Jump to content

Talk:Minecraft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleMinecraft was one of the Video games good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 25, 2010Articles for deletionKept
October 7, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
January 15, 2013Good article nomineeListed
August 26, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
August 26, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 4, 2018Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Mob Vote Controversy

Adding a section for the Mob Vote controversy could be useful because it is quite significant. TheT.N.T.BOOM! (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And for those of us unfamiliar with the controversy, could you provide some details and some reliable sources to back them up? GSK (talkedits) 14:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added — Hoangminhle2011 — Shape our Wiki 05:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox changes

I've BOLDLY made a number of changes to the infobox recently, since it was getting really hard to read when editing through source and had the risk of becoming unstable. These changes include:

  • Replacing the games cover art with the games logo. I've done this because, while there are several different cover arts, and the previous "most recognizable" one (which we generally go with on Wikipedia, if not the original one) had been replaced, the logo has generally been the same since the games initial release in 2011, and is present across most if not all 300 million copies of the game.
  • Simplifying the infobox to not list every single developer and composer. The documentation of Template:Infobox video game states to only list the games primary developers and publishers, which in this instance boils down to only Mojang and Xbox Game Studios. So I've compressed all other developers, publishers, and composers into hatnotes in their respective sections.
    • I've also removed citations from the infobox per WP:CITELEAD, and also the fact the infobox was becoming impossible to view in source editing.

Please let me know if anyone disagrees with any of the changes I've made. λ NegativeMP1 23:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT the logo of the game, this is the Minecraft (franchise) logo.
The game logo is here Hoangminhle2011 (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't recognize them as different (I thought the main game logo was changed earlier this year?), uploading the individual game logo right now. λ NegativeMP1 03:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with these changes, I feel the game's cover art is needed... I don't really understand why you've changed it though. Could you explain in greater detail? Squid45 (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I agree with the second developer point!! Squid45 (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think he changed Minecraft's cover art to the game's logo because Minecraft recently changed their cover art, and there were too many choices to see which cover art would be chosen to be included in the article Hoangminhle2011 (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Typically on Wikipedia, articles for video games/albums/movies generally go with either the original release artwork, or the most recognizable. Minecraft doesn't have either of those, since it technically didn't launch with cover art until the Xbox 360 release in 2012 and there's no real contender for the "most recognizable" box art. We could go back to the original Bedrock Edition box art with the caption "Original Bedrock Edition box art" if needed, but I feel like the logo which is common place across all box arts and predates any of them is better. It's also certainly better than the new cover art, which is yet to be included on any physical copies of the game (compared to the other cover arts tens of millions). λ NegativeMP1 17:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One day, the game logo will change, then what will we use to add to the article? Hoangminhle2011 (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Mojang was too scared to change the creeper texture and the diamond ore textures for being "iconic", I don't think they'll ever change their logo. That would be a complete marketing failure, especially since the logo is on all of the other Minecraft games. Even if they for some reason did, I'd still say use the old logo, or maybe use both since I think you could get away with using both (one being the most recent, the other being used on all 300 million+ existing copies of the game) even when taking NFCC into account. λ NegativeMP1 17:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So can we add both cover art and logo to the article? Hoangminhle2011 (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Villages and Villagers

I think villagers and villages are very notable in the game, while helping players gain progress. Villages should also be mentioned because they also have resources inside the houses that are also guarded by iron golems. If piglin bartering is mentioned, why not villager trading? What I'm saying is that villagers and villages should be mentioned more because of their general notability. In a nutcheel (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless as to whether or not either should be included, I agree that villagers and villages are much more significant to the game than piglin bartering, a relatively newer mechanic that is less core to the game. 1101 (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]