) feel free to. -Xbony2 (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


I think it's worth mentioning that because the survey, and all things pointing to the survey, were written in English on English-default websites, the questions about language usage are obviously going to be skewed to a populace which speaks English. We basically have no way of knowing how many users want to use the wiki but can't because they speak no English. -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 21:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

That's partially what I said :P aye -Xbony2 (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I didn't see that until a couple minutes ago lol -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 23:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Tilesheet request

Style guide said to request it here, so here I am requesting a tile sheet for QwerTech. Because it uses GT6-style materials (of which there are hundreds or thousands), I would believe only one icon on the sheet should be required for each of the 4 styles of solid chisel blocks, each of the tool head types, and the shuriken. - Qwertygiy (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Tilesheet requests actually belong on Feed The Beast Wiki:Tilesheet requests. 🐇Retep998🐇🐰Bunny Overlord🐰 20:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Should be done. Here is a list of all the tiles in the tilesheet since some stuff is renamed and some stuff is excluded (as requested). -Xbony2 (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll adjust that link in the [guide] to point to the right page. -- Preceding unsigned comment was added by Qwertygiy (talk • contribs)
Retep/me already got it ^^ -Xbony2 (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

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. -- SatanicSanta🎅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. 🐇Retep998🐇🐰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. -- SatanicSanta🎅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. -- SatanicSanta🎅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. -- SatanicSanta🎅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. -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 05:53, 18 April 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:

This project is more clearly documented on its project page.

Please discuss stuff. -- SatanicSantaFTB 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
Wolfman_123_ Â· ✉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_ Â· ✉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_ Â· ✉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 production)-(EU Power)
* (Thermal Expansion)-(Energy production)-(RF Power)
Wolfman_123_ Â· ✉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. -- SatanicSantaFTB 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. -- SatanicSantaFTB 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:

-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. -- SatanicSantaFTB Wiki Admin 23:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Templates that may want to be made

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

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

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. -- SatanicSanta🎅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)

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

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

-- SatanicSanta🎅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)

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.

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)

Why don't we have this... -Xbony2 (talk) 00:06, 25 May 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 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. -- SatanicSanta🎅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}}. -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin
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)

With Astral Sorcery adding 4 different crafting tables, we should make these:

--SirMoogle (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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. -- SatanicSantaFTB 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. -- SatanicSantaFTB Wiki Admin 00:03, 20 April 2016 (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. -- SatanicSanta🎅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. -- SatanicSanta🎅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.
🐇Retep998🐇🐰Bunny Overlord🐰 19:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Well then I disagree with xbony and agree with you. -- SatanicSanta🎅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." -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 19:54, 25 April 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. -- SatanicSanta🎅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. 🐇Retep998🐇🐰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. -- SatanicSanta🎅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. 🐇Retep998🐇🐰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)

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.


  • I personally think the wiki section on the forums serve no purpose anymore and should be replaced with a link to this page. 🐇Retep998🐇🐰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. -- SatanicSanta🎅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. -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 19:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Those discussions are few and far between from what I've seen, imo such a goose-hunt would be a meh use of time. It's sad that there's like ten times more retired staff than would-be staff now, although to be fair, as Retep pointed out, you had to be staff in order to edit the wiki in the old days so they were a lot more liberal with it (until a lot of them got kicked out for not doing much, of course). After looking through the private archive, I found only like two things useful, one the enchanting JS stuff which you (Santa) mentioned in IRC, and the other this quote which I just leaked as you can see (really doubt Denkbert would care, if he minds he can sue me and I'll plead guilty). -Xbony2 (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • End of July, why not at the end of June? -- IndestructiblePharaohVII 20:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Because the forums are so inactive that we need to give people plenty of time to respond. 🐇Retep998🐇🐰Bunny Overlord🐰 20:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
      • 3 Days are more than enough imo. You can also extend it to July 15th, but not til the end of July for something inactive. -IndestructiblePharaohVII 20:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
      • I don't think anyone from the forums and only the forums will be replying :P -Xbony2 (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


Well, with such a huge turnout it was quite difficult to come to consensus. It seems we all pretty much agree: Replace the section with a link here, and archive the pages here. As for the private ones, we can archive some of them here but probably not many. I will get in contact with FTB about this and will begin archiving ASAP. -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 23:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The base public section has been archived at Project:Public forum archive. However we never actually discussed the news section. Whoops. -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 00:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

List of alias worth creating

(See #63) Generally I don't think everything renamed ever needs an alias, just stuff where multiple aliases would be used because of older versions and whatnot.

  • Stained Clay/Hardened Clay/Terracotta
  • IC2's Machine Block
  • Probably other stuff

-Xbony2 (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Move proposals for Chisel

Wouldn't it be better to create an infobox that displays all the different decorative blocks instead of creating an entirely new page for them? Most of them don't add any new functions and are purely decorative and I don't think that warrants getting a page created. --SirMoogle (talk) 05:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Nah, I think [[Oak Wooden Planks (Chisel)]] (or whatever) should have all of the chisel variations instead of hijacking a Vanilla page. We have plenty of pages for decorative variations, it's not a big deal. -Xbony2 (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 15:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Separation/disambiguation of Chisel

I think that the Chisels should be treated as one mod, or at least not as six. For example, I believe that asie's port has zero difference with the original mod, other than who the mod author is and the Minecraft version. I think separating the mod, in this case, is absurd. KnightMiner and Hubry have advocated different views, but TheSatanicSanta disagrees. We need to discuss how we should treat Chisel with regards to all of its forks. sorry if my grammar/spelling is off, I'm on mobile, wikiing is hard on mobile -Xbony2 (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes would have been nice How about just making sections for each different Chisel mod on one unified Chisel page for a block? --SirMoogle (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd probably like that. I think we should do some research on the difference in each Chisel version. Antillar suggested having it Chisel 1 and Chisel 2 (1 for AUTOMATIC_MAIDEN, asie, Pokefenn, 2 for TheCricket26, Delta534, Chisel Team). Going to ask about differences in Chisel forks. -Xbony2 (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
According to tterrag...
AUTOMATIC_MAIDEN -> asie -> Pokefenn -> Cricket -> us

there were other offshoots along the way, but that's the heartline
very little changed between AM's original, pokefenn's, and asie's
minor features and new blocks were added, but no major changes
for instance pokefenn added the laboratory blocks I believe
cricket took some liberties...mainly calling it "chisel 2" before making any real changes
in the end his was just about the same. a few more minor features. same mod
since 1.8+ the mod has been rewritten with lots of new things, but at the core it's all still the same. since we split out the new rendering code into CTM that doesn't even affect Chisel's history anymore
you have noted Delta534, his fork was short lived and is the reason asie took it up at all
it was extremely buggy and was only around for a few months in 1.6.4

— terrag

-Xbony2 (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

My opinion on this is exactly the same as my opinion on putting GT5U and GT5 together. I don't think we should be special casing mods because they are similar. tterrag even listed some changes that some forks made. I think that's plenty of reason to keep them separate. -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 16:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
"Changes" as in decorative block changes? I think it'd be helpful for readers to see all the decorative blocks of that particular block all the Chisel mods have made on one page instead of browsing through multiple pages trying to compare aesthetics amongst different Chisel versions. If "changes" mean functionality or something else, that should be reflected under the appropriate section heading or on the mod's page if it's a significant change. --SirMoogle (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I still think that could be confusing. We don't do this for the Advanced Machines forks so why should we for Chisel? -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 16:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
They aren't similar mods, they're the same mods. They don't magically become a new mod because someone forks it. The main difference between them is that the newer versions have more content. It should be treated as the same mod, just continued by someone else, because that's exactly what it is. I do not plan to disambiguate The Mists of RioV and my short-lived fork of it simply because I added a Bonyium Ingot to it and fixed a few bugs. One way to document the history is to have a section listing each variation (which would be pretty useful anyway and we should do anyway) that would something like this:
(On [[Birch Wood (Chisel)]])

* {{P|Birch Wood (Smooth)|CHIS}} '''Smooth''' (Added in 2.5.0 ([[Chisel (asie)|asie's fork]])) <optional description>
* {{P|Birch Wood (Planked)|CHIS}} '''Planked''' (Added in 2.5.1 ([[Chisel (Pokefenn)|Pokefenn's fork]])) <optional description>

For an otherwise empty decorative page I do not think this would have much clutter. -Xbony2 (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

That works, but I was thinking more along these lines:
 == Chisel (earlier fork) ==
 list variations
 == Chisel (later fork) ==
 list variations
Such that later forks have their own new blocks added without redundantly putting the old ones into the new section as well. --SirMoogle (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
That would be a lot of sections and a lot of repeat, though. -Xbony2 (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The FTB Wiki at Modoff

FTB Wiki at Modoff 2 Reforged.png

Me, Hubry, and ImmortalPharaoh7 are representing the FTB Wiki at Modoff 2: Reforged! In case you don't know what it is, Modoff is a modding competition where participants are tasked to make a mod in a 9 day period (similar to ModJam). Me, Hubry, and Immortal, and any other interested editors, are sponsoring the event by documenting the top three mods from it (plus perhaps any mods we particularly like). The Modoff server is open right now 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. A lot of the mods are real cool, and I spent a good bit of time working on our booth and it actually turned out pretty good so yeah. On February 18th, the results of the competition will be released, and me/Hubry/Immortal/any interested editors will start documenting the top three mods shortly after. Their website has issues so here is a link to a Reddit announcement with a bit more info. -Xbony2 (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Modoff is over! The top three winners are Glacidus, Gaspunk and E-Vaporate. Me, Hubry, and ImmortalPharaoh7 intend to split them up somewhat (currently plan is Glacidus is jointly documented by me and Immortal, Gaspunk is documented by Hubry, and E-Vaporate is documented by me). If you are interested, and you might be, in documenting any mods from Modoff, I certainly encourage you to. Most of the mods made were pretty cool imo. Hubry said he's definitely going to document Dazzle, and I see myself documenting End: Reborn. Everything is up for grabs of course if you are interested; just go for it. -Xbony2 (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry Hubry I documented Dazzle -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 23:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Pressurized Defence is done -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 19:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
End: Reborn is done -- SatanicSanta🎅FTB Wiki Admin 22:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)