Talk:Minecraft

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2025

This page has an error. Minecraft was not developed in 2011, it was developed in 2009. Please let me fix this error. MasterOogway1 (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. The game began development in 2009, but it was not officially released until 2011. Therefore, that is what the article uses. λ NegativeMP1 21:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1 the game had over 10 million players by September 2011, it was already one of the most popular video games in the world as it had been available to play for over 2 years. The "release" date was arbitrary and chosen to align with Minecon, the first official Minecraft convention that took place in November 2011. Describing it as a "2011 video game" is confusing and incorrect, Minecraft is a 2009 video game. A123400 (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

It was officially released in 2011. Therefore, it is a 2011 video game. It may have been "released" during its more formative years, as in it could be played, but "early access" video games (which Minecraft was technically one of), until their actual release, are not yet considered released and therefore would not be considered a game of that year. Nub098765 (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. WP:VG/DATE. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 17:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Change "The Pale Gardens" to "The Garden Awakens"

On the Java Edition Major Update Release Timeline chart, it labels 1.21.4 as "The Pale Gardens", but the update was actually called "The Garden Awakens" and should be fixed accordingly. 68.48.157.169 (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Article neutrality banner

In the past, I added a Template:Controversy section banner to the article due to, well, the currently existing controversies section. This is in line with WP:CSECTION, which advises that these sections should usually not exist at all and their content be implemented elsewhere into the article. While CSECTION is not technically a policy, it is still a very reasonable and valid argument to WP:NPOV, which is policy. However, in this revision, the banner was removed. I have readded it, and I will explain why I disagree with the assertion behind removing it: "To be honest I don't see a problem with the controversies section. They are controversies about minor topics ([...]) that wouldn't be in the article without the controversies so we can't merge the controversies section into other sections"

First of all, I doubt that if a controversy is about a minor topic, it likely should not be in the article at all per WP:FRINGE. Things such as the EULA controversy and the mob votes are not something that need an entire dedicated sub-section and it draws attention to such minor parts of the game and its reception/community to make them seem like bigger problems than they actually are. They are things that should be in the article, but in reality could easily be summarized in a Development or post-release updates section that is actually worth its salt. Meanwhile, I doubt the account migration controversy needs to be documented at all as only one reliable source is used in the section. That in of itself might just be the definition of a fringe point of view. There are certainly some extraordinary cases where a specific section dedicated to one controversy may be warranted, but from what I'm seeing about all of these incidents, none of them would even reach that mark.

And yes, this section does compromise the neutrality of the article. Or at least, the reception towards it. The prose of the critical reception / reviews section (which needs a complete rewrite, but that's a topic for a different time) only contains about 554 words. The controversies section has 870. The value of what critics and reliable sources have to say about the game is far more noteworthy than fan backlash as far as Wikipedia is concerned, so why is the controversies section given so much weight prose-wise? λ NegativeMP1 23:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• WP:CSECTION isn't just "not technically a policy"; it's an essay and thus shouldn't factor into this at all. Essays are not evidence of community consensus (let alone necessarily good practice).
• Discussing these controversies does not violate NPOV provided 1) we talk about them only how and to the extent that reliable, independent sources have talked about them, 2) we give WP:DUE weight to all the perspectives, and 3) per WP:BALASP we weigh the length of this section against the relative significance to the topic (currently ~6.5% of the main prose) and cover only the most notable controversies. An encyclopedic treatment of Minecraft necessarily includes this section.
• The EULA subsection only has one source, but given it's notable enough for coverage in The Guardian, I could find two dozen articles easily from reliable gaming outlets discussing it in significant detail. I have added a Kotaku article which can show readers that this wasn't some pet issue of The Guardian, but beyond that, unless other articles contain different, relevant details, it'd feel like refbombing.
• We should refrain from using bottom-of-the-barrel slop like Game Rant (sprinkled into the 'Controversies' section) and replace it with better sources, but I'm not convinced any of the four controversies we list are non-notable enough to be removed.
• The 'Critics' and 'Awards' sections together are 1100 words (the awards are issued by critics based on their critical opinions about the game), and moreover, this isn't a zero-sum game; Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and expanding out the 'Critics' section is a valid option.
• I have since reduced 'Controversies' to 697 words, as the first three subsections were excessively verbose.
• I've additionally removed the first three subsections' headers and placed them directly under 'Controversies', as the first three subsections were thematically very similar. "Mob Vote" retains its header since we provide the overall context for the Mob Vote from start to finish as its own self-contained narrative.
• While the existence of this section isn't problematic, the way we wrote it was – presenting backlash as vehement and unanimous (ex. "The Minecraft community and server owners, however, heavily despised the new change").

As you're citing an essay as your primary argument, as I don't think this violates BALASP, as I've cleaned up the subsection's neutrality, and as much of the subsection's length was illusory (inflated by extraneous headers and needless verbosity), I'm going to remove the tag. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 12:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning up the section but I still don't think that a dedicated section for any of this is needed. What would prevent the EULA update from just being covered in a well fleshed out Development section? Or the Mob Votes from being covered there as well? At least the section reads way better now so it's definitely more neutrally worded, so I guess my concerns are somewhat alleviated. λ NegativeMP1 17:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2025

write about snapshots from all the previous versions of Minecraft java, and bedrock editions mentioning special ones like april fool's MoBi8685 (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not in the scope of this article. This article covers major version releases. It does not make sense to cover every single minor and snapshot release of Minecraft, and the average reader will not care about snapshot releases. GSK (talk • edits) 19:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2025

on the releas date you shod put may be fore the number 2601:204:ED7F:A0F0:DAE7:3813:4C0E:C847 (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GSK (talk • edits) 01:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I mean, it is quite clear what they mean. It simply won't be done because this article uses DMY. Nub098765 (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

"Draft:Happy ghast" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Draft:Happy ghast has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 28 § Various draftspace redirects until a consensus is reached. Xoontor (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The Minecraft Movie

There was a movie that was just made about Minecraft with Jack Black as Steve. Tad66 (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the last sentence of the last paragraph of the lead but it is not mentioned in the rest of the article so we should probably create a section for it. 📶Panamitsu (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Improvement Deletion

I have noticed That The Minecraft Wikipedia Page Was In Depsrearate Need For Improvement For Clarity. Since Wikipedia Is A Collabrorative Project, i improved the first introductory paragraph. Why @Masem did you revert my changes, i even added sources that didn't exist before. Your explanation says something about structure but the structure was already broken things were repeated multiple times over just in the main article (Before Sections). How can article be started to be improved if we don't start from somewhere.?! Mant08 (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

To Continue, To Circumvent The Possible Issues Of Bad Structure, i manually started to ad the citations only, from my commit, which as Wikipedia Says, We need To add Citations for validity, and now @NegativeMP1, reverted this simple/minor change, why again how arw the sources are unrealiable, Its the blogpost of the first beta release of minecraft. And even if some are considered aa unrialable, which of them, and if not all , why revert all of it, instead od maunally removing the wrong one.?! Mant08 (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't revert the citations because they were unreliable (even though neither of them are necessary anywhere in the article), but because lead sections do not need citations. Also, I cannot understand half of what you are trying to say here, but nevertheless, lead sections are meant to serve as a summary of the articles contents, an introduction. Gutting them because they repeat information isn't how it works. λ NegativeMP1 19:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1 Ok, Thank you for informing me about Lead Sections. Also, indeed my text was unreadable, that was due to my frustation, I am a new editor. I am sorry, for any agression.

Additionally, may I ask in the context of "guttting them out", shouldn't the introduction just be simple, paragraph detailing same basic information , and what the article is about? Isn't all this information currently in the introductory paragraph, overflowing it? Mant08 (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Lede sections should be multiple paragraphs depending on the length of the article, typically 3 or 4 for good sized articles. There's no need to stuff everything about Minecraft to one paragraph. Masem (t) 20:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

In addition, you were adding at the completely wrong place in wikitext, and were writing against style guides for ledes should be written. Masem (t) 20:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Masem @NegativeMP1 Thank you both for your answers. Again sorry for any improper or spoiled behaviour. I should take a deep dive to Wikipedia's Contribution Guides First :). Should i delete this talk section now or not? Mant08 (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

It's fine to keep, I believe. Just a reminder to other editors who share these views, if you could see it that way :) Nub098765 (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Mant08 No, the rule of thumb is that discussions outside your own talkpage stay as part of the record, and often gets archived at some point. You are free to remove discussions on your own talkpage if you want (WP:OWNTALK), but archiving is preferred, Help:Archiving (plain and simple) can help you with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Should Minecraft be considered indie?

I saw an editor (I am RedoStone (talk · contribs)) remove the "indie games" category from the article, and there is certainly a fair argument for doing so; Minecraft, with its purchase by Microsoft and blockbuster, arguably cannot be considered indie anymore. But that's the very thing I seek to clarify: does a game have to remain independent throughout its entire lifespan to be categorized as "indie"? Minecraft undeniably began as an indie title and is often still cited in discussions or lists of "favorite indie games." So, is this category (and, by extension, task force) meant to reflect origin, current status, or both? This feels like some murky waters. Nub098765 (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

It was developed as an indie game, though today it would be hard to call it that. However, because it was indie in the past, and still considered a prime example of an indie game, so it should be called that. If there needs to be written as it was indie at its start, not in the present, that's fine, but we shouldn't be dropping that label at all. Masem (t) 01:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed completely with this (didn't know there was a discussion here). I've re-added the category, as Minecraft pre-2014 and Minecraft post-2014 are both the subject of the article, and there isn't enough of a discontinuity to make them "separate" games (e.g. if Sony purchased Undertale and immediately turned it into an e-casino for kids). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 10:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2025

Hi um when you were talking about the mobs you forgot to add bosses D: Lilbro47 (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

The boss mobs are already mentioned. See § The Nether and The End. SleepyRedHair (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

you are forgetting deep dark and the see 69.221.219.181 (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Content will only be included if there are reliable sources to support its notability. See WP:NOT. SleepyRedHair (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• A 2009 screenshot from an early version of Minecraft, then called "Cave Game".png
• Minecraft Beta 1.8.1 – Crafting a Wooden Sword.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)