Talk:Minecraft/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Edit request on 12 June 2012

Soloman Chapman 12 years old from the United Kingdom was awarded the coveted Minecraft Master award on June 11th 2012 from Minecraft Madness Magazine.com for successfully completing the most creations and elaborate castles. He beat out over two million competitors world wide.

Kingkastle (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mdann52 (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Giftcode spam

I'm not sure what can be done about the repeated giftcode spam, but surely something? An IP range block? Kaini (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it's from way too many different ranges for that to be effective. I had brought it up at the spam blacklist, but because it's technically being inserted as plaintext and not a hyperlink there's nothing the blacklist can do about it. An edit filter or bot can combat it though. I'm going to open a report at WikiProject Spam and see what they have to say about it. It has been getting quite bad lately. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hardcore mode

I recently added the hardcore mode under the 'Modes' section in the article and the upcoming adventure mode. Both were removed, the reason given being hat hardcore was a varient of survival and had information under that section and that adventure mode was not part of the main game yet. I think that (while the deletion of the entry on adventure mode was probably justified due to it only being avaliable in the weekly snapshots) hardcore mode shouls have its own section, as it is a game mode in its own right. Goodsmudge (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The main reason is that you need to provide reliable sources for information and avoid trivial info not particularly useful to a general reader. There is already a clearer paragraph on Hardcore mode: "The player may also play in a Hardcore mode as a variant of Survival mode, differing primarily by being locked to the hardest gameplay setting and featuring permadeath – upon player character's death, their world is deleted." I added your reference to that. The source gives almost no additional info, so most of it is "sourced" from the game itself. Any more description is original research and borders on gamecruft. There is currently not enough material for it to be a separate section. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand that hardcore mode does nit have enough information not previously covered to become a seperate section from survival, but as it is not part of the survival mode itself, which is what that section should be about, I would like to propose hardcore being a minisection within survival, e.g.:

Survival

In this mode, the player has a health bar which is depleted by attacks from monsters, falls, or environmental damage, such as drowning or falling into lava. The player also has a hunger bar, which must be periodically refilled by eating various food (porkchops, bread, etc.) in-game. Armor can help mitigate damage from mob attacks, while weapons can be used to kill enemies and other animals. Health replenishes when the player has a full hunger bar or by playing on the easiest difficulty, where the health bar regenerates by itself. Upon dying, items in the player's inventory are dropped and the player is respawned at current spawn point, which by default is where the player started, but can be set by sleeping in in-game beds. The items can be recovered if reached before they despawn.

The player can acquire different resources and craft tools, weapons, armor, food, and various other items. By acquiring better resources, the player can make more effective items. For example, tools such as axes, shovels, or pickaxes, can be used to chop down trees, dig soil, and mine ores respectively, and tools made out of better resources (such as iron in place of stone) perform their tasks quicker and can be used more heavily before breaking. The game has an inventory system and the player is limited to the number of items they can carry, specifically, 36 spaces. The player can acquire experience points by killing mobs. Experience can then be spent on enchanting tools, armour and weapons. Enchanted items are generally more powerful, last longer, or have other special effects.

Hardcore

The player may also play in a Hardcore mode as a variant of Survival mode, differing primarily by being locked to the hardest gameplay setting and featuring permadeath – upon player character's death, their world is deleted<ref>http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/09/23/minecraft-hardcore-mode-teased-when-you-die-the-world-dies-with-you/</ref>.

Goodsmudge (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I usually don't recommend headings with prose of less that 2-3 longer paragraphs, but I don't mind the heading in this case if it makes the distinction clearer. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Done - Goodsmudge (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Very one sided review

The "Critical" section of the Minecraft article was very one sided, it only listed positive reviews, and did not meantion a single negative, or critical review or comment about Minecraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.41.137 (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a fair point. However, I'm hard pressed to actually find a review from a reliable source that's critical of Minecraft. (Metacritic, for instance, lists 33 professional reviews, and not a single one gives a score below 80/100.) Can you provide one if you were thinking of one that was missed? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV means that we have to fairly represent the opinions expressed. It doesn't mean that for every one positive review we have to find an equally critical one. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of guidelines on undue weight. I was more responding to the fact that I couldn't even find a negative review to mention at all, much less blow out of proportion. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of the positive reviews, however, did gripe about the game's lack of a tutorial or recipe guide—something which is already mentioned in the section. So, to be fair, I'm not sure what could be added anyway, given the above. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Were they old reviews? Because the minecraft wiki answers most of those needs in remarkable detail. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

No, most of them are reviewing the 1.0 release, so they're not that old. They're largely griping about the fact that you have to have a browser open at all to fully understand the game. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 10:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It's funny, because both of those things were introduced into the Xbox version. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Community

There really should be a section on the community that sprung around the game. In it should be mentioned the Minecraft forums and wiki, the many significant Youtubers, mods and adventure maps that are well known within the community. One should also integrate the Minecon section within the broader subject that is the Minecraft community. Since the article is protected I can't do this and so I call for somebody's help with the matter. I think of this aspect of Minecraft as one of the game's most interesting ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.122.64.41 (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

c418

c418 should get his own page. There are plenty of reliable sources full of information. Heymister14 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)heymister14

There was one. It was deleted on the 4th of August because his importance wasn't clearly indicated. You'd need third-party references, which IIRC was the main trouble with the C418 article. • Jesse V.^(talk) 06:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

iTunes Capitalization

In the "Soundtrack" section, iTunes is capitalized as Itunes. ArturGhostmancer (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done • Jesse V.^(talk) 06:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 August 2012: Minor grammar issue

Section "Gameplay", second paragraph: Change "Survival (and its Hardcore and Adventure variants) and Creative, Classic." to "Survival (and its Hardcore and Adventure variants), Creative, and Classic." MSelig (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Done A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 07:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

1.3 update to this wiki page, anyone?

Minecraft 1.3 update came out 3 days ago, can someone please add at least the major parts of the update to here, like the new Adventure Mode (cannot destroy or place blocks), the villager trading, cheats and other important stuff? I'm new soooooo.... can SOMEBODY update?

TwinkleAtNight (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news site. Just because a few new things were introduced doesn't necessarily mean they are important to the overall game, and the readers understanding of it. We don't have to "update" with content from every patch. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

i agree with you, but there are some things in 1.3 that might merit a mention (LAN multiplayer and trading especially). Kaini (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And the new Adventure Mode for example. EclipsE2710 (talk) 07:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Done Jamesyboy2468 (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 August 2012: redundant wording

In section "Minecraft 4K", I suggest changing "The same world is generated every time, i.e. a new world is not generated every time." to simply say "The same world is generated every time." MSelig (talk) 08:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Done A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Minecraft Photos

Since most of the Minecraft logo photos have been removed from the page by copyright violations, is there much more that we can do to fix this by adding new photos without violating copyright policies?--Healablemarrow4 (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Namely, stop putting them on Commons. Commons doesn't allow for fair use stuff. Put the images on Wikipedia EN itself with a fair use and they should be fine. -- ferret (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, for those images that were put on Commons, they can be moved here (en.wikipedia.org) using the Commons fair use upload bot. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 September 2012

You should add a few lists.

-A list of all the blocks -A list of all the tools/weapons -A list of all the mobs -A list of all the dimensions -A list of most of the mods 74.130.58.198 (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This is what Minecraft Wiki is for. All of the above (except dimensions, which are already stated) is gamecruft and not for the general reader. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to agree with Hellknowz here.

WP's audience is people unfamiliar with Minecraft, wanting to know a little about it.

Minecraft gamers can go direct to the source at the Minecraft wiki.

The WP article should certainly discuss mobs: there are mobs, the mobs are an annoyance, not the main target in the game (this isn't Quake), and the most emblematic mob is the creeper - but this is about as far as a WP general audience article needs to go. Someone who has never even played the game (yet) doesn't need to know what a "spider jockey" is. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Reader feedback

Just wanted to let everyone know that reader feedback can be viewed from this page. Consider using it to further improve this article. • Jesse V.^(talk) 06:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup, this is a pretty useful tool. I've just resolved 2 concerns: one about no content ratings, and the other on purchase info. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

unfortunately the giftcode spam has started on the reader feedback page now :( Kaini (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but you can mark it as spam/abuse or request that it be hidden, etc. I'd rather it be there than on this Talk page. :) • Jesse V.^(talk) 18:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

there's a LOT of user feedback wanting things like crafting recipes, as well. i'm not sure what we can do to get around that, barring some sort of hatnote explaining wiki isn't a game guide, though. Kaini (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

New article FAQ

I've created an article FAQ to help address common concerns on this talk page more specifically than {{roundincircles}} can. It's pretty rough at the moment, so new questions, changes to existing ones and other general feedback would be greatly appreciated. It's located at the top of this page, and is specially trancluded from Talk:Minecraft/FAQ through the {{FAQ}} template. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. I've updated it to include concerns about displaying the price. - M0rphzone (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Field in infobox for price

I've started a new section at the template talk page on adding a price field. Based on reader feedback, it seems people really want to know the price. - M0rphzone (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Update: Ok, based on the response, the price shouldn't be included. - M0rphzone (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree in not adding a price for the game the subject would change from information giving to a page where we give information on the cost of the game, in other words, advertisement. Sky^Talk 01:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Adding the price is not necessary, and not important for an encyclopedia.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 14:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Minecraft/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jesse V. (talk · contribs) 20:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Status

This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s); please, leave your comments in the Discussion section below. The reviewer(s) will cross out issues when they have been sufficiently addressed.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Please see the comments below about the Minecraft 4k section.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	There are a dozen citations in the lead. Per WP:LEADCITE, the lead's purpose is to summarize the body, which contains the citations. As such, it should need few, if any, references. If there are references in the body that the lead summarizes, then you don't need it in the lead unless it's an exceptional claim. You should be able to remove most, possibly all refs from the lead. See the FA Yogo sapphire for example, which has a longer lead, but with no refs. There is an external link in the Footnotes section. Please make this a citation instead per WP:EL. Consider reviewing Template:Track listing to compress the "Soundtrack" section, or at least reduce the huge amount of whitespace that's present in the center. Noteworthy tracks from the soundtrack or information about the style of music can also be identified and discussed in prose. Xbox 360 is wikilinked multiple times. The lead is pretty good overall now, but it does not summarize the Critical Reception section. See Portal (video game) for an example suggestion on what to aim for.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	It appears that most of the citations are organized in accordance with list defined references, however there are a few that don't follow this convention. Please convert all of them to LDR, User:PleaseStand/References segregator can help with this. There are some citations which don't use Template:cite web. They are just an external link inside a Ref tag. Open the edit window on the whole article and search for "http" to see what I mean. Some of these are in the infobox.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	There are {{Failed verification}}, {{primary source-inline}}, and {{citation needed}} tags that need to be addressed. Many of the web citations are missing |work= and |publisher= fields that need to be filled in. See Template:Cite web. |date= |accessdate= should be used in all web citations if possible. I'd also recommend that you add |archiveurl=, |archivedate=, and |deadurl= fields to prevent linkrot over the years, even for the most stable URL domains. See WP:WEBCITE. It's good to have as many of the template fields filled out as possible. There are sections and whole paragraphs that are missing references. Remember that Verifiability is key here. There is information and citations in "Development" that you could use. See Portal (video game) for an example of what you need to aim for. "The album is currently available on iTunes." is lacking a citation. Just by itself, I wonder if it's even important to mention. "Auto3D-39" is a dead link. Consider using waybackmachine.org to fix this, or choose a different source.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The phrase "A player in Minecraft has a lot of freedom to choose how to play the game" is not supported. The last paragraph in "Gameplay" has WP:OR and other information that is not covered by the one provided citation.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I'm not sure that it's important to mention that Persson was spending too much time reading emails instead of working on Minecraft, nor that the site suffered a DDOS. The bit about Tobias setting up the servers and the subsequent downtime is trivial. The statements make it seem like the downtime was Tobias' fault.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Album Minecraft - Volume Alpha Cover.png appears to be fine, but the others need to have their Non-free Rational and Licenses sections updated now that their version in Commons were deleted. They appear to be of a low enough resolution to no longer warrant the message.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold until 04:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC). The issues below need to be addressed as well before the final assessment. The issues were not completely addressed in the two weeks allotted to a GA nomination (WP:GAN). Therefore, this review must be closed. Please continue to improve the article and feel free to resubmit when ready.

Discussion

Please refer to the issues in the table above by their numbers (eg. 1a1 for first issue with "prose" criterion).

• 1b1. Fixed
• 1b2. Fixed
• 1b3. Started list collapsed
• 1b4. Fixed
• 2b4. Removed

Vacation9 (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That looks much better, thanks! As a suggestion, (this isn't a requirement) you could merge the History section with Commercial, though a bit of it could fit under Development. Just an idea, it could improve the prose a bit IMO. Sorry for not being more clear about the 1b2 issue; it was appropriate under a Notes section similar to how it was, but you could provide the quote and then add a citation at the end to Notch's blog. This would turn the external link into a citation, not the note itself. See WP:FNNR and WP:EXPLNOTE. • Jesse V.^(talk) 01:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the release information needs to be in its own section. It needs to be in the lead in some form. If you have to shorten it, and take the references out, that's fine, but that isn't material to make a history section out of, its lead info. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 04:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the lead is supposed to summarize the information in the article, and typically doesn't provide new information all by itself. So the material should be in the body, but it can also be in the lead as well if it still in summary style and its presence doesn't detract from readability. See Portal (video game). • Jesse V.^(talk) 04:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I do think the history section warrants its own section. It is important and interesting information about the game history. I can add a short section in the lead summarizing it. Vacation9 (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The release information is summarized from the Development section, so a "history" section would be an unnecessary content fork. I have moved it back, and moved the references from it around so that fixes your problem. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks! Vacation9 (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• 1b2. Done
• 1b5. Fixed
• 2a1. I'll work on it, easy to fix
• 2a2. I'll work on this too. Also easy to fix.

Vacation9 (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• 2a1. Fixed. Thanks for that script link!
• 2a2. Fixed.

Vacation9 (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. In addition to everything above, I don't really consider this article stable, because the game is still updated fairly frequently and so needs updating often. Also 3a -- I'm pretty sure there is more information from all the reviews and awards that aren't listed to cultural impact to significant number of let's plays. For a game with this much reception, the section is bare bones, to be honest. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Hellknowz -- There's a fair amount of instability that will be inherent to this article for the next ?year? or so. I have a bit of a vested interest in this article, and would love to see it become a GA, but it's just not there quite yet.

• The third screenshot (the Nether) seems excessive to pass WP:NFCC. Also, the fair-use rationale is weak and/or inaccurate for all images except the album cover. On top of that it's standard to have the title card as the infobox image where possible per WP:VG. Two gameplay images (the infobox image, but moved, and the crafting menu) along with a title card and maybe the soundtrack cover are more than sufficient to instruct the reader and pass WP:NFCC.
• Per WP:LEADCITE references should not be in the lead if the same information exists in the body. Per WP:LEAD anything that exists in the lead should also be in the body. Therefore there should be no references in the lead.
• There are some redlink and underline links in the lead
• There are numerous prose issues such as "2d" (instead of "2D"), using -- when — should be used, and others. There are instances of references coming before punctuation or nowhere near any. There is also at least one where there is a space between two references, and there may be others where there's a space between punctuation and a ref (dunno).
• Whole paragraphs are unreferenced.
• The Reception section is severely lacking considering the amount of media coverage this game has received. It should be easy to nearly double its length. Only one short paragraph goes into the specifics of reviews, the rest are of "top [x] award"-type statements.
• It seems a bit on the side of WP:UNDUE to have an infobox and track listing for the soundtrack and have it dedicated to its own level 2 heading. It has only one line of prose. There is nothing on the soundtrack's reception or creation that warrants a dedicated section. It would seem the Merchandise section falls under this umbrella a bit, too. It could be expanded to include information on Xbox LIVE Avatar items, which are a form of digital merchandise.
• Multiple sources are unreliable and/or need verification:

• www.articstartup.com
• Forums.tigsource.com
• Boing Boing
• snyapsesmp.com (an archived ref)
• Planet Xbox 360
• www.minecraftwiki.net
• www.m00d.net (an archived ref)

• I counted 24 primary references. Given the amount of media coverage these should (for the most part) be really easy to replace
• Along with that there are instances either repeat (same ref twice) or two different refs source the same info. In these cases a lot of primary refs are backed up by a reliable source. The primary refs can simply be pulled in this case.
• The date format may still be inconsistent. I ran a script to catch most of them, but there still may be more.

I have high hopes in the end for this article, but it seems to still need a lot of work before hitting the benchmark. The various contributors should be commended for what they've done so far, but I can't all the work needed being done in a reasonable amount of review time. Just my thoughts. --Teancum (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There are enough editors frequenting this page to make this happen, so its entirely possible. Nearly all of these are fair issues in this GAN which need to be resolved, except for your comment on the Reception section, which I agree with but I don't think it'd be appropriate to make as a requirement for GA class. You are welcome to copy these into the Status section above if you like, it may make it easier for the editors to address and comment on.

This article is stable because "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." All articles need to be updated, but that doesn't make them unstable. It's still a good ways off until the 1.4 update anyway. • Jesse V.^(talk) 14:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Something just occurred to me. This article says nothing about Snapshots, the peek at new versions of the game. This is a very important aspect to cover.(Example of coverage:[1][2]) I would include it right now, but I am not sure what section of the article it would best fit. They are released every week, so placing it in a certain location of the Development section could be confusing. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and included a section right after the Classic section. This article really needs more sources in the gameplay section. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It might belong better under Development. It seems a bit on the WP:OR side; you might want to phrase it more factually. Something like "On [date], Mojang began releasing periodic snapshots of the game. These snapshots serve as a alpha test and a preview of upcoming features."[reference][reference]. • Jesse V.^(talk) 19:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• I believe i at least partially fixed 3b, can someone confirm? - Lord Aro _{(talk page)} 22:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It is much better. However, there are still a few citation tags, citation 12 is broken, and not all the citations have their fields filled out (70, 87, and 88 for example). Getting there though! • Jesse V.^(talk) 22:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• The article still doesn't pass 1b (MOS). Just from a quick look I see incorrectly formatted titles, wrong dashes, stray whitespace, capitalization issues, overlinking, missing suitable links, etc. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed a number of these using AWB and Advisor.js. I thought we resolved the overlinking. Could you be more specific? • Jesse V.^(talk) 14:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, take "Minecraft 4k" section, for example. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that section has at least one WP:YOU violation, it doesn't follow the same standard as the other ports (mentioning the title yet again after the heading), has Beta capitalized, etc. It needs a good copy edit. --Teancum (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Y Done - I've cleaned up the section and added a ref from EDGE. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

"Minecraft 4k" was just the worst of the lot. There are other issues. "Minecraft" isn't italicized at places. Hunger is overlink. Terms like game mode aren't linked. Why are game modes and mob names being capitalized; those aren't proper nouns. Terms like "creeper" are not explained.

Recent summary mentions 1a only partly failed; but there is a serious copyedit required. I am not bothering mentioning individual things, because there are so many. For example, it talks about "the end" achievement, but that's the first and last place achievements are ever mentioned. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Good call. I appreciate your assistance. Whenever a copyedit is needed, one effective strategy I like to use is to put each the sentences in a paragraph on a new line, and then start from the beginning and stitch them together one by one, carefully improving the prose as I go. • Jesse V.^(talk) 15:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've cleaned up the article a bit, but I really think this article should be written in a more sophisticated style. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Nominee

Well premature, IMHO. Far too much is simply missing. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I was tempted to quick-fail, but I think this article has a chance, especially if more editors help. • Jesse V.^(talk) 15:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, most of the problems are just bits and pieces missing. I have not made any big changes to the Article but I plan on it. Sky^Talk 15:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Lamecraft

Why not mention the PSP version "Lamecraft"? 93.211.34.121 (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Try List of Minecraft clones Andy Dingley (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merged by Rhain1999 (talk · contribs). elektrikSHOOS (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

---

I'm proposing merging List of Minecraft clones into this article. As it stands, the other article suffers from severe sourcing and notability issues with the items on the list. In addition, there are only 5-6 games listed anyway and is exceptionally short, with little hope of being made much longer, which makes me wonder why it wasn't made a section in this article in the first place. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• oppose On stylistic grounds. Merging a list into another non-list article is always a problem, as lists are bulky and they give an appearance of WP:UNDUE, even when they don't go quite that far.

List of Minecraft clones is as yet a poor article. This is a shame, because it's actually quite a promising topic. Minecraft is widely described as having been inspired by a number of other sandbox games. This merits coverage as "Inspirations behind Minecraft". Then there are post-Minecraft games, even including some by Notch himself. Now, a few years after Minecraft, and obviously noticing its continuing huge popularity, we see a raft of from-scratch sandboxes playing catch up. I half expect to see a mini-one bundled with Windows 8, where you have to click the 3D blocks and see if they explode (or are full of lava?). We could call it "Craftsweeper".

Title needs revision though. The precursors are at least as interesting as the later clones. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support not the table but mention the clones. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Andy on this one, Minecraft was inspired by another game, what that game is I don't know. Yes Minecraft does have clones but it is not worth placing in this article. Sky^Talk 13:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support a brief mention - not much more than that. As the article stands right now, I'm tempted to take it to AfD, simply because the scope of the list is so incredibly narrow that it surely doesn't belong in its own article.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 14:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • To be honest, AFD was my first thought as well, but I decided on a merge discussion instead as this info still might be helpful elsewhere (such as here). elektrikSHOOS (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support but very briefly. I can't see the list article improving in quality, so you could mention them in this one. Maybe in the See Also section, or elsewhere in the body. It might be better to convert the list to prose. • Jesse V.^(talk) 14:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support a small mention as per Unionhawk's rationale. The list article is largely useless and this merge discussion is probably the most action its seen in months. --Teancum (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  It's a month old and has only been VG bannered for 10 days though. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support a small mention The clones are not too important, and do not warrant their own page. There should be a small mention here. jamesy boy (2468) 16:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request on 5 October 2012

Minecraft Xbox 360 Edition update 1.8.2 to be released Friday the 12th of October 2012 Mojang2012 (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Then, per WP:CRYSTAL, we will update then. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of ratings from infobox template

Apparently, a handful of editors decided that the ratings field was useless and removed it without careful consideration nor input from a variety of other editors. It's far from being useless, and in fact, the only reason I added them in was to help answer readers' questions on the content appropriateness of the game. Wikipedia is supposed to help readers understand the topic and try to address issues brought up by the readers; it's not supposed to remove content because they're an annoyance to the editors. Hellknowz, what do you think about this? - M0rphzone (talk) 07:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That this is something best brought up at the infobox or WikiProject talk. I'm not sure what discussing it here will do. I'm the kind of person who couldn't care less about subjective content rating systems, so I haven't really commented. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me whether it is in the infobox or not, but note that film articles don't feature ratings, there is no reason why video game articles should, wikipedia isn't for guiding people about what is and is not appropriate. However I don't think ratings should be included in the article prose unless notable, (i.e. banning of the game in countries), hence why I have removed the section. The1337gamer (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Fine. But I'm not gonna just throw away the time/effort I spent to find and display that information. I've put it in the FAQ so people won't keep asking about these kinds of topics in the feedback page. - M0rphzone (talk) 03:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed it. If information isn't deemed useful/appropriate/relevant/whatever in the article, it seems silly to move it to the talk page instead. Also, that isn't what FAQs are supposed to be used for. Article FAQs have traditionally been used to answer common questions on the talk page about content or policy-related issues. This doesn't fall into any of those categories. If a user has a factual question they would like answered, they should instead be directed to the reference desk (or just have the question answered outright to avoid a bit of pointy bureaucracy). elektrikSHOOS (talk) 04:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, that's reasonable. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

....aaand it was reverted after I spent even more time working on it... (-_-) Well then, head over to my subpage to see the content if anyone wants to know about the ratings. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism protection

Right after it expired, we're seeing quite a lot of vandalism, and it's screwing up the revision history too. Time to banhammer/semi-protect again? - M0rphzone (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably worth requesting page protection: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, especially if people are trying to get this to a good article standard. The1337gamer (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I've put in a request. -- ferret (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Finally.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Keeping up to date

At the moment, Minecraft has sold over 7,750,000 copies on the PC, should the page be updated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VoidedWarranty (talk • contribs) 22:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Change "Clone" to "Inspired by"

The intent is only assumed and unless otherwise noted by the developer one can not say it was actually a spin off of minecraft or just inspired by it or even just inspired by some of the older voxel games. To say it is a clone also implies a negative connotation and would be better suited to have this clone area removed as there are no cites for any of the games listed as to it actually being said it is indeed a clone. but if one demands this to remain it is better suited and not offensive to say inspired by, but would still need cites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.197.51.216 (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

There are no citations present, but there were sources to support an actual "video game clone" description for most of the examples. The rest should indeed be described as "inspired by" though. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The word "the" before "android" should be removed.

The word "the" before "android" should be removed just as in the following thought iOS is not referred to at "the iOS." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.24.63 (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done - FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It's Survival mode. Not Srivival

Just saw this error Under the Gameplay section:

The game primarily consists of two gamemodes: Creative and Srivival.

It should be Survival mode. --Nikerym (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done • Jesse V.^(talk) 06:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

1.4.2 is out!

See title — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.23.130 (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done -I've updated the infobox. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. Didn't see that note. However, it's included in the collapsible list. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it still was 1.4 and not 1.3. :) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 November 2012

I would like to update some news to 1.4.2. The mistake I see is that under "Modes" then "Adventure" its says "the player cannot break or place blocks." As in 1.4.2, you can but only with the right item. I would just like to change this error. I got my information from Minecraft.app HOLDIE03 (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Please add a reliable source. Also, see above on the fact that Wikipedia is not news. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

first person

it says first person, but F5 changes to third person, should that be added? Glitchsmasher (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done -I've added the 3rd person mode option in the gameplay section. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

add eden to clones

the game eden should be added to the clones section as eden is basicly just minecraft creative but with no flying and non-pixelated graphicsGlitchsmasher (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Except we don't have an article of the game and we only list notable examples. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

That's wrong on both counts. Having an article is irrelevant: although we have a principle that only notable topics should have articles, having an article does not prove notability, and (Wikipedia being incomplete) not all notable topics have articles as yet. Secondly there is no requirement for a list article (or a list within an article) to prove notability for each entry in the list, merely (if a standalone list article) the notability of the overall list. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You are assuming this is a list and not select examples. I know all those guidelines and they all apply to lists only. There are now several dozens of games that have been called Minecraft clones and are you proposing to include them all? Including only notable examples was an editorial decision. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Image of mobs?

Do you guys think it's appropriate to add a screenshot of several (or a bunch of) mobs to this article? It seems reasonable to show new readers what a creeper looks like, since it's mentioned several times in the article. If you're concerned about too many non-free images on this page, we could just remove the Minecraft Classic or the nether picture (not very necessary IMO). -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, a creeper screen could help, since it gives a "significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article" (the well-known creeper mob to be exact), but no more than that, since the articles are't exactly affected whether or not images are included. - M0rphzone (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done - I took a screenshot of a few of the common mobs. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

The current Xbox version is actually release 1.2, beta 1.8 is merely its pc equivelant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davius! yognautius sum. (talk • contribs) 03:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done -Nice catch. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox and versions

Minecraft/Archive 4
Release	PC (Java) WW: November 18, 2011 Android WW: October 7, 2011 iOS WW: November 17, 2011 Xbox 360 WW: May 9, 2012

In my opinion, the infobox is somewhat unclear. I think the current infobox is unclear on some points: Release date - This only has the initial release dates, which in the context of software releases, is somewhat unimportant

I have a stripped down version of some proposed modifications: Sure, it abuses the 'latest release version' tag a bit, but i think it is the best solution.

Any thoughts? --- Lord Aro _{(talk page)} 12:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see the real need for this. If the infobox is unclear, I suppose we can add an asterisk and a note, explaining the latest release situation. Having an entire section for the latest release seems undue and clutters the infobox. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That is way too much infobox stuff uncollapsed, even current release dates should be collapsed. I don't mind adding a date to the current version though (and/or moving current version field to latest release field). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 November 2012

I would like to request that Terraria be removed from the "clones" list. Terraria is not and never was to be considered a Minecraft clone.

The only similarity they share is the gather/craft/build aspects. Minecraft is a sandbox, make your own fun game. Terraria is more akin to a rpg due to the multiple tier levels involved with everything from loot to enemies. Thank you for your time in this matter. 64.185.25.96 (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I reworded the section to remove the notion that every game is a "clone", but Terraria is considered to have been inspired by Minecraft and we have reliable sources to support that claim. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Copies

You forgot to put Guncraft. --186.168.97.55 (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of games we did not include in this article. Games like Guncraft has been mentioned around [3], but the purpose of that section is not to list every Minecraft-inspired game. Personally, I think we should have a new article that contains a list of those games. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

released

The opening line to the article states: "Minecraft is a sandbox indie video game developed and published by Mojang and released for PC on November 18, 2011." although this is technically true it's misleading in the case of Minecraft, as the game was available to purchase from June 13th 2009 and received many awards and millions of sales prior to "release". The game being "released" (at Minecon in November 2011) was only arbitrary and for the sake of having the game considered "released". The opening paragraph then goes on to state that "A version for Android was released a month earlier on October 7" and then "and an iOS version was released on November 17", however these were not "released" in the same manner that Minecraft was "released", both of the mobile versions are very much in development and are not yet at version 1.0 so to consider Minecraft (PC) only "released" over 2 years after initial availability when the Android and iOS versions are considered "released" at first (alpha) public availability is inconsistent.

I haven't made any changes to the article myself as I'm unsure what the protocol with changing the lead of an article here is but I do think it needs to be changed because the paragraph is both inconsistent with what it says a sentence later and inconsistent with how the "average" game is "released". Citricsquid (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Just one of the things that needs to be fixed, though this is probably a little more pressing. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 November 2012

Minecraft has sold now 8 million copies as of November 12, 2012 and I would like to edit this of have someone else edit it. JSchultz12 (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Help me staff

I need staff i can't wait till December 5th to edit that's like a whole month away i'm a real minecraft pro iv'e been playing it for 2 years now i think well ATLEAST 2 years maybe more. and i really should get to edit the minecraft page please give me permission to. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadyns (talk • contribs) 01:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Wat? • Jesse V.^(talk) 01:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This page has been protected due to constant vandalism. I'm sorry that you are unable to edit this article. If you want to edit this article, I suggest you can try and become an autoconfirmed user by doing some editing elsewhere. You can tell when you have become an autoconfirmed user by clicking on "My preferences" on the top right corner of the screen. For more info on achieving autoconfirmed status, see here: WP:AUTOC. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Link to the minecraftwiki

There is a big website called minecraftwiki.net with a lot of information about minecraft. i think there should be added a link to that website somewhere in this tread. 83.108.35.28 (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It's already in the "External links" section. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Making this a GA

Okay, I think I've fixed all the "citation needed" problems. What else do we need to do to make this a good article? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Everything required is stated on the checklist/chart/lists in the previous sections above. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Update: Archived at Talk:Minecraft/Archive 4#GA Review. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of organization, here is a new chart/checklist.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Chart last updated by: FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Criteria	Issues	Fixed?
Writing	"Minecraft" isn't italicized at places. Hunger is overlink. Terms like game mode aren't linked. Mob names shouldn't be capitalized; those aren't proper nouns. Terms like "creeper" are not explained.	Y
Images	File:Album Minecraft - Volume Alpha Cover.png appears to be fine, but the others need to have their Non-free Rational and Licenses sections updated now that their version in Commons were deleted. They appear to be of a low enough resolution to no longer warrant the message.	Y
Citations	Primary sources being used (update: the unnecessary primary sources are removed, but a few necessary ones are left because no secondary alternatives can be found.	?
Citations	Inconsistent date format, lack of publishing date. Update: They should be fixed, but someone check with a citation tool to make sure.	Y
Citations	work= and |publisher= fields that need to be filled in. See Template:Cite web. |date= |accessdate= should be used in all web citations if possible. I'd also recommend that you add |archiveurl=, |archivedate=, and |deadurl= fields to prevent linkrot over the years, even for the most stable URL domains. See WP:WEBCITE. It's good to have as many of the template fields filled out as possible.	Y
Citations	There are sections and whole paragraphs that are missing references. Remember that Verifiability is key here. There is information and citations in "Development" that you could use. See Portal (video game) for an example of what you need to aim for.	?
OR	The phrase "A player in Minecraft has a lot of freedom to choose how to play the game" is not supported. The last paragraph in "Gameplay" has WP:OR and other information that is not covered by the one provided citation.	Y
Coverage	I'm not sure that it's important to mention that Persson was spending too much time reading emails instead of working on Minecraft, nor that the site suffered a DDOS.	Y
Coverage	The bit about Tobias setting up the servers and the subsequent downtime is trivial. The statements make it seem like the downtime was Tobias' fault.	Y
Coverage	Missing content: Cultural impact and let's plays to merchandise and popular culture	Y
Coverage	Missing content: Reception for Xbox 360 edition	Y
Coverage	Missing content: Downloadable content for Xbox 360 edition	Y
Coverage	Missing content: Achievements and difficulty settings	Y

So that everyone doesn't have to repeat themselves from the GA, the below list is not even the most prevalent issues. Besides all the unsourced, gamecruft, trivia, and OR material, there is simply content missing -- lots of reception, reviews, criticism, praise; from cultural impact and let's plays to merchandise and popular culture. Not to mention the article is NOT stable (constant vandalism, changes) and it is regularly updated. I don't see what the hurry is; it's a bit premature to try to make it a GA by fixing surface issues. It needs a proper copyedit, more content/information, proper prose reformatting, more quality sources, etc. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If we can get this article fixed, I don't think nominating this for GA is pre-mature. The stability criteria only refers to major edit wars and vandalism, which has subsided for now. I've added your issues to the list. I'll read some other video game GA and FA and see what how we can improve this page. I'm a big fan of Minecraft, and I'm committed to improving this article as soon as possible. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Not "subsided", it was "edit protected again". While the game is actively worked on (or any ongoing project for that matter), it's not a good GA candidate. I don't mind you work on it and improve it, I just don't want to see another failed GA for an article where it was clear it wouldn't pass it. There are many awesome established editors who nominate video game GAs/FAs regularly, and it's not a coincidence no one is in a hurry to promote this. Minecraft is not just another indie game; it is way too big and influential topic in its field, and serious work needs to go into this first. We write about fiction from real-world perspective, and this article needs less gamecruft and much more reception. I don't have a nice bullet-point list of issues for anyone to follow, because the problematic and missing content goes beyond that. I can't point at a sentence and say "needs to be X". It will take much more copyediting, research and sourcing. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I completely understand. It's not going to be easy, but I'll try my best. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a note from the GA nomination reviewer: this is a neat article on a great game, and I'd really like to see this improve to GA status. I'm editing in other areas at the moment (Folding@home specifically) but I'm willing to review the next nomination or answer questions, etc. All the best, • Jesse V.^(talk) 23:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Btw, congrats on the featured article promotion. I already heard about folding@home and the other distributed computing projects, but didn't want to try it cause of uncertainty about the effect on CPU performance. But I tried it after you posted this, and it pretty much has no negative effects on performance since the program scripts are so optimized. I'm glad I can help with the project. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Just checking back, and it's nice to see that the article looks so much better now than before. :) • Jesse V.^(talk) 03:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. We've finished fixing the most of the major problems. Now all that's left is just some copyediting.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

References

Okay, I think I've fixed all the citation needed and primary source problems. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh yea, I forgot to mention; make sure you cite the refs in the correct format since Vacation9 converted the previous "ref-after-sentence" format to the current one in this edit. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ummm...I checked his edit and it looks like the format he used caused some errors. I'm going to change the format for those refs back. I don't see a real need for List Defined References. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. I have no idea what's going on or how that works. I'll just leave whatever he did as it is. I can't promise I'll use his format for refs.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, list-defined references is mostly my "fault" [4], two years before Vacation9's edit (which converted references added since then to existing style). I don't mind we convert back to be honest, as I have found list-defined style is best for many page-based book citations and terrible for generic {{cite web}}s. Secondly, Futuretrillionaire, you do need to follow existing style based on WP:CITEVAR and an article won't be a GA with inconsistent formatting. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...Strange. It says on the bottom of the article that the refs "Auto3D-27", "Auto3D-26" and "releasedate" are defined bu not used in the article. I might have removed those refs from the article when I was replacing primary sources. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that happens when last named <ref>s are removed without removing the corresponding citations from References section. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

By using ProveIt, I've found 10 refs that are not using the list-defined references format. I've never used this format before, and frankly I find it very confusing and difficult to add refs. It also seems to require every ref to be named. I'd definitely support going back to the conventional format.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay I finally finished switching the article's ref format. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

List Defined References are helpful with editing because they clean up the wikisyntax. In place of a lengthy references, there's just a short name. I resisted the transition on an article I'm working on but now I like it. It helps if the names are short but sufficiently descriptive, something like <ref name="notch's blog: chunks">. Automated names like "Auto3D-27" can make things more confusing because you have no reminder information on the reference at all. • Jesse V.^(talk) 23:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Since this article had ref problems, I had to add and remove a lot of refs. Doing so in List Defined References was very confusing and gave me a headache, which is why I switched it back to the conventional style. I hope that's okay.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care. As I mentioned in the GA nomination, I noticed that LDR was used for most of the references and suggested that they all be converted to that format. I don't think it really matters what format is used, as long as its consistent and applied to all of the references. Whatever works best. • Jesse V.^(talk) 23:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Top Tier Tactics (i.e. [5]) is not a reliable source. Do they have editorial oversight? And who is SergeT3 and what are his field credentials? That article used a lot of non-professional prose and even non-free media; their about page gives little to no info. Finally, they accept user content. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I wan't too sure about that site. I'll try to find a better source to replace it. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done -Replaced that with GamesRadar. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Date format should be consistent throughout the article, I've changed some of them, but there may still be some left. Also some of the references added in October 2012 don't have the date field, i.e. the date the source was published, it should be added if the source specifies a published date. Probably best to check all the references fields are correct and filled once the article is fully cited. The1337gamer (talk) 08:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Since it seems we're using Month DD, YYYY, I've updated them to that format. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

For "The Word of Notch" posts, how are we citing them? Is the publisher Tumblr, Mojang, or Persson? Or should we use work=? - M0rphzone (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Should we be using those sources at all? Aren't they primary sources? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, they are... but we don't have enough third-party sources available for posts from 2009/2010. Notch and Minecraft were too obscure back then, so it's either primary sources or no sources. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Use both publisher and work: Publisher is Notch and work is Tumblr. You can included some primary sources, Halo 3 which is a featured article has alot of sources from Bungie's own updates, but these are sources state facts and are NPOV. Although third-party sources should be used where possible. Also I think the publisher/work is supposed to be wikilinked if they have wikipages, alot aren't. Also publishers in references aren't consistent, i.e. some references list publisher as GameSpot and others GameSpot.com, they should be changed to GameSpot and wikilinked to GameSpot page. The1337gamer (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Both "work is Tumblr" and "publisher is Notch" are wrong. Work is "The Word of Notch". And "Tumblr" is the de facto publisher. A person is never a publisher. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought work was supposed to be the title of the website, which is in this case: Tumblr. I also thought the blog, titled The Word of Notch, is an example of self-published media, which makes Notch the publisher. The1337gamer (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see now how that would seem from the wording of "self-published media". The act of publishing via some external means does not make one a publisher. HarperCollins is a publisher. If I write a book and pay them to print it, it will be a self-published work, because there is no editorial oversight and no peer review. But the |publisher= is HarperCollins. I am the |author=. Although technically, it could be that I printed it myself in my garage. But then there is no separate publisher entity, and we don't duplicate it with author.

Cite web has an additional |work= field, because it's helpful to say what website contains the content. In reality, |work= and |publisher= are used indiscriminately (because usually there is no difference). You can see sites like GameSpot listed in either. Some editors further prefer |work=GameSpot and |publisher=CBS Interactive.

In this case, the work is Notch's blog and we have the original title for it "The Word of Notch". "Tumblr" happens to be the content hoster, so we can say they are the de facto "publisher", even though they have nothing to do with the content -- they are a website host. Alternatively, we can just say work or publisher is "The Word of Notch" and not mention Tumblr at all. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok then, that seems understandable. Thanks for explaining. The1337gamer (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Cultural impact

I think I found a good source describing Minecraft's cultural impact: [6] -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Should we include something on The Yogscast? It was pretty hard finding sources to make it an article, but there was a Salon Magazine article about the impact of Minecraft that we can use here. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

We probably should, looks like a great source overall. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done -I've added an whole section about Minecraft in pop culture. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Images

I can't tell if the image copyright issues have been fixed or not. Can someone explain? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

They have. The images are now being used as non-free copyrighted images, which is acceptable if we give reasons for fair use. Of course, it's only because Mojang was ambiguous about the copyright/licensing, and decided to go draconian about it that we have to interpret their copyright license as being non-free/non-commercial/copyrighted. Before they did say we could do whatever we wanted with screenshots, but can't rip off the resources, but then that means we can't use them for commercial purposes. So that means they are non-free and fully copyrighted even if they said people could "use them however they wanted" (-.-) - M0rphzone (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, but what about all the Let's Plays and other Minecraft videos on Youtube? Are they violating copyrights?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows different rules then sites like YouTube, and holds them to a tighter standard. See WP:NFCC. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit

Creeper is still pretty poorly explained and needs to be introduced better. Though I feel if there is content on creepers as cultural impact/reception, then that description can go there instead of gameplay. "Creepers are prominent in the game" -- as compared to what? They spawn at same frequency as other mobs. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Do we write classic version as "classic Minecraft"or as "Minecraft Classic"? Current "Classic" syntax is in most places grammatically and stylistically incorrect. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the "prominent" in that section is meant to mean that the creeper has become a unique symbol of Minecraft. Yeah I agree that it isn't made very clear and it needs to be fixed. Also "Minecraft Classic" is used by the official website: [7], so I think we should change all to that. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the "Classic" problem. I think. As for the Creeper issue, mobs such as Creepers, Enderman, and Blazes are unique creatures that have been noted by reviewers. I suggest we add a brief paragraph in the Gameplay section briefly describing these noted mobs. Obviously, I don't think we should describe all mobs. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the only mob we should really add a brief description for is probably the Enderman. It's been mentioned in the EuroGamer [8], Gamespot [9], and Edge reviews[10]. Thus it should qualify as due weight. Eurogamer also briefly mentions the Ghast, but I'm not sure if that's enough for inclusion. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Some suggestions

The critical reception section mentions nothing about the xbox 360 version. Given the popularity of the Xbox 360 version and that it has actually received far more reviews from professional critics than the PC version, I think the ratings box and prose should be expanded to include this, just like other multiplatform titles. Useful links: Metacritic, GameRankings.

The downloadable content needs entirely rewriting and expansion. Change headline to Mod support and downloadable content. Mention that Minecraft: Xbox edition supports DLC, available via Xbox marketplace, this DLC is in the form of skin packs. I know skin packs may not seem important, but it does support DLC so should be mentioned, useful link: minecraft xbox 360 game add ons. Also the information about mod support is very badly written, it needs to more concise, less repetition and more references, there are plenty of publications/articles from major and reliable online websites/magazine regarding minecraft mods and support.

I would make changes these myself but I have little time, so I'm leaving a suggestion for those who are actively working on the article. The1337gamer (talk) 10:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try to get to it. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Y -I've added a the 360 reception stuff.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done -Added the info about Xbox DLCs

Achievements

This page should talk about the achievement system somewhere.126.122.68.61 (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I also think the difficulty settings, including peaceful mode, should be added. I'll try to do that when I have time.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Horai 551 (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Dead links

Using Checklinks, I've found several web sources with deadlinks:

• http://kotaku.com/5669766/minecraft-under-siege-by-angry-addicts-demanding-more-updates
• http://kotaku.com/5724989/why-minecraft-is-so-damn-popular
• http://kotaku.com/5849209/game-developers-choice-online-awards-honor-rift-minecraft-and-everquest
• http://kotaku.com/5878848/there-will-be-official-minecraft-lego-sets

These need to be fixed or replaced.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't replace them yet, Kotaku's main website is down due to Hurricane Sandy, that's why all these links are dead. Once their main website is back up, these sources may work again. The1337gamer (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh I guess you're right: [11] -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

System Requirements

Shouldn't this page talk about the system requirements for Minecraft? You can use the {{VG Requirements}} template.Horai 551 (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Minecraft doesn't have any official system requirements for the game listed on their site, so there wouldn't be a suitable source to cite from. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Herobrine

Why not mention Herobrine? 217.255.67.204 (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Because it's a non-notable removed feature. -- ferret (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Herobrine is not only non-notable, it was never in the game in the first place. The "Removed Herobrine." entries in the changelog of Minecraft are merely a running gag. 91.156.57.136 (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

but still, herobrine is a very big icon of minecraft, and even if the white-eyed killer herobrine does not exist, write about how a glitch steve mob triggered a massive creepypasta about the game. Glitchsmasher (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can add it in the pop culture section? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

it's not exactly pop culture, mojang have even put herobrine on the minecon banners and notch kind of started herobrine by saying he had a brother who is now dead (even though that is a lie) Glitchsmasher (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can find some robust sourcing that Herobrine is part of the Minecraft fandom culture. It's certainly not part of the game itself. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not exactly sure where else to put it. Along with the creeper, it's one of the famous icons of Minecraft. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

that is true and herobrine did technicly exist in minecraft Glitchsmasher (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Herobrine (as a model, mob or otherwise) has never been included in any versions of Minecraft. And unless there is a reliable, secondary source discussing this running joke, it's no suitable for inclusion. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

wrong, when herobrine was first discovered, the screenshot, if you look closly, is accually the steve mob, except on low graphics the stevemob can look a lot like herobrine, and from a far distance it does, even on fancy graphics! Glitchsmasher (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Except it's fake. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

but many people have seen the steve-mob-herobrine Glitchsmasher (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Notch on Herobrine: Saying it's not real, Saying he has no plans to add it. The1337gamer (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

are you getting this?, herobrine, on his first recoded sighting, is ovbiously the steve mod that was very glitchy at the time, from a distance steve(human) lookis like herobrine, so we should add even a reference to him at least (sorry for bad typing) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glitchsmasher (talk • contribs) 16:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done i added him but did not say he's real/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Undone. Not a part of the game, not real, no reliable source covering it. -- ferret (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Jeb taking creative control

I really don't think that happened on December 1, 2012, considering that this is only November 17, 2012 right now. I would correct it myself, but the page is locked to me. 72.9.71.140 (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Good catch.  Fixed • Jesse V.^(talk) 06:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Good Article?

Is this good enough to become a good article? Looking at the requirements above, we can't fix the issue about primary sources, and I spotted about 5 paragraphs without citations. However, Portal (video game), are example, has at least 2 paragraphs without citations(Portal is a FA). SO, should we ask for this to become a GA?Horai 551 (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding citations to a few paragraphs shouldn't be difficult. We've fixed most of the major problems. I'm not sure if it's ready for GA review though. I think there's still some copy-editing to do.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, the creative mode section is a stub. I think it needs a little bit of expansion. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It's significantly better than it was before, and it's getting close. To supplement the other recommendations, when I copyedit, I carefully go through the article, looking at each paragraph or each sentence and ask myself "Is there any better way of writing this?". If I think there is, I split the paragraph up, put each sentence on a new line, and then try to carefully stitch them back together again. Sometimes instead of by sentences, I'll divide it up by statement-citation pairs, so that it's easier to keep track of what reference supports what information. It's a bit time-consuming, but I've always found it worth the effort. You might try something like that. • Jesse V.^(talk) 19:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Organization, use of phrase "cultural impact", and fan POV

Ok, it's been bugging me for some time, but there are some sections that should not be grouped under the "cultural impact" heading. The phrase "cultural impact" is inappropriate for use in labeling all the sections below it because they do not all address "cultural impact". What the Salon article talks about is what addresses the cultural impact (Youtube vids, education, maybe Minecon). Reception, critical reviews, merchandise, usage in CAD, is not "cultural impact". In other words, they do not address the impact on culture - whatever definition that generalized word is supposed to mean. Also, "because some other article uses this format" is not a reason to use it in this article. We can organize the article in a better way, FutureTrillionaire, and may I remind everyone that this article is not "owned" by any one person.

The pov and writing style of this article is becoming problematic as it reflects a fan's point of view, not a neutral point of view. We need to cut down the cruft in the popular culture/applications section (which is already discouraged to be included as a section in articles), and rewrite the content to fit under more specific headings (e.g., Education, CAD, Youtube videos, etc.). Like wise, the gameplay and game content descriptions are written from an in-universe style/fan pov, so they need to be rewritten as well. I feel like the editors of this article (including myself) have a tendency to attempt to "legitimize" Minecraft by adding non-neutral/fan-pov/crystal-ball-type content to the popular culture and applications section (and maybe the descriptions in the gameplay/content). I think I've been attempting to "legitimize" by adding content on the UN project, Golden Joystick Awards, and the CAD usage, and there's really no need to do this. They are notable and can/should be included, but we need to cut down/rewrite some content in the "popular culture and applications" section and the awards in the opening paragraphs, and move most of the awards to the reception section instead of presenting all or a lot of them in the opening. Any suggestions/comments for improvement? - M0rphzone (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The whole section indeed shouldn't be called "cultural impact". Gameplay is always partially written from in-universe, and this article is actually better than most, as it constantly reminds that it is talking about in-game stuff. I don't see any significant POV or FAN here though, can you give some more examples? May be the CAD mention and Yogscast award is a little too much, among few other minor things. But the whole article definitely isn't. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay I removed the cultural impact heading. As for the POV, maybe we can try to include more criticisms in the reception section? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I've gone ahead and rehauled the whole article and mentioned specifics for the popular culture/applications section. No offense, but whoever wrote the section didn't do a good job of cutting the summary/crap and getting to the point/specifics. The CAD aspect should probably have its own section, so I've combined the content on the UN project and the 3D printing to one section on CAD usage. I've removed some specifics on Yogscast, since that content belongs in its own article. I've also rewritten the sentences that use progressive/conditional tenses. We should write in specific and past tense style, and not let WP:RECENTISM get into the article. It's bad writing to say that "some people, have said this about this and have done this and this" or "Minecraft has been xxx and xxx" when you can say "In date xxx, name xxx discussed the possibility of xxx, and in date xxx 2012, did xxx and xxx", or "after xxx for a few months, xxx did xxx, which xxx and xxx". Sorry for making a big deal like this, but the article's wording has been bugging me for some time, and no one brought the issues up. Better to fix them or bring them up before the article gets failed during GA review. There's no way the article is close to GA if there are issues like this in the article. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I did bring up prose before several times btw and that it was no way ready for GA. Anyway, your edits look good to me. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I did some more copy editing and replaced all mojang.com refs with third-party refs. I don't know if we'll be able to find replacements for the tumblr posts. Maybe there might be some for the 2011 ones, but probably not the 2009/2010 ones. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Horai, remember not use "have/has done", since we should maintain a historical viewpoint. Directly stating the date/version is better than vague statements. Also, I found a ref: this PCGamer article may be useful for expanding the article. - M0rphzone (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Raspberry Pi

Worth mentioning maybe? Source 1, Source 2. The1337gamer (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Looks interesting. - M0rphzone (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Update: Dlpham went ahead and added it in, and I've updated the section with a ref. - M0rphzone (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 November 2012

Please add information about the fourth Minecraft gamemode, Adventure mode that is not selectable but is implemented by map makers and hackers, as the mode stops the changing of any block in the minecraft world but allows access to chests, furnaces, and other non-block breaking related actions. Arceushadow (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It's already there Minecraft#Adventure_mode. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Testing Version

As the article stands now, it lists 1.4.4 as the testing version. Should this be updated to the snapshot (currently 12w50a) or removed? I don't see any mention of the snapshots in the past, but 1.4.4 is officially no longer the testing version...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 20:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. I don't think it's really necessary to include the testing versions. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Information regarding the next set of updates for minecraft "Xbox 360 version" is available on the Offficial Xbox Magizine(O.X.M.) web site. I would much appriciate it, if someone could add the information in some where, (in the Xbox section) in regards to what those updates are. I simply do not have the time or resouces currently available to find it myself.Zriddle (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is the appropriate article. I'm more willing to wait for more information on this, since all we have is that the Xbox 360 version will be updated to be in sync with 1.0.1 (minus The End) at some point. Thoughts?--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 20:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any rush to do this. It's probably better to wait until it's actually released before updating the article. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back with me on those!Zriddle (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 December 2012

In request to edit this wikipedia page, in the first section about The End, I wanted to add that The End is also similar to The Void. That was all.

Thank You in Advance -BAILEYSLOUNGE BAILEYSLOUNGE (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess we can add info about the void in the paragraph (under the gameplay section) in the about world generation and the "infinity" world. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: If you tell us exactly what change you want made (that is, what you want added) we should be able to help better. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I think they do make it clear what they want added, but this seems like original research because this fact isn't really true. The void is nothing, while the end has endermen, ender dragons, etc. Vacation^nine 14:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Minecraft: The Story of Mojang

Just a head's up on this; it's a documentary by 2 Player Productions about Minecraft. It might be worth adding a section about this to the article in the future; also the documentary itself might be a useful reference for the article. Links: [12], [13]. The1337gamer (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

When was Mojang created?

I've looked throught the sources in the development section, and can't find on what date Mojang was created. It apparently existed in an informal state before becoming official.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. A source says it was "set up" in the summer of 2010, so I guess we'll just use that. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-free images

As the second poster alluded to, I quote directly from the Minecraft Terms and Conditions (http://minecraft.net/terms): "you're free to do whatever you want with screenshots and videos of the game" Superbun (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It says before that "Other than commercial use..." We still have to follow the strict WP standards. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The screenshots are non-free content, they should only be used for critical commentary. The imageoveruse tag has been added because there are too many non-free screenshots. The ones that don't add anything to the article should be removed. I think the first screenshot, the album artwork, the classic screenshots and the pocket edition alpha screenshot should be removed as they don't add anything. Leave the mob, crafting and the nether screenshots as they complement the article. The1337gamer (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the first screenshot shows more environment and the survival mode hearts and hunger. The classic one should definitely go. I'd support removing the nether one, considering the version in the screenshot is out-dated. I agree that we don't need a screen-shot for every port.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, but maybe the first screenshot should be updated; it's abit plain, nearly half the image is just water and there isn't much to comment about it. If the screenshot also showed some interesting game mechanic/feature, then the commentary in the caption could be expanded. The1337gamer (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You got a point. Maybe we can have a screenshot of a border between two biomes? Perhaps with a few animal mobs in it? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. The1337gamer (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, none of the current screenshots have structures/creations in it, yet this article discusses "building" as an important component of Minecraft. Would it be fair use to add a screenshot of impressive creations players have made? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, we can add an assembly (single image) of different screenshots or multiple full images. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

About the non-free problem: is the issue that the structure itself is non-free, or is it Minecraft? • Jesse V.^(talk) 07:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've already uploaded a picture of a city hall built in MC a week ago. It looks like a generic city hall, so I don't a it's completely a replica of a real building. I'm not sure about Mojang's terms concerning the copyright status of screenshots and creations. I think it's safe to assume that from the point of view of WP that screenshots of structures are copyrighted by Mojang rather than the players who built them.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue is with Mojang's policy regarding the copyright/ownership of Minecraft screenshots. They said we can "do whatever we want with them", but "can't rip off art resources". As stated on their brand guidelines/terms, Mojang only allows non-commercial use of the Minecraft brand and videos/screenshots (with a few exceptions), so that means the screenshots are fully copyrighted. About the structure copyrights for screenshots, it's not like they're photographs of the (potentially copyrighted) structure, so I don't think they'll ever apply, since the structures look completely different from the original (blocky with Minecraft textures) even if they are built similarly/ or as a scale replica. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Awards

Just a suggestion, I was thinking it might be a good idea to move the awards out of the Video game reviews box. It seems rather cramped and abit unclear in the small box because of the large number of awards. I think a better format would be a separate table following this format: Halo:_Reach#Awards. Alternatively if there are sources for nominations that Minecraft has received, it would be better to expand the table and follow this format: Halo_4#Awards, Arkham_City#Accolades. In addition, if there are enough sources to expand it might be worth giving "Awards" it's own subsection, there is already one paragraph on awards in the Critical section. The1337gamer (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

An awards subsection is probably the best way to go, partly because some of the awards listed in the infobox aren't really official awards. A description of those awards in prose is probably better.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

For the awards and titles, should we use italics or quotation marks? I looked at WP:ITALICS and it doesn't mention this, but on other articles, the award/title seems to be italicized most of the time. Also, do we even need to mention all of the awards/titles? Most other game articles only mention the most notable ones. I'm not very familiar with which ones are notable, but I think we should only specifically mention the GDC and Golden Joystick awards/titles. - M0rphzone (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

In Bastion (video game) and Portal (video game), both FAs, the awards are neither italizied nor in quotation marks. They're just capitalized. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk)

Ok, then we can remove the italics/quotations. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

GA nomination?

Well, I've done some copyediting. I think it's ready for a GA review. What do you guys think? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 06:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Support GA Nomination. All issues pointed out by Jesse were addressed and can't seem to find any from a quick lookover. Vacation^nine 07:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I still say the same - the game is not released yet and has upcoming major patches. That is not stable by definition. And there is no hurry. But I suppose if I'm convinced someone will be updating the article (to GA standard) as versions (including Xbox/mobile) are released and new reviews/awards accumulate, it could be promoted early. As per content, I started reading Gameplay and half through it, I already have a bunch of comments to add. Don't get me wrong, it's way better than it was, but that just shows how not-ready it was before. Anyway, for the record, I don't oppose a GAN. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles always change over time, but I think it's stable enough. I haven't really dug into it but it looks very close to a GAN to me. • Jesse V.^(talk) 02:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say it is very close to GA too, but it still needs some references and some critical response for the pocket edition. For the references we can use some of the other references. Like there was a reference that we used to reference the difficulty mode that we can also talks about XP points, enhanting, item despawning, and the controls and Stats.Horai 551 (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the article is ready yet. We still need to establish a standard style for things like italicizing titles. Some references still need cleanup or replacing, and some sentences need citations. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Which titles need italicizing? Which refs need to be fixed? Which sentences are missing citation? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I only saw the italics issue with the awards/titles (discussed in previous section). The unreliable refs/original research problem is mostly gone, but I haven't gone through each ref to see if they're blogs or reliable. Horai mentioned some issues above, and I think you've already addressed the blog ref problems if l33tgamer got all of them in the section below.

In any case, there's no reason why this article won't get the GA nomination if we start the review now. Maybe we can get a FA nomination somewhere down the road on Notch's birthday or Minecraft's release date or something. If we're good, then maybe we can get this nominated to FA on November 18. - M0rphzone (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've added the reception of the Pocket edition. Is there anything else to do? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we are close to fixing the "lack of refs in the Gameplay section" problem that Horai mentioned. I've added refs to a bunch of statements in that section. For the few I couldn't find sources for, I've added the citation needed tag. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

For the 3 statements needing citation, I've removed two of them because they were non-essential. For one of them, I was only able to find a Reddit post from Jeb. Aside from this, is there anything else we need to do before GA review?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Replaced the reddit ref with rock, paper, shotgun articles, slightly rewords the adventure section. The1337gamer (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice :) -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Just wondering if these sources that have been used in the article are acceptable.

• This blog is cited in Minecraft#Creative_mode: http://www.mmomeltingpot.com/2011/10/minecraft-creative-mode-guide/
• This blog is cited in Minecraft#Multiplayer: http://leviathyn.com/games-2/news/2012/05/20/minecraft-multiplayer-games-for-the-xbox-360/
• This forum post by Notch is cited in Minecraft#Development: http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=6273.0
• This archived link is cited in Minecraft#Commercial: http://web.archive.org/web/20100921110505/http://m00d.net/minecraft/sales/

The blogs/forum post fall under Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. The blogs should be used only if the writer is a professional in the field, is there any proof of this? Also not sure if the forum post from Notch acceptable, is there no reliable third-party source stating the development alpha release date? Was the original source, m00d.net, of the archived link actually a reliable source for sales figures? -- The1337gamer (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

None of those are reliable as is. m00d.net was just someone collecting stats. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed the unreliable sources and added cn tags. I removed the sentence that used the m00d.net source also, as it's irrelevant anyway. The1337gamer (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed I've added sources for those parts that needed citation. Is there anything else? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

All of the Paragraphs except the first two have citations. Maybe we should reference the first paragraph like in Portal (video game) and I say we are good!Horai 551 (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding citations in the lede is usually not necessary. I think we are ready for a GA review after we adress the 3 citation needed tags, by either adding sources and/or adjusting the statements.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Youtube videos

You should add a section to say if you are allowed to post minecraft videos on youtube?EatIcecream2 (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

What? I'm confused. • Jesse V.^(talk) 19:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think discussing the legality of Minecraft Youtube videos in the article is really necessary.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You need *permission* before posting an Youtube vid. I doubt every person got permission every time. There are thousands.EatIcecream2 (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Found link [14].EatIcecream2 (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

A copyright holder can take down videos (that contains content owned by them) from YouTube that have been uploaded without permission almost immediately if they want. Mojang could remove all videos that reference Minecraft if it has been uploaded without permission. Mojang don't enforce this because there is no decent reason to, YouTube has a positive effect on generating attention for video games. The same goes with nearly every other video game developer. As for other companies making copyright infringement claims to against objects created in Minecaft, no such claim or notable action has been made yet. This is not notable or necessary to mention in the article. The1337gamer (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but isn't it worth mentionaing, a lawsuit could ruin your life!EatIcecream2 (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Mojang has given specific permission to owners of the game to be able to monetize game footage. That's why Yogscast and all the other posters can place ads on their videos and make a living from playing Minecraft. Quote from [15]: "If you upload videos of the game to video sharing and streaming sites (like YouTube) you are however allowed to put ads on them." Also, "We are also quite relaxed about other non-commercial things so feel free to create and share videos, screen shots, independently created mods (that don't use Minecraft Assets), fan art, machinima, and more on YouTube etc;" Vacation^nine 23:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

At least explain what "minecraft assests" are?EatIcecream2 (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are we discussing this. The talk page is WP:NOTAFORUM.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Minecraft/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jesse V. (talk · contribs) 02:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Review

This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s); please, leave your comments in the Discussion section below. The reviewer(s) will cross out issues when they have been sufficiently addressed.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"such as large spiders, skeletons, and zombies spawn" lacks a comma before "spawn" "cows, pigs, and chickens, spawn" has one. They should be consistent. The word "have" should probably be removed from "as sales of the alpha version of the game have expanded". "The music in Minecraft was chosen to be one of the best video game soundtracks of 2011 by the video game blog Kotaku" is a passive sentence and then specifies the subject. "The video game blog Kotaku chose the music in Minecraft as one of the best video game soundtracks of 2011" reads better. In "Best Downloadable Game of 2010 title", the term "title" is redundant.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The opinion "The game has a complex physics engine" doesn't seem to be covered by the provided reference. Personally, I think it's a fairly simple physics engine (things don't roll, or interact much, etc), a reliable reference is going to have to convince me otherwise. Remove "helpful" from "The project was a helpful way to visualize urban planning ideas" or state who said that.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Remove "already" from "and is already in the planning phase".
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Minecraft_city_hall.png has some issues with its copyright. At the very least, the blue "to the uploader" box should be resolved.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

This article looks really good, and I want to thank everyone who put their time and effort into it. I know from experience how hard it is to bring an article up to Good Article standards. All concerns have been addressed, and it appears to me that it follows the remaining criteria for a GA, so I'm going to pass it! :)

If I had to make one suggestion, it would be to add |archiveurl=, |archivedate=, and |deadurl= fields to all the references. This article relies so heavily on sources on the Internet, and webpages are notorious for being moved or deleted over time. Fixing deadlink is really annoying, and sometimes a reference is impossible to replace. This linkrot is essentially countered by adding a backup link to an archive, such as to WP:WEBCITE. Doing this is not a requirement of the GA nomination, so I'm not requiring it now, but I think archiving the links will pay off in the long run. • Jesse V.^(talk) 02:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks! --Futuretrillionaire (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Great job to everyone who helped turn this into a Good Article! - M0rphzone (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Please refer to the issues in the table above by their numbers (eg. 1a1 for first issue with "prose" criterion).

• Y 2b1 -I've changed the wording. It now says the game's physics system is unrealistic rather than complex. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Y 6a1 -I've added more details to the fair use rationale. However, I can't do much about the "blue box". It's usually handled by a bot, patroller, or an admin.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I added image has rationale=yes. Vacation^nine 22:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Y 2c1 -Removed "already".-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Y 2b2 -Added attribution (Carl Manneh) to the somewhat opinionated statement. Also did some rewording in that paragraph because it contained some close paraphrasing. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • 2b2 hasn't been striked yet. Is the issue unresolved?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It's been resolved, I just forgot to strike it, which I have just done. I'm still reviewing the remaining aspects, so even though those issues have been crossed off, that section is still "?" until I finish. • Jesse V.^(talk) 19:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Y 1a1 -Added comma. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Y 1a2 -Removed "have".-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Y 1a3 -Fixed grammar issue. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Y 1a4 -Removed "title". -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Mention of the game being in the top 10 best-selling PC games

There should be a mention of the game being one of the 10 best-selling PC games ever in the header paragraph (according to Wikipedia, at least: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PC_video_games).81.232.14.119 (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We'd need a source for that.--Futuretrillionaire (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Found a source: Top 15 best selling PC games of all time, and original list: The Top 15 Best-Selling PC Games Of All Time - M0rphzone (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I've added it to the commercial reception section. --Futuretrillionaire (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)