MTG content

[grorp]

As far as I know, there is consensus that this documentation project won't host game-specific content. See issue #64. However, some MTG content is already here. This should be fixed (removed) to avoid setting false expectations.

• https://dev.luanti.org/building/: Mostly MTG-specific, probably nothing of value left otherwise (discussed on https://irc.minetest.net/minetest-docs/2024-12-15#i_6227520)

• https://dev.luanti.org/calinous-law/: While ore registration is an engine thing, what this page describes is only relevant in a MTG context.

• https://dev.luanti.org/mapgen/: Wildly mixes engine and MTG content. Mapgens are implemented in the engine and there is some useful generic information on that page, but the screenshots are MTG and the described nodes are MTG. This page doesn't have to be deleted, can probably be made more game-agnostic and it'll be fine. However, this page might be more useful if left in its MTG context since it seems it's mainly targeted at players, so removing it here might be better (not sure).

• https://dev.luanti.org/mapgen/features/: Wild mix again. Explains some engine features, but only in the context of MTG. Might be better off if left in MTG documentation and removed here.

• all the "Map-Database" pages: These are just lists of MTG world seeds, obvious removal candidates.

• Hands

• Hearts

• Getting started

• Groups

• Creating texture packs

Many of these pages have both engine and MTG content, so they can't just be deleted. Instead, they need careful rewriting to remove MTG content, and also to remove the assumption that Luanti and MTG are the same thing.

The MTG content should probably stay on the old regular wiki for now, until someone figures out what to do with it? See also discussion in #12

This would also mean being careful with PRs so that we don't introduce new game-specific content in the future, especially when importing content from the regular wiki.

[mark-wiemer]

Full agree, great list :)

We should be a bit careful with new PRs, but not overly so. It's easy to remove extraneous information later.

[rollerozxa]

• I agree that the building page should probably be moved back to the regular wiki for now - I reverted the redirect there but the page is still here, someone is free to delete it from here.
• The Calinou's Law page is more humourous in nature than very informative and I guess I can see it being axed for that reason, but I hope it won't be too much to ask for it to live on in here. I don't know if it is very MTG-specific though.
• Assuming you're only talking about the mapgen "index" page - The screenshots would be relatively useful for demonstrating how a mapgen may look like "in action" with biomes and decorations applied, and MTG is still better to showcase that than something like Void game where it would just be grey blobs. I can recall a wide range between players and game/mod developers asking about the different mapgens in e.g. the Discord and keeping some screenshots of example terrain would be preferred. If we want to genericise it we could go with something like Not actually the bare minimum which is a non-game game but still has sample biomes and decorations, unlike Void game.
  • Would also want to mention that the Mapgen evolution page is very informative from a historical standpoint and I think it should be kept here, but probably rewritten a bit (as with a lot of other things, of course).
• I believe those are engine mapgen features, but the screenshots use MTG as a demonstration for how they would look - same case as the mapgen "index" page, I guess.
• All the "Map-Database" pages with world seeds can go, IMO.

[grorp]

I agree that the building page should probably be moved back to the regular wiki for now - I reverted the redirect there but the page is still here, someone is free to delete it from here.

All the "Map-Database" pages with world seeds can go, IMO.

I'll open a PR 👍

The Calinou's Law page is more humourous in nature than very informative and I guess I can see it being axed for that reason, but I hope it won't be too much to ask for it to live on in here. I don't know if it is very MTG-specific though.

From the page:

The more ores that are registered, the more likely you will be to find nothing BUT ores by the time you dig down to -31 km.

Digging down to -31 km is something you only do in MTG and derived mod soups, having so many registered ores is something that only happens in MTG mod soups, so it's a MTG phenomenon. While the page pretends to be a generic Luanti page (even the Luanti renaming is applied), what it describes is only relevant in MTG. I'm not saying it's a bad page, but I think it's MTG content, so wouldn't belong here.

re: Mapgen index page

I agree that screenshots demonstrating the mapgens are useful. I also missed that the screenshots are already described as MTG screenshots on the page, so that should be ok, though something like "Not actually the bare minimum" would be better (and the "these are MTG screenshots" note shouldn't be in parentheses, as if it was implied anyway).

What still remains is that the page was written with the "Luanti and Minetest Game are the same" mindset. An obvious example is this sentence:

Because of the nature of v6, the biomes are much simpler than in the other map generators, and a couple of blocks found in the other map generators can’t be found in v6 maps (for example: Silver Sand, Acacia Tree, Orange Coral).

which references MTG nodes without mentioning that these are from MTG, not from Luanti. This is an example of what I mean by "wildly mixes engine and MTG content". Unfortunately, this is probably the case with a lot of regular wiki content, and rewriting all those pages to untangle engine and MTG stuff won't be easy.

I believe those are engine mapgen features, but the screenshots use MTG as a demonstration for how they would look - same case as the mapgen "index" page, I guess.

Yeah, but these MTG screenshots are used without mentioning that they're from MTG. This was again written with the "Luanti and Minetest Game are the same" mindset.

Would also want to mention that the Mapgen evolution page is very informative from a historical standpoint and I think it should be kept here, but probably rewritten a bit (as with a lot of other things, of course).

I agree.

[mark-wiemer]

I think Calinou's law might be fitting for the "mods + games" section, maybe in an "advice" or "misc" subsection, though I do believe we should be wary about being too opinionated. That said, it does seem good to have an "official" reference to it when the community wants to discuss it, as it's possible for any MTG-like to run into this problem.