Talk:Minecraft/Archive 7
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2016
This edit request to Minecraft has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
93.168.103.142 (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Critical Reception
The part of the critical reception section that mentions the Pocket Edition seems to be outdated. Recently, more content has been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.236.50 (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Please add a Further Reading section with the following
These could equally go in the See Also section that is already there. I think these are the only books of critical scholarship.
- Gallagher, Colin (2014). Minecraft in the Classroom: Ideas, inspiration, and student projects for teachers. United States: Peachpit. ISBN 978-0133858013.
- Garrelts, Nate (2014). Understanding Minecraft: Essays on Play, Community and Possibilities. Jefferson, North Carolina, United States: McFarland. ISBN 9780786479740.
- Goldberg, Daniel (2013). Minecraft: The Unlikely Tale of Markus "Notch" Persson and the Game that Changed Everything. New York City, New York, United States: Seven Stories. ISBN 1609805372.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Federicohazard (talk • contribs) 20:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Wii U Version
I read the article and it gave almost no information about the Wii U version so could someone please add information about the Wii U version? --Littlelum (talk)
not showing in the source
"Markus "Notch" Persson began developing the game as an independent project while working for King.com and later jAlbum." according to this sources http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/27719/Interview_Markus_Notch_Persson_Talks_Making_Minecraft.php and https://minecraft.net/en/ which is not showing according to the sources please fix it or give source that supporting this claim.
Origination of name
Should we credit the originator of the name "Minecraft", as agreed by Notch on the original forum post? https://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=6273.40
(Second to last post on that page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.8.253 (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I would like to point out that in the Devolopment section, it says nothing about how it wasn't called Minecraft at that point. At that that point Notch referred to the game he was making as the "Cave Game." I was going to add that particular bit of info, and some other stuff, but found I couldn't edit this article. I guess it's a protected article? Anyway here are a few of my sources: http://minecraftanswers.answers.wikia.com/wiki/What's_minecraft's_first_name http://minecraft.gamepedia.com/Minecraft#Creation Zdude001 (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Can somebody change the first paragraph?
I'd like the first paragraph to be changed to
Minecraft is a sandbox video game originally created by Swedish programmer Markus "Notch" Persson and later developed and published by Mojang. The creative and building aspects of Minecraft enable players to build constructions out of textured cubes in a 3D procedurally generated world. Other activities in the game include exploration, resource gathering, crafting, and combat. Multiple gameplay modes are available, including survival mode where the player must acquire resources to build the world and maintain health, a creative mode where players have unlimited resources to build with and the ability to fly, an adventure mode where players can play custom maps created by other players, and a spectator mode where players can fly around and clip through blocks, but cannot place or destroy any. The players can join multiplayer servers, which are often customized using plug-ins. Some of these servers are more PVP orientated, some involve aspects of Survival, Creative and Adventure mode, some have a built in economy, and some of them contain built in mini games. The PC version of the game is renowned for its third-party mods, which can add, but are not limited to adding, various new items, characters, worlds, quests, and dimensions to the game.
In case I need to source the information, here's a link to my source. http://minecraft.gamepedia.com/Server An awsome person (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's too wordy for an introduction to the game. Half of these concepts make no sense to somebody new to gaming, and most of this is just a worse way of stating the same info. Also an external wiki can never be used as a source. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
And it was sold to Microsoft recently for over $2,000,000,000 or $2 billion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.106.7.235 (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2016
This edit request to Minecraft has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove Universal Windows Platform as its same as windows
72.200.128.193 (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Not done: It's there because there is a specific UWP edition that is different from the main line game. -- ferret (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Is this the way we should handle W10 exclusive games now? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Since there is a completely separate edition for UWP, I believe so for this article. There's the normal Java based PC version for Windows, then the additional separate UWP version. -- ferret (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Makes sense. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Since there is a completely separate edition for UWP, I believe so for this article. There's the normal Java based PC version for Windows, then the additional separate UWP version. -- ferret (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Is this the way we should handle W10 exclusive games now? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Why no one talked about wurm online?
Hi,
Before Notch starts minecraft, he created a game named Wurm Online with Rolf in which basically a hardcore mmorpg minecraft. After they disagree on how the game shall run (Most likely Rolf want it focus on pvp and battle while Notch see the possibilities with terraforming and easier gameplay), Notch left and start creating minecraft. Why is this history MISSING everywhere beside on wurm and some old internet arhives?
Can someone tells me if this is conspiracy or it just 'winner declare history'?
regards, rose rosespambox@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.85.64.170 (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's not included here because it has no real relevance to the topic of Minecraft. The fact that Notch was involved in Wurm Online is already noted in that article, and it is mentioned at his article as well. -- ferret (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Template for the Awards.
Could we add a template for the Awards instead of just including the awards in paragraphs? I'm trying to keep things up to date and on track with the news that's related to video games.
Zacharyalejandro (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro
- It's always better to put it into prose. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2016
Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2016
Merge Minecraft: Educational Edition into this article
Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2017
The Totem Of Undying
DSCraft
Windows Phone 10 still supported
The Info on here is terribly incorrect.
On the Switch version...
Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2017
Nintendo Switch?
Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2017
Minecraft versions (Indev/Infdev, Classic, Alpha, Beta and 1.0-1.12)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2017
Edit request for addition of book
External links modified
Add additional multiplayer info
Semi-protected edit request for June 19, 2017
Discovery Update
Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2017
Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2017
Clones
Can I fix some links and add information?
Request to fix certain typos
External links modified
External links modified
External links modified
Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2018
new 3ds edition
Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2018
GA Reassessment
The following discussion 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.
- This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Minecraft/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
It is to my dismay that I am nominating this article for GA reassessment. I have noticed several problems with it that appear to cause issues with the GA criteria.
- First, I think the lead is too short, spends to much time on gameplay, and doesn't adequately summarize the article (development, other versions, etc.)
- Numerous sentences are unsourced (I've added around three or four CN tags today alone), vague, poorly worded, or are riddled with typos and other issues (most I saw are in the console versions section).
- I counted four single sentence paragraphs.
- Almost very single minor gameplay mode has a sub-section in gameplay. I mean, I can understand survival and creative, but adventure? And spectator? I also think this section needs some cleanup and trimming, as it goes into unnecessary detail.
- Source #125 () looks to be a Microsoft fansite, which is questionable.
Unless these problems can be addressed, I feel an urge to delist this as a good article. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Unless I'm misunderstanding the GAR process, wouldn't it just be a better use of time if you were to fix the issues yourself? What's the purpose of having it demoted from GA status without fixing any of the issues that led to it? Most of the "issues" you raised are easily fixable with just a bit of cleanup, and why even mention an unreliable source instead of simply replacing it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- I fixed your issues. I agree with Dissident93;
Fix any simple problems yourself.
The only issues I still see are the See also section having only one link and many many copyedit problems. Wumbolo (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)- Looking at the article now, I noticed a major issue. The reception section is incomplete. It only covers the reception for three releases of the game; Wii U, PlayStation, 3DS, etc. are nowhere to be seen. JOEBRO64 19:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- That's not a major issue because, as we know, the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions of the game are identical (as well as the 3DS and Vita versions), and the Xbox One, PS4, Wii U versions are also identical (and additionally identical to Win10 and Mobile versions as well). Since these are the only two differing versions from the Java version, they have been covered in that section since they run identically to platforms which have been listed in that section. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Looking at the article now, I noticed a major issue. The reception section is incomplete. It only covers the reception for three releases of the game; Wii U, PlayStation, 3DS, etc. are nowhere to be seen. JOEBRO64 19:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy Close This is currently remaining as an open task on the WP:VG page but no one has contributed to this discussion (excluding myself) for a while. I believe this discussion should be closed. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- The article should cover how the software has become a service, given the wide variety of platforms on which it appears. If not explicitly, then would suffice to cover why the title was ported to these platforms and their effects (not just release dates). This is basic breadth within the scope of what a "Good Article" must cover. Yes, Be bold and fix minor points, but the Reception section is clearly short of GA quality for a topic of this stature. Nothing wrong with calling attention to that. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 08:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Czar: Is it not obvious as to why it was ported? If by calling it a service you are referring to how it is continually upgraded and updated, then I would agree with you that the article should cover that issue. However I would suggest that the platform releases do not need to be discussed in such detail as to the 'effects' of their releases as they've all more or less had the same effect (excluding the educational edition). I think it would suffice to mention the effects of the java edition, the C++ edition (which is essentially all of the other editions) and education edition rather than to go into every detail for the nearly 20 versions of the game. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- The quantity of Minecraft ports is on par with Doom. There is plenty to be said about the basic differences between ports
Have you ever heard the saying, "There's no such thing as bad pizza?" No matter what, pizza's good by virtue of being pizza. A similar thing could be said for the many different versions of Minecraft. There really isn't such a thing as "bad Minecraft," just versions that aren't as good as the others. That's why, in spite of its many shortcomings, the New 3DS version is still an enjoyable Minecraft experience, even though it's not a great version.
— IGN on New Nintendo 3DS
Not that each version needs a deep dive, but if the critical consensus is that the portable and microconsole versions share deficiencies, or if some versions excel at aspects of gameplay that others don't, that needs to be covered for basic breadth. czar 10:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)A big part of Minecraft's success is how the game is available on basically every platform you can think of.
— Engadget on Apple TV
- Also basic updates since the article first hit GA, like reducing the emphasis on announcement dates throughout in the development so it doesn't read like a blow-by-blow, and instead explaining aspects like how it isn't fully cross-platform, how the iOS release has dominated the sales charts, how it spawned mobile-specific clones (sales figures and clones are PC-centric right now, discounting the past several years) czar 11:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- I've just done a read-over of the article, and I'm still not convinced this is GA-level stuff. In addition to the reception section being incomplete, the development section barely even talks about how they made the game, and there are numerous unsourced statements. Also, I'm seeing weasel words like "it was announced" and entire sections composed of just release dates. The lead also doesn't really do a good job of summarizing the article (and if it does, then holy moly this article's missing a lot of information). Czar, any objections if I delist this now? JOEBRO64 13:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- The point of the GAR is not necessarily to delist but to give page watchers a target for cleanup when the issues are substantial. Usually it's best to raise these points on a talk page before advancing to a formal process like GAR. Above, page watchers said to have addressed the minor issues soon after you raised them, so it's only fair to give them time to address the points I just articulated for the first time. (Though, to be fair, there was at least one talk page comment on the Pocket Edition's outdated reception.) Also this GAR has already been archived on the talk page, so I'm going to dig it up again, ping past contributors (@FutureTrillionaire), and leave a courtesy talk page message for due diligence. czar 01:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- The quantity of Minecraft ports is on par with Doom. There is plenty to be said about the basic differences between ports
- I said this during GA nomination and I'm saying it now: the article is not ready and cannot be for a few years at least. It hardly covers the many game's ports. A lot of it is unsourced. Lots of various content is missing. The game was and still is actively developed, so the article is not keeping up with outdated gameplay and such. Etc. etc. This is one of the biggest games ever and the article does not approach the inclusive coverage or depth it would require. Even basic issues like copyediting or organization are not ready. I believe it should never have been promoted to begin with. Unfortunately, I do not believe we can bring it to GA during the lifetime of this discussion -- there are just too many things to address yet. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Closing comment: this review has been open for almost six months, so I think we should get some closure. In addition to my concerns, both czar's and Hellknowz's comments are unaddressed. Once this page is updated, stable, properly sourced, and comprehensive, it can be renominated. JOEBRO64 21:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
