Talk:Zachtronics

---

May 2011

Do not delete this page. Infiniminer is important game, a starting point of a genre. the Infniminer was linked and crated many times in WP. --Kirov Airship (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You should really be voicing this at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zachtronics_Industries instead. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the deletion-happy disease. -Object404 (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Split Infiniminer

I think the Infiniminer section should be split.--S/s/a/z-1/2 (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC) I second that. There's probably much more to it than Barth. It inspired the extremely popular game Minecraft so I feel that this combined with the fact there's enough content for multiple sections warrants a separate page.--Macks2008 (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that the above statement is something that I agree with, please work on this --RedstoneHUD (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

how can you "hack" the source of an "open-source" project?

The Infiniminer section needs a bit of polish.

The first sentence says, "Infiniminer is an open source multi-player block-based sandbox building and digging game"

then, a few paragraphs later, "Zachtronics discontinued development of the game less than a month after its first release as the result of its source code leak. As Barth had not obfuscated the C# .NET source code of the game, it was decompiled and extracted from the binaries."

now, isn't the whole point of "open source" to be..ahem..open?

how can something be "open source" and still be "leaked"?

isn't the act of making your project open source "leaking" it to the public?

off-topic, i hope this Barth guy gets rich off the recent minecraft sale somehow...but really there is some twisted logic in the Infinimidner section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.32.158 (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It's because he open sourced the game after the code was leaked. 69.17.174.21 (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Need better citation for Minecraft claims

The referenced video is not a primary source and is not credible for citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.53.37 (talk) 02:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Zachtronics as a separate page?

Zachtronics is more than just Zach Barth -- there are other team members (as Zach himself points out in this reddit comment: <https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/78wv2h/im_zach_barth_the_creative_director_of_the_game/doxv107/?context=3>). It would be nice to recognize the studio independently of its head. 2601:647:4D03:3CA7:3158:7748:4CBE:A51D (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• But that would leave both pages pretty empty on content, at least for how much is currently in the article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree, they're too tied together to split . Arguably, more people recognize Zachtronics and we should realistically move the article to that instead. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I think that would be better, actually. I wanted to fix up this article a while back, as it's way too fractured and content-heavy on two games, with basically nothing on the rest. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Zach Barth → Zachtronics – WP:COMMONNAME, Zach Barth (its lead designer) gets 39,700 hits on Google, while Zactronics (the company that makes its games, Barth also works with others there) gets 84,900 hits. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Zach Barth appears to meet notability guidelines for his biography to remain in Wikipedia. If his company is notable on its own merit, a separate article should be written about it.--John Cline (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• @Dissident93 and John Cline: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @John Cline: a separate article would simply be a list of games and nothing more, leaving both articles empty on content. Zactronics gets more page hits and it appears he himself goes by it more than his real name. The article can be re-written from a biography into a company article, which it pretty much is now anyway. Pinging @Masem: who also proposed the move. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you. I understand your contention. I disagree, however, and with your conclusion that the move is uncontroversial. Let us collaborate unto a consensus instead, and respectfully abide its counsel should one clearly emerge.--John Cline (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• No problem with that. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support per previous section. Zack Barth and Zachtronics are effectively equivalent terms in terms of content (what we have goes into either article, you can't split), and the company is seemingly more common. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

To update this...

from RPS. We should reflect this page about the company, and now note that Barth sold Zachtronics to Alliance Digital Media (but still runs the studios) prior to going to work at Valve. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed 100%. I forgot to come back to this page asking if we should redo the article as a company biography rather than Zach's. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)