Forum:Document official marketplace content

I propose that we allow the creation of pages for Marketplace content (add-ons, mash-up packs, worlds, skin-packs, resource packs, and anything I've missed here) that has an official Minecraft franchise logo in its thumbnail.

Why that criteria?

If you go on the marketplace and you scroll through everything, you'll quickly realise that the only content that has an official minecraft logo in its thumbnail are things either released "by Minecraft" (therefore obviously official), or things made by other creators but are still officially promoted and endorsed, examples of this are things like the April Fools 2024 add-on, the 10th anniversary map, the Spongebob map, etc. It makes sense that collaborations such as Frozen or Nerf World would be allowed the logos and be official, because obviously Mojang needs to have had an agreement with these brands to allow the maps to exist, no random creator can just make and publish a Spongebob map.

So my guess is that creators usually aren't allowed to add official minecraft logos to their content's thumbnails, and only official content is allowed it, the logo acts as a stamp of being official. This makes sense when you consider that Mojang is also picky about us using their official logos, both in our own logo and infoboxes. Although I'm confident in this, I've heard that Marketplace rules like this aren't public knowledge since creators sign an NDA before learning of them, so we can't be 1000% sure, though I am 99% sure.

Therefore, to me, logo in thumbnail equals official. And the aim of this proposal is to allow official Marketplace content to be documented. Because of course, we do not want to be documenting every single piece of marketplace content.

Why document official Marketplace content?

I think we should be as expansive as possible in our documentation of this game, within limits of course. Bedrock is the more played edition by a long shot, and the Marketplace is a big part of that edition, yet we document it extremely sparingly I find. A lot of these older resource packs are really iconic, like the plastic texture pack and super mario texture pack, yet we don't really document these anywhere. Other wikis document some of these mash-up packs better than us as well, see MarioWiki and Halopedia's pages on their respective mash-up packs. I understand that most people won't care about a Spongebob world or something, but I'm sure we all have fond memories of the Legacy Console Edition texture packs at least, and those are still actively updated. We could be documenting the updates these texture packs get as they release. So if we have a neat criteria that ensures we only document official marketplace content, therefore not allowing random creator's content to be documented, why not document it?

It also seems like Mojang will be giving Bedrock some April Fools content every year, this year they promoted the Bedrock add-on alongside the Java snapshot, yet we didn't document the add-on at all. Someone actually was trying to document it but we had to remove it because pages for add-ons aren't allowed.

Also note, the 10th anniversary and 15th anniversary maps technically aren't allowed to be documented, since they are made by other creators. I think these maps are really important to document, they're a pretty big deal, just like the event servers they do each year. Event servers, to be honest, feel like they shouldn't be allowed to be documented on this wiki since they're not made by Mojang and are only promoted/published by them. They're the same level of official as the Spongebob map or April Fools add-on pretty much. So this proposal would set in stone that those event server pages are indeed allowed to exist.

And of course, having more pages on more content is going to mean we get found more for more searches, and that's great!

How do we document them?

A couple points about how we should go about this:

• All information about a certain piece of content (mash-up pack, skin pack, etc) should be documented only on that one page. Everything about the Halo mash-up pack, for example, is documented only only the Halo mash-up pack page. We could have redirects for specific content in the mash-up, but there shouldn't be individual pages about everything in them.
• We'd need new infoboxes for this, and navboxes.
• We could layout the lists of content similar to version pages.

I don't want to say exactly how we format all these pages, because I think it might be better to see how this goes and then create a proposal for a specific style guide layout later if problems arise. Admittedly, half the reason for that is that I don't want to write an entire style layout on top of this already very wordy proposal. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
13:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support as proposer. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
13:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support BrianGLHF (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support Marketplace content is a fairly large part of the franchise history. As long as this wiki is striving to be for Minecraft the franchise and not Minecraft vanilla, I think it's important we cover everything under the brand. For that matter, many Marketplace maps were made specifically to promote specific updates, and were even used in marketing for them, like Timeless Trails. Practically speaking, Marketplace articles could also be good ways to improve SEO. Imagine some kid got stuck on the SpongeBob map, and used the wiki as an honorary strategy guide. Realshow19 (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 14:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support documenting official and officially licensed marketplace content. 👁 Image
 Note that there isn't anything actually disallowing such content at the moment. MCW:Notability only disallows third-party content and the discussion on MCT:Notability just re-confirmed that the rule doesn't apply to officially licensed content. -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

This forum makes it clear (to me) that we should add a clarification on Marketplace content to the Notability section. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 17:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support - HepiChestCow (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support This is definitely needed, as long as we document ONLY official marketplace content

Element (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I want this clarified though. Don't official statements on X (formerly Twitter) take precedence over any logo or lack of a logo in the marketplace? I would expect as much. I would also expect any repeated verification from minecraft.net (emphasis on repeated here, because minecraft.net articles are written without much restriction and are prone to have too much false information in them to be trusted. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 17:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean "official statements on Twitter"? As in, Mojang stating that something is official? I don't know why or when Mojang would say bluntly "X is official" on their social medias. Same goes for anything on minecraft.net. Even if they often did for some reason say that, it's questionable if a social media tweet is a better sign of official-ness than the logo, so I don't know if it takes precedence, but I don't think that'll be an issue. If you're talking about Mojang promoting Marketplace place maps on their social medias, and if that counts as them being official, then no it doesn't. They promote tons of random Marketplace content that they don't create or publish. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
18:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you name an example of Mojang promoting random unofficial Marketplace content? I cannot think if any. Thus, then your argument would not hold any weight.Drour1234 (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Look at the minecraft marketplace twitter account. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
21:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Name specific examples.Drour1234 (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

…the most recent tweet? Though, see what Brian said. I don’t think this topic is particularly important either way considering the idea of mojang stating “this marketplace content is official” and it not including the logo is not a hypothetical that seems realistic. I’d rather decide what we do about that if we ever see that happen honestly, it’d be easier to decide when we see it happen. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
23:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

By then, all the relevant tweets will be buried. Also, see my response to BrianGLHF below their response to you. Can you be more specific than saying the most recent tweet? It sounds to me like you are assuming things and do not have any evidence.Drour1234 (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

“Showcasing community creations available in the Minecraft Marketplace. Unlock an expanding catalog of Marketplace content with Marketplace Pass and Realms Plus!”

I don’t feel we should be looking there to make a decision on what is or isn’t official. The purpose of that specific account seems to be to market content on the marketplace regardless if it’s official or not. -BrianGLHF (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

That is just marketing for the Marketplace Pass and Realms Plus. There are no examples of Mojang specifically marketing specific unofficial content.Drour1234 (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

You might want to check that again :) https://twitter.com/MinecraftMarket

Anyway, the onus is on Simanelix to show examples of existing situations where the marketplace content doesn't have a Minecraft logo but they feel is officially announced as official on social media -BrianGLHF (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I feel the criteria in the proposal is adequate. Can you provide any examples of existing situations where the marketplace content doesn't have a Minecraft logo but you feel is officially announced as official on social media? -BrianGLHF (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support – should be fast tracked to allow documenting the anniversary map. GIM Dianliang233 T C 03:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support seems reasonable enough, as long as items/blocks/mobs introduced in maps and add-ons are described in the relative map/add-on page and not on separate pages.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 12:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this sentiment 👍 -BrianGLHF (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Notice - There is a new discussion and proposal made to widen the scope of what we consider notable second-party content that will be allowed to have pages on this wiki beyond what was agreed to here. I feel those that participated in the discussion here might be interested in participating in the other discussion at Minecraft_Wiki_talk:Notability#Allow_second-party_Marketplace_content_that_has_been_promoted_by_Minecraft -BrianGLHF (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)