Talk:Minecraft

Discussion about mentioning pseudo-randomly generated worlds.

Since people have added and deleted this detail about the "randomly generated worlds/biomes" many times, I think it would be appropriate to have a discussion section about whether or not to include "psuedo-randomly" as a description. Btw since procedural generation is already mentioned in the text beside it, why remove pseudo-randomly from the image description? - M0rphzone (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

See also Talk:Minecraft#Picture_showing_randomly_generated_landscape above. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not there... Could you please specify where it is? - M0rphzone (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It's archived now. Kaini (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 12 October 2011

Add game to "See Also":

King Arthur's Gold, an indie game that allows mining, building castles and fighting inside them.

95.49.127.126 (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:ELNO, this game has no connection established to Minecraft in the article, and there is no further encyclopedic information about Minecraft on the site. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

.

Edit request from , 4 November 2011

Please add Markus "Notch" Persson and Jens Bergensten to the list of artists for this game, as the majority of the art for Minecraft was done by them. Junkboy, the currently listed game artist, is actually leading the art team in Mojang's new game Scrolls, not Minecraft. Pinacoladaxb (talk) 06:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. mabdul 11:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

[1] —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect info about the sky dimension

It claims to be still in development, but infact the Sky Dimension was the predecessor to the End, a land populated with Endermen and Enderdragons. The End isn't in the normal version but the prerelease, but it is still notable as for 1.9 full it will most likely be the End.

On the topic of 1.9, shouldn't it also say that enchantments and potions (and their splash counterpart) are included? -82.23.201.18 (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

1.9 isn't released yet officially, the Sky Dimension is not the same thing as The End, and we don't know if it's going to make it into the final release or not. --PresN 22:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Junkboy's not a Minecraft artist.

I believe the infobox is incorrect, the art in Minecraft (not including the artwork on paintings) is done by Notch and Jeb; Junkboy works on Scrolls. He has done some promotional art (such as this) but to the best of my knowledge nothing in-game is by Junkboy. Tomlough1325 (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see the section titled "Edit request from , 4 November 2011", I believe it's relevant to this. ferret (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Minecraft has 4 million copies

Title says it all: Minecraft has passed 4 million copies (Minecraftforum.net) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Playnow254 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 9 November 2011

Do not say that you can not die in creative. You can. There is only one way though. In the web page http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/The_Void you'll find that falling past a certain layer will make you die in creative. But that is the only way. 67.6.199.63 (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Cutecutecuteface2000 (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What it said before was correct - "the player does not take damage", it did not say you cannot die. This was specifically worded this way because of dying in Void. I adjusted it somewhat. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 9 November 2011

"By August 5, 2011, the game had sold 4,000,000 units" It did not sell 4 million units by August 5th. Even the reference is dated on the Nov 7, 2011 Even here, on Nov 6th, notch says there just about to hit 4 million: http://twitter.com/#!/notch/status/133330527301279744

Should be changed to "By Nov 7, 2011, the game had sold 4,000,000 units"

Masshuku2 (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Looks like the editor that changed the number didn't change the date. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I added a "Dimensions" part to the page

Probably a no, but would anyone mind, if I added a section to the page that was about dimensions in Minecraft? Alexkill51 (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)alexkill51

A whole section would be WP:GAMECRUFT. Nether is already mentioned and The End isn't in an official release yet. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 14 November 2011

Minecraft Release Candidates are not listed, include them.

Bzzman (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This template is for making specific requests for edits, which that is not.--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 17 November 2011

The pocket edition of Minecraft was released on iOS today. Could someone please write that in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwarzy1 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. The Interior (Talk) 04:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 18 November 2011

This needs to be added

Under the pocket edition section

On November 16th Minecraft: pocket edition was released for iOS devices. The pocket edition is semi the same as the verison for android.

Yeahwepure (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

See above. The Interior (Talk) 04:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 18 November 2011

Please change the 'will be released' to 'was released', as the game was released today.

Done. There may be a couple other future->past sections that may need tweaking. Xxcom9a (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 20 November 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Minecraft is now out of beta stage. There is now a new gamemode, hardcore. Slymon99 (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. but requests to edit must have reliable sources, and be specific (like "please add THIS, as show in THIS NEWSPAPER") 00:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox/open world

I don't understand the wikilink titled "sandbox" and leading to the article open world. In my view a sandbox and an open world are almost complete opposites. I can perhaps understand what is meant by a stretch of imagination, but I think it is confusing to the the point of being nonsense.--Thorseth (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As the open world article states: The term is sometimes used interchangeably with "sandbox" and "free-roaming". The term is a little odd, but it's been used for a long time. ferret (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The Yogscast and its role in Minecraft's Success - and in general

Minecraft's entry doesn't mention the Yogscast, and now I notice they don't have their own page. I know some weird deletionists don't think something like the Yogscast is notable, but they're wrong: it's notable, and significant. One day there will have to be a debate as to what Wikipedia does now that the pop culture sources the deletionists admire are dying, but that doesn't excuse the fact that an online encyclopedia that includes many YouTube channels that are much less significant (not just: popular) than the yogscast is flawed by the latter's omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.96.33.129 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I personally feel that if you include them, you have to include everybody who "helped" make Minecraft popular. Something similar has been brought up before, and it was felt that they should not be included. Also, sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Xxcom9a (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

this suggestion is pretty clearly here because of the recent storm-in-a-teacup spat between notch and the yogscast. WP:N, WP:V, and WP:OR should apply as always. Kaini (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The spat in a teacup isn't important. But the Yogscast is significant, and it should have its own Wikipedia entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.21.77 (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Heck, they're pretty significant in YouTube, let alone Minecraft -- just look at YouTube's 'Most Viewed' or 'Top Favorited' most days and you'll see their videos (uploaded by BlueXephos); and as I write this they have three videos on the front page. --82.36.30.173 (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request, November 23, 2011

I believe it is noteworthy to mention that, according to metacritic.com, Minecraft is the fifth-highest rated video game of all time (fourth if the Grand Theft Auto IV console duplicates are merged).

Source: http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/all/all?year_selected=&sort=desc&hardware=&view=detailed

Barrowsx (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Minecraftwiki as "official" wiki

Three editors (two recently, one long ago) have put [2] as "official" Minecraft wiki, so I won't revert. [3] topmost discalimer says "Here are some nice active community resources for discussing Minecraft. Please note that all of these are third-party and aren't hosted by us. We link them because they're great.", yet wiki is listed under "Official Resources" right below it. Is this sufficient to be classed under "official"? Neither Mojang nor Persson are affiliated with this wiki, so I don't quite see how "official" applies. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It applies simply because minecraft.net have endorsed it as official, whether they have a direct hand in it's day to day affairs or not. While the disclaimer says "We don't host it", they've clearly endorsed several sites as official. I don't know how else you determine officialness beyond the entity in question declaring it as such... ferret (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Number of ppl at minecon 2011

as seen on twitter - and as mentioned by Lydia Winters (minecraftchick) there were 5000 ppl at the Minecon 2011. The article yet reads just 4500 and quotes Markus Perssons blog - which in fact just states "sold out"

please correct the numbers - or give a source for the number 4500. Ian76g (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox album

I have reverted an edit that causes the {{Infobox album}} template to create unnecessary whitespace. See Template talk:Infobox album#Use in sections for my request of any changes that avoid this white space problem. -84user (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Release Date

Wouldn't Minecraft's official release date be November 2011? That was when the final, full version of the game was released. True, it was released in 2009, but it was simply a prototype. Wouldn't this game be considered released in 2011 then? 35.32.233.206 (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It's both yes and no. The fact that the game went through an open beta is probably enough to say that it was released in 2009, but technically it was released in 2011. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 01:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The release date used for the categories go by a game's initial release date. It was playable by the public in 2009. The earliest release date is 2009, thus it says 2009. More information about its release dates is in the infobox and the article itself, for those interested. But for the categories, we use 2009. Reach Out to the Truth 01:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure sure we use open alpha/beta dates for release categorization? This doesn't sound accurate. Minecraft was released in November 2011, before that it was "scheduled for release in November 2011". It was at no point really "released" per se until now. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know for sure. But I assumed that's why it was like that. They were sorta-releases. We list them in the infobox. I don't know of any other case where a video game's alpha/beta dates are listed in the infobox, so there's not any other page I can look to for guidance. But I'm open to whatever seems to make sense. Reach Out to the Truth 20:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The beta dates were recently added to the Counter-Strike: Global Offense article's infobox. I haven't removed them there and was wondering if anyone else would. Although the latest build was tagged as "Release version", the game has been "released" as a retail product for a long time. I don't see the harm of listing the various major milestones. Notch didn't really follow any sort of traditional alpha/beta/release pattern, and has even outright reset his versioning a couple times. I think it's also important to note that in regards to the start of this talk section, the november release was not the "final" version of the game, nor would I call it the "full" release of the game, as it didn't add any substantial content or features. It was, as a version, as incremental as those that preceded it. ferret (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd personally say that the builds from May 2009 up until MineCon were not "official" (they were testing builds) and that the builds in between was "a really open testing period". I'd list each version but have the official "release" date as November 2011. I'd also move Beta to the "Other versions" section since it isn't a game on its own anymore (Classic and "Full" being the only versions playable now). That's just me. Ferret, as for "it didn't add any substantial content", it would seem that way if you played the "1.9 prereleases"/RC, but there was quite a bit of content between Beta 1.8 and 1.0. I'd call it a full version just as you would call any game that it still updated after being publicly "released" - TF2, Skyrim, etc. Minecraft has an ending, so I'd say it's complete enough to be a product on its own but is not necessarily done being developed. As for Notch resetting his version numbers, he only did that with each stage of development. Xxcom9a (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly the "current" version, but "really open test period" isn't quite right. When Notch changed the game to "beta" he changed the purchase method/pricing/model and stopped referring to it as a pre-order I believe. Also, it was never an "open beta", as purchase of the game was required. I've played every version since well before the Halloween update, so I do have an idea on how incremental the updates have been. That's just opinion though. If Alpha and Beta are removed from the infobox, we do need to make sure the Development section includes information on the relevant major phrases and when they were released. ferret (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I decided to trim this to be more inline with other articles, displaying the relevant releases on each platform, rather than every release phase. The removed dates are covered in the prose, the ones that matter are the official release on various actual platform releases. I also removed weekly pre-releases from the patch versions. This was akin to updating the article with nightly builds. It's not relevant. ferret (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with change, though I wonder if we can phrase "full version" better to not have a line break. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I tried a slightly different format just now based on some other VG articles. Using the standard templates, etc. I called the full release "PC (Java)" for now... I thought about just "PC" as well. Wasn't sure how to phrase it. Keep in mind that "PC" includes Windows, OS X and Linux. ferret (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The field shouldn't be more than a few lines long. Any more and it should go back to a collapsible list. Also I don't think Xperia promotional release is significant enough to be listed outside prose and just Android is much more informative as to when it was actually made available for everyone else. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I was iffy about Xperia. I originally removed it, then added it back for the Vgrelease "WW" parameter.. I've removed it again. I think this will do, it's in line with other VG articles now. ferret (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Modding and Bukkit

There is a strong modding community involved with MineCraft. Although officially unsupported by Notch, they qualify for a mention on this page. I'm going to add a section on it. ShermanCory (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

How do they qualify for mention on this page? Is there notable coverage of them? Certainly add it if you have sources from reliable 3rd party sources. Otherwise, it's OR and will be removed. ferret (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's debatable as to whether or not they should be added. I think that a minor/brief "Community-made Content" section of sorts could be mentioned (which could include the "Modding API" once it's released and also mention that some player-made mods made it into the official game - McRegion, Smooth Lighting, Pistons - and how Mojang supports Bukkit could be included), but not listing everything in it would be best. Xxcom9a (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't add community made content sections unless they have been covered in detail by reliable, independent sources. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 December 2011

I want to edit the first section, and write there too about Markus Perssonn letting that other guy be the main developer on minecraft.

Viktn0r (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It already says "On December 2, 2011, Persson announced via his personal blog that he would be stepping down as the lead developer of Minecraft. Bergensten would become lead developer. Persson would remain as a developer of Minecraft but would be taking time away from the game in order to work on an unannounced project.[39]" in the prose and mentions Mojang being the developer and not Persson alone in the lead. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

resource

How the Creator of Minecraft Developed a Monster Hit by David Thomas November 29, 2011 12:30 pm Wired.com, December 2011 issue in print. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)