Talk:Minecraft: Difference between revisions
→Crafting: new section |
→Crafting: new section |
||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
"his desire to rip off Infiniminer resulted in the development of Minecraft. The developer did have other ideas for video games, but it's hard to say no to "innovating" an open source codebase" <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.192.14.73|209.192.14.73]] ([[User talk:209.192.14.73|talk]]) 09:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
"his desire to rip off Infiniminer resulted in the development of Minecraft. The developer did have other ideas for video games, but it's hard to say no to "innovating" an open source codebase" <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.192.14.73|209.192.14.73]] ([[User talk:209.192.14.73|talk]]) 09:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== Crafting == |
|||
The block diagrams and crafting recipe diagrams from the miniwiki that was removed yesterday should be added to the main page or added to a link please |
|||
== Crafting == |
== Crafting == |
Revision as of 17:50, 18 August 2010
This article was nominated for deletion on 25 June 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Creation
I just made the page because I was surprised there wasn't one already. I'm not an expert at wikis and so this article obviously needs work. I noticed also that this article was deleted before because of it being too new or something, and that's not the case now with something like 240,000 people playing. -KinoftheFlames (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Promotion Speedy Deletion
I removed the pricing and sales of the item. I'm not trying to promote the product, just give factual information. Nothing in the article tries to sell the game and whoever placed the tag on it as promotion should consider that the only marketing displayed was information about it's current and future price and its current sales.
But because apparently that information isn't allowed on wikipedia, I've removed it so the article can stay up. -KinoftheFlames (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- The last version of the article was deleted because there was no indication of notability. Even if this article is rewritten to be more encyclopedic, it will run into the same problem. It doesn't matter how many people are playing it. If it hasn't received coverage by reliable, third-party sources, it is bound to run afoul WP:N. Eik Corell (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- And that's precisely why I've gone to the next level with a proposal for deletion (a/k/a {{prod}}). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Minecraft has received coverage by reliable third-party sources, though. Actually, the deletion of the second article (which was going pretty strong up until this point) happened just after someone removed references to the Minecraft articles in PC Gamer UK and PC PowerPlay (for good reasons, so I think that's a bit of everyone's fault for just removing the references instead of fixing them, and then not working to resolve the situation after they were removed). The two articles don't seem to have any online counterparts, but scans of the articles can be found here (PC Gamer UK issue 204) and here (PC Powerplay, unknown issue), to show that they're definitely there. More articles can be found at Rock, Paper, Shotgun here and here, and an interview with the developer about making Minecraft on Gamasutra is here, plus a review for the game at Jay Is Games here. Also, if need be, I can try to rewrite the current article to fix writing issues and grammar issues, and try to make it more encyclopedic in tone, but I'm almost certain that this topic is notable enough to warrant an entry in Wikipedia. --Joshua.giles (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Zombie Article
This article is just like a Zombie! Keeps getting deleted and coming back from the dead! At any rate, I do feel the need for this article to be here. I know I myself have gone searching for it a few times both before it was deleted and after.
We really need to find some more sources for this. This game has to be notable in some way, if we all work together I'm sure we can research enough and find the sources we need! :D --Jaryth000 (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Well if Dwarf Fortress is considered a "noteworthy" article when only 7 out of 17 sources are NOT coming from the developer's website and of which only 4 are credible, then Minecraft only needs 4 as well. Especially considering how similar the games are (both small production value, indie developers, huge fanbase, in alpha). ---- I'm very unpleased on how some articles on wikipedia are marked for deletion primarily because they have little information on the page. I mean if someone wrote 1000 words for this article it would only be marked as lacking sources, not lacking notability. - KinoftheFlames (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
--
-Well, I'm really not sure how note worthy the Team Fortress 2 blog is, but even still They've posted a story about they're enjoyment of Minecraft: http://www.teamfortress.com/post.php?id=4130 --Jaryth000 (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
-Another one: http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/07/29/community-heroes-notch-for-minecraft/ --Jaryth000 (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism?
"his desire to rip off Infiniminer resulted in the development of Minecraft. The developer did have other ideas for video games, but it's hard to say no to "innovating" an open source codebase" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.192.14.73 (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Crafting
The block diagrams and crafting recipe diagrams from the miniwiki that was removed yesterday should be added to the main page or added to a link please
Crafting
The block diagrams and crafting recipe diagrams from the miniwiki that was removed yesterday should be added to the main page or added to a link please