I remember there has been a discussion on Discord at some point about including or not unseen mob renders (all purely speculative because, well, they're unseen mobs), and there seems to have been a consensus to keep them (or no consensus at all) since they are still there. However, I strongly oppose keeping them. They used to make sense when it was just mobs such as the black ocelot, the black wolf and the ancient villager (because they are in-game mobs reusing color schemes from armors existing in game) - but it is a slippery slope (how do you justify keeping one but not the other?). It also just gives the impression that fanon content is allowed on the wiki (which is not the case). - Zamburger (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Oppose having them . Olivia (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Strong oppose keeping them. 👁 Image
(talk|contributions) 19:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- I honestly think that some levels of it should be fine, as there's recreated texture and then the otter. But at the point of emerald pickaxes is beyond stupid. So I guess what we know should build up the basics. By the way, stuff like the Pajamalama and Ender Dolphin were mentioned for Minecraft Earth. 👁 Image
MinecraftFan1000 (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Strong support
- I will provide my reasoning for opposing the inclusion of "100% Fan-made renders" in the wiki.
- Firstly, as I mentioned in the summary, these mobs/entities are only referenced in item descriptions. Their textures, effects, models, design concepts, animations, and appearance are purely speculative. If a "Gallery" is needed, it should feature renders of the described items rather than unofficial mob models equipped with these items.
- Secondly, Minecraft Dungeons has ceased updates, meaning the mentioned entities will not appear in future iterations. Even if a sequel is released featuring these mobs, it's highly unlikely that Mojang would follow Fan-made renders for their design. Creating renders of mobs with a very low chance of implementation is irresponsible and wastes Wiki resources.
- Thirdly, I do not oppose fan-made renders for arcade edition and cinematic cutscene mobs. These are visual elements designed by Mojang and it is official. I believe we should refine existing renders rather than designing textures, models and animations for Mojang. The Minecraft wiki's purpose is not to be a game forum or a Minecraft mod wiki.
- Lastly, even in less popular game wikis like MCD and MCL, renders are important. You can see many YouTube videos, mods, and add-ons have utilized early incorrect renders, information, and even speculation content, demonstrating the significant influence of the Minecraft Wiki. Allowing "100% Fan-made renders" on Wiki pages risks repeating these mistakes, with potentially consequences.
- Additionally, I'm unclear why the previous two contributors strongly oppose for removing these renders, as no sufficient reason has been provided.
- Alan (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- They opposed keeping them, not removing them. -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 23:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- So, every image in the gallery is a made-up image of what someone thought the mob might look like if it were added to the game? They are not even recreations based on an official image? The style guide says "This wiki's purpose is to document facts. Therefore, always avoid personal commentary, speculation, and unsourced information." I'm guessing made-up images constitute speculation and should not be included in a main article.
👁 Image
Strong oppose the inclusion of speculation in a main article. Rampage455 (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- So these are just fan interperatations of a mob based on its name? Do we have any basis off which to make these? If it's just based on the name, I 👁 Image
Strong Oppose keeping these renders. If there is some source for its appearance which we copied into a render, that might be alright, but it doesn't seem to be that way. 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- These renders are not just based on the name. When it comes to the black ocelot, black wolf and warrior, they are simply recolours of the ocelot, wolf and evoker models after the shadow walker, black wolf armor and splendid robe textures.
- 👁 Image
👁 Image
👁 Image
- When it comes to the ancient illager soldier and ancient villager however, their render is way more speculative. Since we do not have a key model for either of them, and only know they wielded maulers and wore the fox armor respectively. The illager general's render is based on statues found in highblock halls, but it is not even known if those statues are representing the general. PedroDungeons1776 (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Strong oppose keeping the fan-made renders, this is pure speculation and it isn't allowed on the wiki.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 12:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- I removed the gallery from the page. The images were speculative, and it looks like we reached a consensus. Rampage455 (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Oppose keeping renders of mobs with no basis such as the ancient illager soldier. I believe we should keep renders of mobs for which we have enough information on to recreate fairly accurate renders. Such as the warrior, black wolf or black ocelot, recolours of mobs we have the models for, after textures we also have, but only under these circunstances and without adding made up animations or assets, like it has been done recently. PedroDungeons1776 (talk) 09:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
