Forum:Collaboration naming scheme

I've noticed that a lot of pages about collaborations with Minecraft are using a Minecraft x Brand naming scheme. I dislike this naming scheme for multiple reasons:

1. It's horrible for search, the articles all start with "Minecraft" so you have to type a lot more than normal to even get a correct suggestion.
2. Most of the pages have no naming conflict with the brand name, often just the brand name is even a redirect to the "Minecraft x" page.
   • The few naming conflicts that do exist are with maps or other marketplace content, which itself is part of the collaboration and mentioned on the "Minecraft x" page. Those conflicts can be easily resolved by moving the content to something like "Sonic the Hedgehog (map)", allowing the full collaboration overview page to take the "Sonic the Hedgehog". The map in question would still be linked from and summarized on the overview page anyway.
3. We are the Minecraft Wiki, a connection to Minecraft is always implied.

All in all, the "Minecraft x" prefix is a needless disambiguation that doesn't need to be there. Describing the collaborations directly at the brand name works just as well while providing a cleaner page title.

As such I would like to propose the removal of the "Minecraft x" prefix from collaboration page titles. -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support as proposer -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support changing the page titles. However, the introductions of those articles can (and probably should) still say "Minecraft x Something" if that's the official name of the collaboration. | violine1101 ^(talk) 13:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, if it is the official name it should still be mentioned in the article intro. Just for the page title it would be superfluous. -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - I propose a caveat on point #2, the most commonly visited page should get the base page name because we want to maximize the number of users who get to the right page the first time. I don't have any specific example where this is the case, just something I wanted to bring up Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 13:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

That would be impossible to confirm when creating the pages and difficult to keep track of later on. Would we need to rename the pages every time it changes? The collaboration page will provide an overview of all the parts and link to them, so even someone looking for the map specifically will get some basic information for the collaboration page as well as a clear link to the correct place for more details. Additionally, the collaboration pages might get more content in the future with more collaborations between them and Minecraft, this is less likely to happen for specific parts of a collaboration. Therefore I think having the collaboration page consistently be the base is the best option. -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support per the above and Markus' later clarification that the collaborations get the base page name. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support — 👁 Image
Delycache ^{(Talk | Contributions)} 16:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - I agree with removing “Minecraft x” from collaboration pages, with an exception for collaborations with the movie.Drour1234 (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support If it’s sinking article results I feel like the article names should be changed and something along the lines of “stylized as Y x Z” should be mentioned in the lede if it's a name actually used in marketing campaigns by either brand. -BrianGLHF (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - Ssysi - talk 05:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

My apologies if this is really obvious, but can you give a few examples? Just out of curiosity, no opinion. - Jack McKalling (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I can think of "Minecraft x Hello Kitty", "Minecraft x SpongeBob SquarePants" and "Minecraft x Tetris" which could all respectively be renamed to "Hello Kitty", "SpongeBob SquarePants" and "Tetris" for example. The "Minecraft x Brand" naming scheme never being used for any of these collaborations AFAICT. - Zamburger (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support on basis that the proposed solution feels to me like better (more natural) naming convention. Frisk (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support. I cannot think of any benefit in keeping this naming scheme. - Zamburger (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support, makes sense to me. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
20:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support, seems like a much more natural scheme. - 👁 Image
alizard (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support — 3A |  T  C  04:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support Realshow19 (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - Unless the official collaboration name is "Minecraft x Brand", the article titles should simply carry the name of the affiliated brand. FlashGiant (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Even collaborations which actually use "Minecraft x Brand" should get the simpler page title, their actual title can be mentioned in the page intro. -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Comment - This is a casual note: But a lot of other Wikis dont include the name of their franchise in crossover page titles. Using Halopedia as an example our main page on Minecraft isnt "Halo x Minecraft", "Minecraft x Halo", or some variation of that but just plainly "Minecraft". Now you lot can choose to disregard how other wikis do this, but I feel its useful to keep in mind other your fellow other wikis handle this. - CIA391 (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)