Forum:Creating a "Community" namespace

I think it's about time that we make a Community namespace on MCWEN (English MCW).

This has been implemented on the Brazilian Portuguese Wiki at pt:Comunidade, and I roughly machine translated and used my mediocre Spanish skills to translate as well that page at User:PhoenixAsh89/Community.

There are many a few reasons for this:

• Why not? MCWPT has it, and it would help with:
  • Unofficial BE Marketplace content
  • Unofficial JE mods such as Aether
  • Popular Minecraft YouTubers/streamers that didn't make that cameo in AMCM

Here's something to think about. Realshow19 made a redirect for Actions & Stuff (I'm going to abbreviate it in future contexts as A&S) to Marketplace because of Special:SearchDigest on July 5. That means that enough people were searching for A&S to cause them to make a redirect. That means that however many users were trying to get to A&S were redirected to the Marketplace page, and that page has absolutely no mentions of A&S. It actually ranked 1st/2nd in the top packs bought in 2025 in the Marketplace. I made a page for it way back a long time ago (it was actually only New Years' day (Jan 1) of this year), and it has two translations, Portuguese and Ukranian, and is, by all main standards, a functional Wiki page.

I hope that we can get some concensus as to whether or not this should be implemented.

👁 Image
PhoenixAsh89 (talk) (contribs) 15:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support as proposer. 👁 Image
PhoenixAsh89 (talk) (contribs) 15:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Erm... Side note: I haven't finished rendering all the mobs for A&S, and there's a whole section that's empty.... But it's still a functional page. It's slightly better than some drafts at MCW:Projects/DLC . 👁 Image
PhoenixAsh89 (talk) (contribs) 15:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose “Community” namespace — if we are to create new namespaces, dumping different categories of stuff like content creators and Marketplace addons into a single namespace makes little sense in my opinion.

👁 Image
 Unsure on unofficial content in general — given its truly ginormous amount we might not be able to manage all of that; see also MCT:Notability#Allowing pages about third-party content. I’d like to note that EnMCW used to cover mods in its early history but they were unfortunate to be quite neglected, so they were dumped away. The idea was that FTB Wiki and dedicated mod-specific wikis would cover them instead (however, FTB Wiki — which is currently undergoing a seemingly unending forking process — appears to have marginally active right now). However, these specific wikis are usually English-only, and FTB Wiki has the much-derided Translate extension, so covering mods on non-English versions of MCW may make sense. — BabylonAS 15:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support, there is already a community namespace on the french wiki. Can I write now ? (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like a way to start making this wiki a "Fandom" wiki. – ItsPlantseed ⟨₰|₢⟩ 19:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I am simply mimicking other Wikis, and making a proposition that might benefit this Wiki. 👁 Image
PhoenixAsh89 (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support, as I, and many others, would find it helpful, but I fear that the opposing arguments will be much stronger than the supporting ones. 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
20:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Soft Support — 👁 Image
alizard (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Neutral There’s certainly some benefits to having fan content here, but even setting aside the inherent problems with notability of unofficial content, there’s a lot of overlap. People generally aren’t put on namespaces since they tend to end up being involved with multiple media, and there’s already community members like Mumbo Jumbo and Grian with pages. Would they have to be moved? The reason they have pages is because of official collaborations like acting roles. Either they’d be moved, which could imply other creators on the namespace have official ties, or they’d be awkwardly separated from other people they’re close with.

A compromise could be establishing carefully tailored rules for third party content in things like Marketplace Pass. I’d definitely say Actions & Stuff is notable, in the sense that it’s important to the community and sponsored by Mojang, but not official. However we do this it should be made clear that anything not part of the franchise is actually significant, not simply a subject some editor is a fan of. We already have similar rules in place for event content and sequel DLC. Realshow19 (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I was just talking about content creators because of the Brazilian Wiki. I honestly have no real stance on them. I'd say that content featured in the "Let's Play" articles on minecraft.net is notable enough, but like you said, there need to be specific sets of rules for this. Java mods are a little eh, because there's no kind of Marketplace in JE, only really liked and supported mods. 👁 Image
PhoenixAsh89 (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Social media accounts are definitely a good starting point, there’s a few pages already that touch on Mojang-created content promoting third party media. As far as Java mods go, the Aether is certainly historically significant enough to warrant an article, and I’ve been toying with a Mo Creatures page. The idea was it would document the history of its relation with Mojang, if that works out maybe similar logic could be applied to mods like Quark or Tropicraft. Realshow19 (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Java mods... you mean also for PojavlauncherdDL ? Andrew67 (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Neutral on Marketplace content – that is available in game, so it kind of makes sense. 👁 Image
 Oppose JE mods as the scope is too big. Also 👁 Image
 Oppose popular content creators, that is a huge can of worms I don't want to open.  Nixinova   T   C   01:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose everything. I don't think documenting mods here make sense, and the "the scope is too big" argument applies to both BE and JE content. 👁 Image
 Stronger oppose for content creators since they notoriously attract "controversies", and the really notable ones are on Wikipedia anyway. GIM Dianliang233 (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Weak Support BE Marketplace, but 👁 Image
 Oppose JE mods. --👁 Image
MCJA17 (talk, Project) 04:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I feel like if Marketplace content gets documented, then at least the notable JE mods should as well, such as the Aether. 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
04:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, mods that influenced Minecraft, like Mo' Creatures and Aether would be okay. 👁 Image
MCJA17 (talk, Project) 04:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I wouldn't be opposed to pages like that. Beyond just mods, we have a lone spleef page and nothing else really like it. Could be nice to make pages on other minigames, maybe based off whether they've ever been in official content. Realshow19 (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah that lonely little spleef page has always confused me. If this namespace is created, it would be a perfect place to move it to, and to create pages for other similar things, such as hunger games, or dropper maps (not The Dropper, just the type of map in general) 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
05:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
Yeah, community content that has affected Minecraft's development in some way is a good scope for eligibility. Aether, MoCreatures, Spleef, Ultra Hardcore, all fit such a scope.  Nixinova   T   C   10:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed Andrew67 (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I 👁 Image
 Oppose this as per everything Dianliang233 and Realshow19 have said.Drour1234 (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 I support the idea of adding a namespace for the community. We already have the {{Navbox fanon}} for community stuff here, so why not document other relevant community topics? I think creating just one "Community" namespace to document all community topics is better than creating several other namespaces, like "Mod", "Creator", etc. If this idea is approved, I'm not sure it's a good idea to use the Portuguese version as a base, because the community space there is very neglected and a bit messy, and ends up being left aside.
  — Herobrine222376 ^{( Talk | Contributions | pt-br )} 11:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Neutral 87.6.84.138 14:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 I strongly support nothing! I see this completely against the order of our wiki, which may be lost to mass disruptive editing indirectly caused by accepting the proposal. The more popular among the community the content, the higher the risk of becoming a high target for vandalism, uncivil attacks and/or false information, among other chaos. And we never accept WikiChaos. Moreover, neutral point of view has to be followed heavily, especially if it involves a highly liked or dangerously controversial content creator. For instance, pages about Technoblade had been vandalized, and it was difficult to deal with such vandalism about a specific content creator, let alone the entire community. As such, there must never be such a thing as a Community namespace before we take care of and double-check all the rules and beyond in order to prevent fandom mayhem, and if necessary carry all the burden of fighting vandalism on the Community namespace, which is heavier than a tower of anvils all the way to build limit. 👁 Image
BigEarsQuake 2 20:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I feel like if a page is about something/one controversial then it can just get semiprotected so opinionated IPs dont add stuff. 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
20:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

There are disruptive accounts as well, some with even offensive usernames... I told you it's a heavy burden. 👁 Image
BigEarsQuake 2 20:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

If they have an offensive username they'll probably get blocked efore getting autoconfirmed. I personally feel like we as a community are strong enough to deal with it 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
21:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I think, but I'm still against as not everyone stops disruptors on time, and Community is literally a bait for those people, fans and haters alike. 👁 Image
BigEarsQuake 2 21:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Thats fair, I wasnt trying to change your opinion, just raising counter-arguments :) 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
21:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose. As others have noted, the scope is way too big for community-made content, let alone where to stop when we also allow YouTubers and such in said namespace (which then could lead to another expansion and so forth, before we're finally Wikipedia: The Expanded Version). I believe the MCW should remain true to introductory sentence on its main page, i.e. documenting the Minecraft franchise and explained in MCW:NOTABILITY. I am of the opinion mods, add-ons and content creators (as an aside, I very much dislike the term "content creators") have their place on wikis like FTB. As much as I dislike directing to a Fandom wiki, the MCW is not the place for them. Perhaps a call to re-rail FTB's forking discussion? I believe the forgotten angle in this discussion is that there are still loose ends in the coverage of the spin-offs, relatively compared to Minecraft coverage in general. Not to mention properly integrating wiki.vg. If we already can't manage to tie these, how'd we manage to document to some extent the never-ending stream of mods, add-ons and content creators? Especially in the case of mods, we'd additionally be doing duplicate work because the aforementioned FTB wiki exists. No way we could even come remotely close quickly to what they've done without blatantly copy-pasting their work, let alone attracting editors when FTB is practically belly-up. By the time Fandom succumbs to its own enshittification we'd still be, optimistically, at half of what FTB offers today.

👁 Image
Some context specifically regarding Spleef. The very first rules revision stated the following in rule 2:

• Pages about very simple things, i.e. "House", "Deleting", "Bed" and others, are not allowed. These topics are very unnecessary as they are plain tasks anybody with a tiny bit of intelligence can do.
  • This includes pages about so-called "games" that are played in Minecraft. The only exception to this rule is Spleef as this is widely played and recognized by the entire community.

This thus made Spleef an exception to the rules, and ever since has remained the odd one out. The final iteration of the rule specifically mentioning Spleef was as follows: "This includes pages about so-called "games" that are played in Minecraft. The only exception to this rule is Spleef as this is widely played and recognized by the community and Notch himself.", which was subsequently replaced by the more generic "Minigames are only allowed to be added if Mojang has claimed to have played them.". There are probably similar pages around which don't fit at all if you look at them with the current view of what's regarded "wiki-worthy", but which make sense if you turn the clock back five, ten or even fifteen years and have since been grandfathered in. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd not be opposed to the idea of a community namespace in general, although I'm not certain this is the best way to do it, and it definitely needs clearly defined notability guidelines. I think the current notability guidelines are already pretty broad and broad enough for lots of content that the wiki didn't traditionally cover.

For extending the notability scope, see also MCT:Notability#Allowing pages about third-party content. To repeat my statement from there: "I think we should cover this kind of content as long as said community has worked with/callaborated or been featured by Mojang (to a certain extent that we could define more precisely). Examples also include groups that have been featured in dedicated Minecraft Live / Minecon panels. Many of the [pages linked in the above discussion] I think are notable enough to cover by a wiki discussing the Minecraft franchise, though I do agree we shouldn't document every Minecraft YouTube channel." So to summarize: I think that a good guideline would be "how relevant is this to the actual game / the development of the game / how involved is Mojang?" – but this doesn't really need a separate community namespace. | violine1101 ^(talk) 01:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Similarly, I'd not be opposed to the general idea of covering specific notable mods that had some tangible impact on the game, though I'm not sure what the criteria of that would be. The focus of those pages should probably just be a brief overview and explanation of the mod, and leave all the details to other dedicated mod wikis. | violine1101 ^(talk) 01:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I have a draft for a Mo Creatures page that’s exactly this. I think we should probably only document something like this in full if it doesn’t otherwise have a wiki. Realshow19 (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose - Way too much of a pandoras box covering unofficial content. We don't need the drama/spam that it will bring for an extremely low benefit to players. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 15:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Suggestion I think it is a good idea, as maybe just mod launchers though. Kittenmew (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose. Community content are difficult to maintain, and it is difficult to establish the notability of this kind of content. ––– Aed8814 (C | T) 02:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support 👁 Image
72011copperfan2👁 Image
01:29, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support 👁 Link:User:Minecrafter13
(talk) 23:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Neutral Could be beneficial but is it really necessary? 👁 Image
Redstone Engineer (T/C/S) 15:47, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support ~2026-CookieMountainWitch1582 (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

So far, I don't see this going anywhere. It's the same back and forth thing. 👁 Image
Redstone Engineer (T/C/S/M) 18:43, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Did you see the other proposals? Realshow19 (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

No I hadn't. I'm reading them now as I just now saw them. 👁 Image
Redstone Engineer (T/C/S/M) 18:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support 👁 Image
/ Discussions 13:26, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support good idea 👁 Image
I Love Diamonds (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support for BE marketplace content and notable JE mods (like The Aether and Twilight Forest), 👁 Image
 Neutral on everything else. TGS (talk) 06:07, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• 👁 Image
  Making Bedrock Edition Marketplace contents pages which were mentioned by Mojang Studios and related to Minecraft.
• 👁 Image
  Making some contents that influenced Minecraft development. (e.g. The Aether, Mo' Creatures)
• 👁 Image
  Not making content creator pages.

-- 👁 Image
MCJA17 (talk, Project) 11:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support as proposer. --👁 Image
MCJA17 (talk, Project) 11:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Why would we expand community add-on coverage gargantuanly but only slightly expand community mod coverage? - Harri / Talk 👁 Image
11:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I firstly focused on the relation with Minecraft. How about fixing the proposal like -> Making Marketplace contents and mods which were mentioned by Mojang Studios or influenced Minecraft development.

Sorry for my bad English 👁 Image
MCJA17 (talk, Project) 11:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

How would we know that a mod influenced development? GIM Dianliang233 (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Something like this? 👁 Image
MCJA17 (talk, Project) 11:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, is there really anything confirming that, say, Other Portal is a deliberate nod to the Aether? — BabylonAS 09:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Direct acknowledgement, preferably. The Piston Mod and & Mo Creatures are covered by that.  Nixinova   T   C   07:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Would being mentioned in a book be considered acknowledgement, even if it was a "one and done" mention? Im asking because if Im remembering correctly, at least one of the guidebooks mentions a mod or two, but I may be remembering wrong. I'll look through the ones I have later to verify this. 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
07:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Might depend on the context of the acknowledgement. If it’s offhand, like a caption saying “check out the rollerskating mod if you want to change this,” it’s pretty debatable. A few books though have devoted entire chapters to mods or similar content. For example, the anniversary book from last year has a section explaining the Uncensored Library. Realshow19 (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, I just cant remember if it was offhandedly mentioned, or if there was an actual dedicated section on it. Not really mods, but I know the PvP guide book mentioned an unoffical map, claiming it was Mojang's favourite. I personally feel like that would warrant a page creation. The only reason I didnt make the page is because between the publication of the book and now, the map was made official, and therefore has a page already 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
13:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to start keeping a list of everything tangibly acknowledged by Mojang. Even if not everything there turns out notable, it would be good to keep track of everything that could be. Besides books, there was a story published on the website about an unofficial add-on. The story is part of a wider series that is undoubtedly official, but only that one part is even related to an add-on, and as of now the page doesn’t really give context beyond mentioning it exists.

Some people have also told me they thought the fanon navbox was too small, so we should try finding more material to put there. Realshow19 (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support making those pages 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
15:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Started keeping the tally, feel free to add anything else you can find. Realshow19 (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I think that in cases like "A farmer's life for me", the add-on it is related to can be documented on that very page as a subsection since it isn’t official.Drour1234 (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Well I’m definitely not going to vouch for that specific add-on to get a page, but the problem with that is the add-on isn’t part of the story. It existed first. It could very well be promoted somewhere else, or simply be irrelevant beyond what’s already on the page. Realshow19 (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Hmmmm interesting Andrew67 (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Weak support I’d definitely be in favor of more historical fan content, but 👁 Image
 Opposed to expanding Marketplace pages. It makes some sense since it’s Mojang’s platform, but we already have carefully chosen rules for determining what’s official content. If we allow even more to be added then it would still have to be notable, not simply whatever Mojang allows there. Unless we got direct backing and a hundred more editors specifically for this I don’t think it’s possible to cover everything, at best it would just distract from important releases that still need pages.

Instead, maybe we could just make an exception for unique cases like Actions & Stuff. It’s not official, but it is fairly important to the community, and as said before it’s brought us traffic from people assuming it’s on here. If it’s been acknowledged in a book like the Uncensored Library was then it’s a no-brainer. Realshow19 (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Weak support 87.6.84.138 14:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose to expanding Marketplace coverage per Realshow19 — 👁 Image
Delycache ^{(Talk | Contributions)} 22:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong oppose. There are enough namespaces for this wiki. --2025 Whydeletemyaccs (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Buuut, what about people who want to know what mod launchers are safe? Kittenmew (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Even if we open the floodgates I'm not sure it's really our responsibility to document mod launchers, if they're shady enough we'd need to warn people about some they're probably not notable enough to cover in the first place. Realshow19 (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense then. Kittenmew (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Soft support 62.146.239.251 11:49, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Unsure I honestly am not too sure. I see how it can be beneficial but then there is people like Realshow 19th that have brought in more good pointed opinions. I think I will remain 👁 Image
 Neutral for now. I'll update if I change my mind but for now, I'm gonna have to think on it. 👁 Image
Redstone Engineer (T/C/S/M) 18:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support TGS (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I've already linked this on the page, but just to be sure everyone sees it I've started keeping a list of all possible candidates for community pages, based off what Mojang has acknowledged or could be considered efficient.

If it's not already obvious, this is food for thought more than a pitch. I don't expect, let alone want, most of these to get pages, but hopefully putting these all together should help give a good idea of what could warrant something. --Realshow19 (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support 37.161.204.19 08:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Any specific ones? This isn’t a proposal, just a list of options with pros and cons. Realshow19 (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

oh 37.161.204.19 18:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

btw i support making all of them in the community namespace 37.161.204.19 18:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

If we make a community namespace it shouldn't just allow anything people want. If we don't make one there should still be some set standards for community pages, evidently people are open to more but not an active push for them. Realshow19 (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

no, i 👁 Image
 Supported adding all the pages in that list in the Community namespage, not put anything we want, like mods 37.161.117.204 08:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support for pretty much all of them. Maybe also RealismCraft as well? 👁 Image
PhoenixAsh89 (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

RealismCraft I could see for similar reasons to Actions & Stuff, but if we do it I would keep it a low priority. There's a lot of official maps that still need to be covered first. Realshow19 (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. I just suggested it for the reason that it was used in the dynamic world promo, and it's textures were in the AMCM live event server. 👁 Image
PhoenixAsh89 (talk) (contribs) 19:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

That's a good point. If there's any others you think qualify feel free to add them to the page. Realshow19 (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support 78.212.13.200 08:45, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Anything I didn't mention is I'm opposed to. Any of these may have inconsistencies in reasoning when compared to each other so take those as you will. I made opposes under the assumption that we can't just have anything we like to have a page in the proposed namespace. 👁 Image
QwertyLilley [ talk ] 15:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I don’t think most of these warrant pages. The mods are there just because of the Actions & Stuff argument. I’m moreso trying to weigh all possible options and find sensible criteria, for now I think we should stick with the Aether and Mo Creatures. Realshow19 (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I propose that, instead of a namespace for the community as a whole, we expand our reach to cover servers. More specifically, featured servers. Wouldn't require a whole namespace necessarily, but there's an argument to be made that they constitute as official. At least, as a second party.

• They're directly partnered with Mojang, obviously.
• Thus far there have been only six servers at any one time, and even then only two have left.
• The Hive has been a frequent partner outside of the server. They've released several pieces of official Marketplace DLC, and were responsible for the Universal Studios Event, which even had easter eggs referencing their main server.
• The Hive and Galaxite servers have both been involved with official collaborations, both of which we still don't have full documentation of.
• A skin pack by Mineplex was referred to as a promo for Minecon 2017, which itself had a whole segment to promoting the featured servers.

How I see this looking is that we would have pages for common fixtures of servers, with sections for each featured server's takes on it. For example, a Hide and Seek page, or an attachables page, which could also benefit event server coverage. --Realshow19 (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I am 👁 Image
 Neutral on this.Drour1234 (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not sure this would be a great idea myself, I just want to consider all options. It feels pretty close to our already agreed upon Marketplace rules, if people really want to cover fan stuff specifically here I'd like to make sure it's still official in some capacity. Realshow19 (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

same 51.159.195.186 17:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Weak as a cracker Support I think this is a decent idea and could work but I'm not to confident on it. 👁 Image
Redstone Engineer (T/C/S/M) 18:51, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

This is my final attempt at trying to revive this in any way by form of any tactics.

At the very least, is Actions & Stuff worthy of its own Marketplace page? I've seen two (!!) official references of it in official Mojang media (the may be more, but both of those are documented on the page), and among other things, it's pretty much in the top 5 texture packs on the Minecraft Marketplace. I don't care if you say yes or no, I'm just trying one more time to push A&S out into the mainspace.

👁 Image
 Support, if that means anything to anybody. ~ 👁 Image
PhoenixAsh89 (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Just noting again that it's been translated twice and is linked from the Brazilian Wiki page to mine, which is unprofessional, for one (not gonna lie), but also we can't just get rid of the interwiki. 👁 Image
PhoenixAsh89 (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I would say that it's notable, but doesn't meet notability; an argument could be made for it as an exception, but our main priority is covering official content. Uncensored Library is in a similar place, it's not official to the franchise, but it's important enough Mojang has invested in promoting it. Realshow19 (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support I believe that A&S is very relevant, even more so than most official packs. Regarding the draft, it needs changes, an update, and the addition of more information. Documenting only a few articles considered "most relevant" can lead to some issues of notability, especially in defining what is or is not relevant, but I still support the idea. - 👁 Image
Herobrine222376 | Talk 00:44, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with @Realshow19 that A&S doesn't meet notability, your draft even mentions that it is restricted in using custom skin geometry due to not being an official collaboration.

An option would be to have it in mainspace as an exception to the rule but a discussion on that should probably take place elsewhere (in another forum topic or on the community portal) and not be hidden in a barely related forum topic. -- 👁 Image
Delycache ^{(Talk | Contributions)} 16:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support The Exception: If many users truly are searching it, It most likely needs a page. If I were wanting info on it, I would hate to search it and instead get a bunch of useless to me information on the marketplace that I wasn't looking for. Plus, I have seen Mojang mention it a lot so I think this is fair. Me, myself, and I would definitley help make that page since I love my actions and stuff. 👁 Image
Redstone Engineer (T/C/S/M) 18:54, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose any exception. Allowing third party content is a slippery slope, and FWIW I also disagree with the Uncensored Library having a dedicated article. --Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 17:48, 26 May 2026 (UTC)