Talk:Minecraft modding

#List of noteworthy mods

I've removed this section because it felt like WP:LISTCRUFT or WP:GAMECRUFT. Feel free to undo my edit if you disagree. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see how those lists would be either WP:LISTCRUFT or WP:GAMECRUFT. The list was solely made up of annotated notable mods. The list itself served an important purpose of highlighting what kind of mods there actually are, rather than just explaining how they were made and what their impact is.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 12:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

We definitely have lists with less info and sourcing, just looking at casts or characters or something. I don't think the information of the list was just gamecruft, but I do think the list would be better served as prose in the main article. In other words, picking out a few of the mods and explaining the ways in which they change the game. Thus telling the reader the different ways and mechanics in which the game can be modded and giving some real examples. That said, a lot of RSes actually make lists of MC mods, so the topic itself is arguably notable. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll follow up on that. That's a good idea.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 13:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

This looks very nice; good job :) ~Mable (chat) 08:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know to many good pc mods but comes alive mod is pretty good Ocelot334 (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Best mods for pocket edition

I want to make a good mod pack for mcpe Ocelot334 (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of the "Controversies" section

This section is riddled with problems, and they simply cannot be conventionally fixed. Any attempt to fix blatant factual errors in this section gets undone for not being supported by sources, but I'd argue that the entire section isn't supported by its current sources (dead links, invalid sources that don't support or even mention claims within the section, etc). The "Controversies" section just doesn't belong on this article. Edit: (21:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)) I realize that the section doesn't have to necessarily be removed entirely, but several unsupported claims definitely need to be addressed. — RezzedUp (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Technic history is essential

The development of the Technic Launcher and the Feed the Beast launcher out of mod permission controversies is an extremely important part of Minecraft modding history. Please stop deleting that section specifically, it needs to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rutibex (talk • contribs) 13:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It has to be covered by reliable secondary sources. Without secondary sources commenting on it, it's not important. You can find many vetted reliable sources at WP:VG/RS, as well as a link to a custom google search that will search them. -- ferret (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially the time one of the mod authors changed a mod to deliberately crash the game if it was in a .technic folder(either the dev for Forestry or Gregtech, I don't remember off the top of my head). Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 06:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Mod Coder Pack

I'm surprised to see no mention of MCP (Mod Coder Pack, originally Minecraft Coder Pack) in this article. Is there any information missing that would be required to extend the article? SeargeDP (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeargeDP (talk • contribs) 11:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

If you know of reliable sources that discuss the pack, we may add a mention. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Is being the creator of MCP considered good enough as a source? I can answer any questions about it and I should also still have archives of most of the stuff we did in the beginning. There are also public sources like the thread I created for the first release on the Minecraft Forums or this Tweet with chatlogs of the discussions in the first weeks of our IRC channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeargeDP (talk • contribs)

It needs to be a secondary source that is not connected to the subject. Primary sources (like your own published statement) are rarely appropriate and then only for minor uncontroversial facts. Claims, such as importance in a topic's history, require reliable sources, such as those listed at WP:VG/RS. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand. You are already referring to at least two sources in the article that mention MCP, are those sufficient secondary sources? They are A Brief History of Minecraft Modding and Notch: ‘Minecraft mod used to threaten my vision’ – Minecraft creator speaks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.150.134 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure that Packt is reliable, it doesn't have any of the usual hallmarks, primarily editorial staff. They are a publisher of third party content at best and the article is in the "Blog" section. That source should probably not even be at all in the article, unless the author themselves have credentials.

VG247 is fine overall, though it's not the actual source (Venture Beat is (but even then, it was a Reddit thread)). There isn't really significant content about MCP and it is not secondary as it is an interview with a partial party. We should not rely on interviews, though we can cite them for certain "X said Y" if reported by a reliable source. However, in this case, singling out the MCP mention would be undue attention. Persson didn't actually answer the question that mentions MCP, but replied about his overall stance on mods, thus it's not even about MCP. I think the article currently properly reflects this source that way. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

A large part of the history section is citing the Packt article. None of the modding related topics before 2012 in the history section is based on any other sources. It's hard to follow your reasoning in that context. If you apply the rules that you just outlined, the first modding related event you'd have in the history section would be the hiring of the Bukkit team in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.150.134 (talk • contribs)

Looks like this discussion is over. Another shining example of Wikipedia at its best. SeargeDP (talk) 10:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not the fault of Wikipedia that there are no reliable secondary sources that cover the specific details you want to include. The only source that covers it is by someone who is involved with modding themselves. You can add this content yourself, if you want, but all the content based on it needs to be completely rewritten. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

So, just to make sure I don't misunderstand you. The sources are considered either unreliable or not secondary sources, but you say I can add content about MCP myself? This is quite confusing, I would expect my contributions to be reverted if they are citing sources you don't consider reliable and I would also expect the existing content that's citing those unreliable sources to be removed. If you tell me that that's not the case I might add the information myself. But the whole point of starting a discussion here instead of just adding something to the article is that I was told that Wikipedia usually removes content that doesn't match their criteria and I don't waste my time.

And I'm not blaming Wikipedia for the fact that there are no sources that match the criteria, I'm pointing out that a huge part of the article is based on the same source that I brought up, so they are either considered good enough sources or, if not good sources, the content based on it should be removed. I'm also not sure what you mean by "all content based on it needs to be rewritten", are you expecting me to rewrite all the existing information based on the sources that I want to use if I want to add information about MCP in the article? SeargeDP (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used, but very carefully and very selectively. Usually, it would be either an interview or quotes published in a reliable source. For example, we could say something like "Aaron Mills, a contributor to Minecraft mods, explains the history of modding where X, Y and Z happened." But we cannot just say "X, Y and Z happened" as that would misrepresent the source. In this case, this is an involved party writing a blog post in (what I assume is) a site without editorial oversight. It's basically unreliable. We (you, anyone) can add unsourced content or content based on unreliable source that we still believe to be true, but any editor could revert it, because they can invoke burden of proof. I haven't removed the current content in the article, because I don't have time for this and I don't think it's false in the grand scheme of things. And if you added a short mention of MCP with the same citation, it would probably be okay. But if someone goes through the article strictly applying Wikipedia's sourcing policies and video game reliable source requirements, then yes, this source and any content it supports will get removed. I'm sure there are other unreliable sources here, like TNH Online or MakeUseOf. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain it with this much detail. I think I understand how things work around here now. SeargeDP (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Minecraft mods. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160216051233/http://crysis.tv/feed-the-beast-the-mod-wars/ to http://crysis.tv/feed-the-beast-the-mod-wars/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Mobile Mod Support

"Players who wish to mod their mobile games have to resort to an app called BlockLauncher, if they use an Android system. iOS users have to install a file called mcpedeb.deb. Additionally, if the player wants to play modded Minecraft on a phone or tablet that runs on iOS, then the device has to be jailbroken as well. In both the cases of Android and iOS, mods are written in JavaScript."

This is no longer the case (for two years!), as Add-Ons (as Mojang calls them) have been added to the Bedrock codebase releases. I would make changes saying how this is not the case (put it all in the past tense) and mention the official add-on support, but I'm a new user, and so cannot. :<

If someone can do this stuff before the page becomes unprotected, then go ahead (just inform me). If it doesn't get added by the time it gets unprotected, then I'll add it in.

Thanks! DudeTheNinja (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: I've done this all now. DudeTheNinja ( speak to me | spy on me ) 13:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)