Forum:Placeholder names for game drops

Summary

In the time between the announcement of a new game drop and the name reveal of that game drop, the pages describing the drop use placeholder names. For previous drops, these have been [NORTHERN HEMISPHERE SEASON] Drop [YEAR], such as Spring Drop 2025 and Summer Drop 2025. These names come from the first drop being named Winter Drop in the Java Edition experiment, and various other sources such as image names in minecraft.net articles and internal names for experimental behavior packs.

There is no consensus about how the drop pages should be named before the official name reveal, and whether the MCW:TITLE applies to these pages. In the discussion below, two major suggestions have been made for a new guideline about future placeholder names for game drops.

– Unsigned comment added by MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk • contribs) at 20:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC). Please sign comments with ~~~~

If you want to get a quick summary of this discussion, see #Pro/Contra arguments. | violine1101 ^(talk) 20:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Where is "fall drop" mentioned? I haven't seen any official mentions of it yet. Just curious.

I know there is that "leaked" poster, but that's not official. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 03:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I suggest to move this page to Drop 3 2025 and change all mentions of "Fall Drop 2025" to "Drop 3 2025" because that's the only official name we currently have. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
12:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I feel like there's precedent not to do that considering we left "Spring Drop 2025" and "Summer Drop 2025" even when neither were the official in-game name Sightnado (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

We should not be using precedent that was based on really nothing. If we have an in game term we use that, that's how we set page names wiki-wide.  Nixinova   T   C   23:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

There's the following text in the manifest.json of the experimental pack, in the Bedrock files:

"description": "Experimental behavior pack for Fall Drop 2025 content",

"name": "Fall Drop 2025"

- Zamburger (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Even if Fall Drop can be officially sourced, I prefer using Drop 3 2025 over Fall Drop 2025 because that's the only name visible in-game. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
12:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I do agree the article shouldn't got for "Fall Drop 2025, also known as Drop 3 2025" but vice-versa, for that reason. - Zamburger (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I suggest normalizing it to "Third Drop 2025", calling it "Drop 3 2025" feels awkward to me. Outrowed (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Mojang calls it the third drop of 2025 in their video and articles. But "Drop 3 2025" is the in-game name. Well, one of two in-game names. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 14:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I think both "Third Drop 2025" and "Drop 3 2025" are semantically the same. They refer to the third drop of 2025 when used in this context, and I don't think the readers can confuse both of them. It's also better sounding when used in sentences; instead of "The Drop 3 2025 adds copper golem, copper tools, ..." you write "The Third Drop 2025 adds copper golem, copper tools, ..." which is better in my opinion. Outrowed (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

It is also closer to the official name of "our third game drop of 2025". -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 14:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I think we should keep calling it "Fall Drop", that's way more practical and recognizable than "Drop 3". | violine1101 ^(talk) 09:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I got a problem with "Fall drop". The period a lot of us call Fall, that is, September, October, and November, is only actually Fall in less than half of the world. Right now, we'd say it's summer, but in reality it's summer and winter, 'cause the southern hemisphere exists. Factor in the tropics, and for proper NPOV we'd have to refer to it as either "Drop 3 2025" or similar, or else we'd be stuck with "Fall in the northern hemisphere, hot season in the tropics, and spring in the southern hemisphere drop 2025" which obviously isn't very intuitive. I cite the style guide and how we can't use seasons for release dates in infoboxes. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  23:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

MCW:Style guide#Date and time formatting, that is. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  23:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

The simple answer to this question is that fall for Mojang and Microsoft is September-November because they are based in Sweden and the United States. This also literally means that the drop will release during that time frame. So the release date window is September-November 2025. However, Mojang has stated that they wanted 4 game drops a year. So, each game drop would have 3 months of development.

Drop 1/Spring to Life began development in January and released in March.

Drop 2/Chase the Skies began development in April and released in June.

Drop 3/"Fall Drop 2025" began development in very late June and has to release in September. (September is only Quarter 3 month where fall is a season. I have evidence that the drop will release in the third quarter of 2025.

Drop 4/"Winter Drop 2025" will likely begin development in September and will definitely release in December because winter for Mojang and Microsoft begins in December, and we were promised 4 game drops a year.

There is a pattern here. Every game drop has 3 months of development to give the developers as much time as possible before they have to move on to the next drop.

I do have something to back this up with. This was confirmed by a Project Spicewood leaker whose leaks appear to be authentic. Even though this seems harmless, Mojang and Microsoft might freak out over the fact that the roadmap mentions the codename Spicewood and when it is planned to be announced and released. This doesn't reveal what said project is (in fact mentioning that they are working on something would build up hype), but I am not going to take any chances. If asked for a source, we can just explain that we know how Mojang and Microsoft interpret the seasons. We are not citing the roadmap for the reason I just mentioned above.

https://imgur.com/mcEk7go

https://www.reddit.com/user/CaramelCraftYT/comments/1i0hlll/minecraft_roadmap_leak_higher_resolution_remake/

The main point of this post was to argue that the name of the page should remain "Fall Drop 2025." I believe that I have provided enough information and evidence for the page to keep this name. We shouldn't need explain our reasoning for this particular decision with the roadmap. I just included it in case my previous arguments fall flat. (Just for the record, I successfully proved what the exact release date for Bundles of Bravery would be (I was right) and the month that The Garden Awakens would release. The information was not added at the time, because people doubted it. When it was proven to be true, I had the last laugh.) Please let me know what you think about this argument. Minermatt122514 (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks to me like you want me to hang my stance on "appear to be authentic". The toggle name (and therefore display name!) are a much more tangible piece of evidence than "oH, LooK oVEr HErE, This MaP is TotALLy rEAl!". So no, this is most certainly not enough evidence to prove anything. Besides, you haven't even properly refuted my argument. Earth is a sphere, tilted 23.5 degrees, rotating once every 23 hours and 56 minutes, orbits the sun once every 365.2425 solar days (24 hours in case you didn't know), I make that out to be two hemispheres experiencing different seasons. Plus the tropics equals... seasons can only be defined locally and most certainly cannot be defined for the whole world. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  15:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Lastly to your argument about how you were right: So? That doesn't exactly make you a prophet. It might've been true, but it easily could have been wrong! Garden Awakens, back just three days, I make that out to be... your prediction could have easily been wildly wrong. Mojang might have some secret patterns for their updates, but if I'm still sane, then I should remember your arguments... Oh yeah! Loads of speculation. It's like saying leap years will always happen every four years forever... Oh that's right, they won't. You really can't provide such evidence that it'll no doubt be wrong. Sure, you can work your way up to most likely, but there's no definites obtained in any method short of official confirmation. So, I respect your reasoning, but don't trust the right thing for the wrong reason. You were right, but whether or not your reasoning was correct, we'll likely never know. It might well have been a coincidence. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  15:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The wiki caters to an audiance beyond just the United States (and Sweden). Mojang knows this, so they don't call it the "Fall Drop" in writing or in the game as the in game display name itself, even if it's used internally in file names and the code. They will either use "Third Drop", "Drop 3", or the "Next Drop", or any other name that intentially avoids the seasons. The wiki must therefore must avoid using the seasons in article titles or as the main terminology in article prose. Delvin4519 (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Call it Fall drop. The last one was Summer drop. The style guide is a guide. MCW:IAR Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 19:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Well obviously that's a big part of the reason why we called the previous drops Spring drop and Summer drop. I started this discussion because I noticed that mojang's video called it next / third drop, and the game calls it Drop 3. So I was like "huh, that's kinda weird". Now everyone is analyzing the pros and cons of every name. And some people are trying to prove that they are right. And apparently Delvin feels offtended. And Minermatt122514 thought having a vote would be a good idea. But I don't think our wiki does votes, since that's divisive. I think? I'm not sure. Anyways, it seems to me like things have gotten a little bit hectic. Just a little. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 23:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I’m inclined to agree with your points, arguing to prove that one person is “right” over another really solves nothing, and I believe we should instead collectively focus on which naming scheme will be the least confusing/most accessible to users. 👁 Image
WillChill (talk | contribs) 04:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

That’s the most important goal imo, but the other things such as style guide are also important. For the style guide I think we can create a new set of guidelines specifically for upcoming Drop names after we reach an agreement on which naming format to use. Those are just my thoughts for it. 👁 Image
WillChill (talk | contribs) 04:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I notice how you took one half of IAR and ignored the other. Sure, rules might not be the best at times, but the page "MCW:IAR" is a redirect to "MCW:Use common sense". Rules can be broken when they prevent us from improving the wiki, not whenever we feel like it. So unless you have evidence that it should be "Fall drop" and that the style guide is preventing us from using the better name, using IAR as evidence here is an argument with no validity. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  16:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. ' you have evidence that it should be "Fall drop"'. That's what this discussion is for. To determine whether it should be or not. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 17:19, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, so basically IAR only applies if evidence is shown that it should be fall drop and no other name. Doesn't really do much except set the criteria for the page to be named something. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  22:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Uh - no. No, that's not at all what that page says. | violine1101 ^(talk) 11:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:What "Ignore all rules" means? How about that page? Does that serve your purpose of another thing to just simply deny? The style guide is just a guide, yes, but we should still follow that guide as long as it speaks the truth. If and only if the right thing does not follow that guide, then and only then can we disregard it. We can't just ignore what doesn't suit our arguments without evidence that we should ignore it. Here it seems to me that everyone else is just ignoring the style guide because hey, we should ignore everything and go along with whatever we please. World is two hemispheres? No problem. the south is "disregardable". Oh, so you want it to be fall drop because the double numbers look weird. Why not ignore everything, including more than half the geological world and all its inhabitants, just so we can have a supposed good name? I'll tell you why. Because the evidence for fall drop does not yet warrant us ignoring important aspects and guidelines of the wiki, heck, the entire south hemisphere, the tropics, and the arctic. Besides, you just brushing away my argument with "it doesn't say that"? Last I checked, we were advised to stay inside the top three layers of the hierarchy of disagreement. Your argument is just a contradiction, the fourth layer. Any evidence? Just kidding, I don't care right now. If I'm going to be treated with rudeness and disregard, then I don't see a point in continuing this discussion at all. If this is how a wiki works (by unreasoned argument, rudeness, disregard, etc.), then why am I even still here? Why am I still trying to keep calm when others do not even acknowledge my arguments? When others hardly even acknowledge me? Because I've tried to keep calm through it all, tried to get through this blasted argument, and this is all I get? "Uh - no. No, that's not at all what that page says." Is that all? If so, then I see no reason to continue. No reason to continue this discussion, no reason to continue editing, no reason to continue striving to improve the wiki. No reason to continue trying to have a good time here, no reason to continue putting up with having a hobby only a few have. No reason to continue making the wiki a part of my life. This might well be how I leave the wiki, just like Dhranios, who, judging by log action summaries, simply stopped putting up with disregard of tangible evidence. I didn't want to leave the wiki like this, but it seems to me like it probably will be. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  16:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

See, this is why I tried to tap out of this discussion, it was just pissing me off, as if I was the original Starwalker or something. But this is exactly my point. There's no good reason at all to use anything other than "Drop 3 2025". Is there any objective reason that "Drop 3 2025" is wrong? No? Then we should use that name. Simple as that. Sightnado ( talk | contribs ) 21:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Ive quit responding here as well, Im just still following it. At this point I dont even care whats decided anymore. 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
21:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't intend for my message to be perceived rudely or to attack you; I'd like to apologize if it came across this way.

My point is that the reason for this rule is that the style guide is not set in stone, and it's not necessary at all to have some kind of "evidence" for ignoring or improving it. That's the whole reason for WP:IAR to exist - it's meant to prevent unnecessary discussions around rules and guidelines in the case where a change obviously improves a wiki.

Now, we're in a situation here where there's two options where proponents of either side think that their option is obviously the right one. Which option here is the better one that actively improves the wiki is entirely subjective and not something that can be objectively decided based on evidence or some inherent absolute source of truth.

That's what this discussion is about: finding what's best for the wiki, both in the long term and in the short term. And then, ideally, writing that in the style guide, so that future page names can be based on that. | violine1101 ^(talk) 23:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Right. Therefore the style guide itself is no argument, and neither is IAR to any more extent than to say that the style guide isn't something that should be taken by itself as an argument. I think many arguments are based on the fact that while the guide itself isn't an argument, it's the assumed reasoning behind it which is where the valid points lie. In this case, it's presumed that if a name is up front in the game, that is, the "display name", is what Mojang intended for the wider audience to see because not everyone is actively trying to dive into the game files to find a name. I myself think that Mojang is based in the North, so they use the name that would be less confusing in the game code specifically for the people that work at Mojang (who would interact with the code name far more) and the more general name for the more general audience. Then there's the matter of the hemispheres; the style guide says we shouldn't use seasons and as such we usually shouldn't, but the reasoning still applies; we have a very wide audience, including people from both hemispheres and probably the other regions I mentioned, the arctic and the tropics. So we should use the less misleading name to avoid confusing those readers. Whether there's another point in the guide being cited, I'm not entirely sure, but I believe I have made my point. Whether other acknowledge it is irrelevant, even if I'm desperately hoping that reason is taken into account here. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  00:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so far we've gotten a grand total of... pretty much nowhere. No offense to anyone, but can we get to a consensus? I'm trying to see both sides of the argument but it's difficult for me not to be biased slightly. As far as I can see, the main arguments are that Drop 3 is more general especially considering the other, well, most of the geological world (again, tropics, south hemisphere, arctic) and is the display name of the experiment toggle (well... before it was removed). Fall drop on the other hand is used a lot by the community. I hate to be the one directly opposing one of the options so strongly, but I mean, wat other arguments are there for fall drop? -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  16:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Well I think Fall Drop is the best name specifically because we already called the last 3 drops by their season names. Also, I think Mojang might be calling them Drop 1/2/3 because maybe they want the drops to line up with the business quarters (Q1/Q2/Q3). That's pure skepticisim though. They probably also don't wanna confuse anyone who doesn't experience or care about the seasons. Also, another major problem is putting the season in the drop name will make players expect the content to actually match the season. Also also, Minecraft doesn't even have seasons in-game, so it really doesn't make sense to assosciate seasons with the game. It could very easily confuse players and make them expect seasons to get added to the game or make them expect added features to match the season. Or make them expect the drop to come out at a more specific time, like the very start of the season. All in all, using season names is a horrible idea for Mojang. For us, it is much more acceptable, since we can disambiguate and our wiki has a lot of resources for checking information about the game at large. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 17:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

1. What we did before doesn't really hold much weight here, I mean, we're saying that the style guide itself isn't an argument, it's the actual reasoning that is. So what is the reason behind us calling it by the season before?
2. True, but shouldn't we match whatever Mojang is using?

-~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  17:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, violine created the page "Spring Drop 2025" (Special:Diff/2812973). So shouldn't we ask him?

And my reasons that I listed are the only ones I can come up with. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 17:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Reason for why I called that page "Spring Drop 2025": the Bedrock experiment was named that way. See also https://twitter.com/SmokeyStack_/status/1877043357664378934 (the first reference added to the page a few edits later) | violine1101 ^(talk) 18:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The Bedrock experiment was very much named "Drop 1 2025"????????? Sightnado ( talk | contribs ) 18:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that it was exactly the same situation as with the current drop. The toggle was called "Drop 1 2025" but the internal behavior pack was called "Spring Drop 2025". Given the previous drop was uncontroversially called Winter Drop 2024, it made sense to continue the pattern given the evidence that this name was used by Mojang. -- jacobsjo (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Truuuee, but Mojang is still allowed to change their format, so, emm, no, that's not a good pience of reasoning; this seems like 3 updates that Mojang did option 1 with, and 1 where they did option 2. Mathematically, it's pretty clear that Mojang is now using what they would want us to be using. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  18:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Honestly, I see if this way.

Official term -> Drop 3 2025

Our own term -> Fall Drop 2025

I understand that Fall Drop is the name in the code, but we're choosing to use it over the display name. And Mojang's own usage of the terms seems to imply that Fall Drop is the name in the code and nothing else. Just like how witch huts are considered temples. If we're going to use the term Fall Drop, the only justification we can have is that we've chosen to stick with the decision made by violine months ago, essentially because we're just choosing to stick to our old ways and not change. Like, my argument is basically:

Our own arbitrarily chosen tradition -> Fall Drop

Any other logical reason -> Drop 3. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 19:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The behavior pack for the experimental toggle was called this way, and this tweet was one of the very first things people knew about the upcoming game drop (it being made only ~30 minutes after the preview released). I assumed the experimental toggle would have the same name (since that was the case for the previous game drop) so I just named the page that way. | violine1101 ^(talk) 19:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, perfectly logical. And by the same logic, the current page should be Drop 3, since we know that that is the display name. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 19:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

No, apparently we cannot. The Drop 3 2025 crew seem dead set on their stance, and I don't think any amount of arguments will stop that. I feel like settling on the in-game experiment name is the only consensus that this could reasonably end up on if a consensus is reached at all. Sightnado ( talk | contribs ) 17:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't see any good argument on the other side at all. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  17:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

also not me referring to a group that includes myself in the third person Sightnado ( talk | contribs ) 17:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

"I don't want to change my position, therefore my position is the only possible consensus". This is not how consensus building works - It doesn't mean anyone gets a veto. -- jacobsjo (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

LOL. Who said that? -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 18:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

That's my interpretation of what Sightnado said. (Maybe I shouldn't have put quotes around that.) If I misinterpreted it, then please correct me. -- jacobsjo (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I would be surprised if anyone thought they were right just because they're not willing to listen to anyone else. Usually people who aren't willing to listen are also unaware of that, or think they are right for a more fundamental reason, like that they are smarter / superior / just supposed to be right. I don't think anyone has the logic of [I don't listen] -> [I am right].

Logic of [I am better than everyone else] -> [I don't listen], and [I am better than everyone else] -> [I am right] (which are independent pieces of logic) makes sense and is very normal. But not [I don't listen] -> [I am right]. Like that's just weird and makes no sense. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 19:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Well... To me it seems like just that but with pretty much just not the therefore. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  18:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes exactly. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 19:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

That's definitely me, dude. I love talking about "Simon [this]" and "Simon [that]". Well, I usually talk like that when I feel really pleased or satisfied or ecstatic about something. I think it's another nuerodivergent thing. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 17:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

At this rate, the official name will come out before a consensus is reached! 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
17:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

That is the ideal situation, honestly. But then what will we do for the next drop? Let Violine name it? -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 17:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I do have a compromise suggestion that I'll post on this page in a moment | violine1101 ^(talk) 18:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I think this is something that we need to decide on generally for all future drops and should include in the style guide. From my POV, there's three different options:

1. Use the names "Drop 3 2025", "Drop 1 2026" etc. I think this is very awkward, but they're the official names mentioned in-game (Bedrock).
2. Use the names "Fall Drop 2025", "Spring Drop 2026" etc. These are easy to understand and referred to as such in the Bedrock game files (also for previous updates btw). However as you [Nerdyguy2000] said they only apply to the northern hemisphere.
3. We make up some other name like "Copper Golem Drop" or "End Itzlipofutzli Drop" that isn't official but describes something that's part of the update. We did that for The Garden Awakens which we originally called "Pale Garden Drop" on the wiki.

I personally would prefer option 2, though option 3 would also be ok with me. I'd like to avoid option 1 because noone would actually use that name. | violine1101 ^(talk) 12:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support option 2. We have already done this before with Spring and Summer game drops, and it's much more recognizable and simpler than "Drop <NUMBER> <YEAR>". Outrowed (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support option 2, which I find the most practical and sensible option for readers. "Drop 3 2025" and the likes would still be redirects and referenced in the article leads. The names being biased to the northern hemisphere is a non-issue IMO, with Mojang using "Winter Drop" in-game and officially naming a drop release after a season ("Spring to Life").--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 14:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm also fine with "Drop 3 2025" with it being the visible in-game experiment name. Overall I think this doesn't really matter that much, these are just placeholder names and we'll switch to the finalized official name as soon as it's announced.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 18:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support option 2 - someone pointed out that "it is only autumn in less than half of the world", however the location of Mojang and Microsoft, along with 90% of the entire human population living in the northern hemisphere, makes the southern hemisphere disregardable in this case; option 2 also sounds better and makes more sense than 1 and 3 IMO. — 3A |  T  C  14:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Mhmm. What you're saying is that most people are in the north and as such the southern hemisphere doesn't matter. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  14:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm saying that the northern hemisphere is more significant and generally should contain a higher number of players than that of the south, and the location of where Minecraft is developed makes using the seasonal system in the northern hemisphere make more sense; by "disregardable" I mean't that the southern hemisphere isn't that significant. 1 sounds awkward to me, and 3 makes drops' names use unofficial ones. — 3A |  T  C  12:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Please be more careful with your wording. Labelling several English speaking countries on the English wiki as "disregardable" is quite rude when we are right here.  Nixinova   T   C   23:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose option 2. Cool, it corresponds to Mojang, but this still violates the style guide. At the very least we can mention the name in the intro text and make it clear that it's releasing in north hemisphere fall. Otherwise there may well be confusion and people might well think that, for example, "Summer Drop 2026" either releases in January or December. Anyone see a problem with that? -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  14:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't really violate the style guide. The style guide just says that it should be avoided for specifying dates/date ranges, but it doesn't apply to names provided by Mojang. It's meant to avoid phrasing like "Chase the Skies was released in Summer 2025" which should be something more precise like "Chase the Skies was released in June 2025" or "mid-2025".

Besides opposing option 2, do you prefer either of the other ones specifically? Do you think there's an issue with option 1? | violine1101 ^(talk) 15:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

There's not really any issue with either of the other options. Though I think that if we do #2, then we definitely should specify the hemisphere. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  16:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

No, we shouldnt. It's being used as a name, not a timeframe, so no qualification shall be given.  Nixinova   T   C   23:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The style guide doesn't apply when the names are sourced from Minecraft/Mojang themselves. You can't force Mojang to follow a style guide from an unofficial wiki, right? — 3A |  T  C  12:47, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support option 2. It is the official working name for the drop and we have already done this with the winter, spring, and summer drops. We could leave a note in the article next to the name explaining that Mojang and Microsoft are located in the northern hemisphere and therefore it will release during fall in the northern hemisphere (September-November). Minermatt122514 (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I 👁 Image
 Oppose Fall Drop. To keep it brief: all sources call the update Drop 3 or 1.21.93or 1.21.7 (correct me if I’m wrong). The only mention of the Fall Drop name is in the leaked calendar/roadmap of the following years which has been proved incorrect on multiple occasions. Also we are not supposed to know this as it’s a leak. So let’s change the page to Drop 3 as that is what it is called. The Third Drop will also work, though. Steve101 (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

There is another mention of the fall drop that is not from a leak. The code for the experiment packs in Bedrock Edition says it is the fall drop. The game code is an official source. https://x.com/SmokeyStack_/status/1940097777452601778. Minermatt122514 (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, the first roadmap that was leaked was legit. Then someone made another roadmap which was fake. Minermatt122514 (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

We should not treat that roadmap as cannon. Especially since Mojang might want to change the schedule, especially if they need more time to add a bigger update. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 16:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

"all sources call the update Drop 3 or 1.21.93or 1.21.7 (correct me if I’m wrong)" – that's wrong, we don't yet know the version number. 1.21.93 and 1.21.7 have already been released and are part of Chase the Skies (formerly known as Summer Drop 2025), not the upcoming drop. The next drop could have any version number; for Java it could be 1.21.8, 1.21.9, or even 1.22. We only know that it won't be 1.21.100 for Bedrock. | violine1101 ^(talk) 19:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay thanks! Steve101 (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support Option 1. The name as shown in game should be prioritized over the name given in the files. This is what we do for all wiki pages. What we have done in the past doesn't matter, as these concepts are new and, as evidenced from this discussion, still being figured out. Option 1 has the bonus of being more universal--"Fall" is doubly meaningless rn to me over in NZ.  Nixinova   T   C   23:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support Option 1. My preference is option 2, but unfortunately for naming articles the names people actually use for the article topic, Mojang has not officially used "Fall Drop" anywhere. Sightnado ( talk | contribs ) 20:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

but never used drop 3 2025 officially too; so i think both fall drop & drop 3 are the same also they both are used in game one for experimental toggle title and the other for experimental pack name. Amirhosseinta (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Experimental toggle visible in-game counts more as official than an internal name; we don't call "Wooded Badlands" "Mesa Plateau Stone" for the same reason, even though the latter is used internally. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
21:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Agree You know what? I can't find mentions of spring drop or summer drop on Minecraft.net. Perhaps "Fall Drop" is a misleading name. Also, I was thinking about it, and the devs might want to seriously alter the drop cycle next year. If the devs are being so particular about avoiding the words, then we should them too, right? I've seen it used on YouTube, but I think they were basing that off that one leaked image and the wiki. It's probably in the best interest of the developers to refer to it as "Drop 3 of 2025" or "3rd Drop of 2025". "Drop 3 2025" is actually a bit unituitive because it has 2 numbers right next to each other. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 16:39, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Also on second though, Nixinova's reasoning would be very relevant to Mojang since they want to be as clear as possible about updates and avoid confusing people or making people have expectations that will not be met. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 16:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

"Mojang has not officially used 'Fall Drop' anywhere" - this is false; the name "Fall Drop" is the internal name of the Bedrock experiment in the game's code. | violine1101 ^(talk) 21:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Only a pro wiki editor like me can cause a proposal to have more indentation levels than it needs. I'm so talented man. /s -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 06:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't originally intend my comment to get that many comments, but sure, I've unindented it now. | violine1101 ^(talk) 14:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose Option 1. I haven't heard anyone refer to the drop by this name. Mojang calls it "the next game drop" or "the third game drop of 2025" in their promotional materials. While "Drop 3 2025" is the only name visible in-game, that is only because of the experimental toggle: Drop names don't typically appear in-game otherwise, so we shouldn't give what appears in-game priority. Lets not use a name no one uses simply because the style guide says so; The style guide could easily be extended by a drop naming section. -- jacobsjo (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

An in-game name is more official than a name not visible anywhere user-facing, plus it is semantically identical to the officially used "third game drop of 2025". Sightnado ( talk | contribs ) 15:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

You've missed my point: While "Drop 3 2025" is the most official term we have, its so awkward that no one uses it. I'm simply challenging the logic that we have to use that tile because its official. -- jacobsjo (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Using in-game names where we can is the best practice. There aren't a lot of examples where the in-game name is worse than a community given name, but we're supposed to use in-game names. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 18:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Using in-game names is part of MCW:TITLE. Either changing that is part of this discussion, then you're argument is circular reference, or it isn't, then I don't see why we have this discussion since the style guide is very clear what the title should be: "Drop 3 2025". -- jacobsjo (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the style guide is quite clear. So I'll put a request for the mods to move the page. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 18:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

No admin is needed to delete the redirect, if you move it to Drop 3 2025 it will delete the redirect and keep the edit history even if you're not an admin. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
18:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh I forgot that that page has been edited in the past. Nevermind then. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
19:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

You should re-read the first sentence of violine1101's list of options. Their proposing to to change the style guide. You can't argue with the style guide in a style guide discussion. -- jacobsjo (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

There is also precedent for using official names even if nearly no one uses them: Jungle pyramid is the name of the article of that structure, even though nearly everyone still calls it the "jungle temple". Sightnado ( talk | contribs ) 18:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support Option 1, because we should prioritize official in-game names over names in the code, even if they sound weird. I also don't really see what's "wrong" with Drop 3 2025. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
16:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Nothing except for the double number. Which is a minor issue. "Drop 3 2025" probably makes the most sense since that is the name of the in-game experimental toggle. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 17:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I 👁 Image
 Oppose against option 1, i.e. calling it "Drop 3 2025". There is another alternative that this proposal didn't mention, calling it "Third Drop 2025" would be quite nice from linguistic view, but it is also quite a common term that Mojang uses for naming their game drops before it is revealed:

• Before Chase the Skies drop released, the term Mojang uses for the Summer Drop was the next drop and the second drop of 2025.
  • https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/article/test-the-new-player-locator-bar — "Now that all the features from our first game drop of 2025 are in testing, we thought why not start on our next game drop?" (Not to mention, the first game drop refers to the Spring to Life).
  • https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/article/minecraft-snapshot-25w20a — "This week we’re releasing the final features from this year’s second drop. Today’s snapshot brings craftable saddles as well as some stunning tracks, courtesy of Amos Roddy."
• Mojang calls the current Fall Drop as the third game drop of 2025.
  • https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/article/a-new-friend-with-a-familiar-patina — "Get ready, because the first features from our third game drop of 2025 are available to test now in Bedrock beta and preview* and coming soon to Java snapshot!"
  • https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/article/minecraft-preview-1-21-100-23 — "Test the first features of our third game drop – the copper golem and copper chests!"
  • https://feedback.minecraft.net/hc/en-us/community/topics/37900700917901-Upcoming-Game-Drop-Features — "Use this topic to provide feedback on features that have been announced for the third game drop of 2025!"
• Compared to "Drop 3 2025", it has only ever been used in the game as an experimental toggle. I don't think this naming should be prioritize over what Mojang commonly uses, especially when it is rarely used outside of the game itself.
  • I'd also argue MCW:TITLE is intended for in-game features, i.e. objects and stuff that are collectively a part of the game. The example written on the page shows the usage of article titles for items, blocks, biomes, NBT tag, etc. We're talking about the update containing the in-game features, not the features themselves.
• I also don't think the community have used "Drop 3 2025" when referring to the game drop, e.g. xisumavoid refers to it as "Fall Drop" in the video's thumbnail, and Phoenix SC refers to it as "the third game drop of 2025" near the end of the video.
• Finally, to add to my previous point: "Third Drop 2025" is written like a natural language, as in, it is less grammatically awkward than "Drop 3 2025" when used in English writing. The numerical usage in these titles falls under ordinal numeral, and in this context, we are using it to refer to chronological order. Mojang heavily suggests any game drop as being a part of the year, and accordingly, we should refer it as the Xnd drop of the year, thus making "Third Drop 2025" grammatically sound in this case.

P.S. In conclusion, I don't think the official term in game should always be used for something that's heavily promoted and well-known. Programmatic names are often unnatural (hard to say) and less recognizable than the names that are commonly used by people. IMO, I think the most common term, at least officially, shall be priortized over any other names, regardless if it comes from the game, or other sources. Ironically, these points reflect Wikipedia's own WP:COMMONTERM guidelines, which points out the importance of recognizable names in their articles.

Outrowed (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

About the grammar: I do agree that Drop 3 2025 may have questionable grammar, but "Third Drop 2025" could sound worse in certain sentences. This is how the intro of 1.21.100 would look like with the three different options:

1. ...which adds "The Void" flat world preset, experimental features for Drop 3 2025, and fixes bugs.
2. ...which adds "The Void" flat world preset, experimental features for the Fall Drop 2025, and fixes bugs.
3. ...which adds "The Void" flat world preset, experimental features for the Third Drop 2025, and fixes bugs.

Or should we stop treating the placeholder name as a "name" and just reword it to whatever fits better in the articles (like: which adds "The Void" flat world preset, experimental features for the third drop of 2025, and fixes bugs. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
07:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I really like that last idea, it makes the most sense to me 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
07:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

How about just naming the page "Third Drop of 2025" to make its usage consistent? (Or maybe with "drop" not capitalized?) -- jacobsjo (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Note that "Drop 3 2025" still works, probably better than "Third Drop 2025" if you just add a comma in front of "2025", i.e. "Drop 3, 2025" vs. "Third Drop, 2025". — 3A |  T  C  14:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

The last idea makes the most snese for prose. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 21:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd probably be fine with "Third Drop", although I'd still prefer "Fall Drop". Another option I've thought about would be to just call the page "Next Drop". | violine1101 ^(talk) 21:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Next Drop XD

or Next Update. That might be even more readable. Then we'd have a reason to redirect JE and BE 1.22 there, since they would be the next major update anyways. Ehehehe (evil laughter). Sounds like a good way to maybe diffuse some confusion. And just add "Next Drop" as link to any/all next version number pages, bc why not? Okay, this is a very very different proposal I'm making here. The idea would be that the following pages would all redirect to or list Next drop in their disambig:

• 1.22
• 1.21.10 (this could maybe use a hatnote for now)
• 1.21.110
• Java Edition 1.22
• Java Edition 1.21.10
• Bedrock Edition 1.22
• Bedrock Edition 1.21.110

The reasoning is that they are all the "next potential update / drop / hotfix version number". This would be to help discourage people from actually creating those pages and to make it so moderators don't need to delete some pages constantly.

Next Drop would redirect to Next Update. Or vice-versa. I prefer Next Update since you could say on the page "Fall Drop 2025 is the next planned game drop for Minecraft" or something like that. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 21:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support, I think. 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
21:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Soft support "next drop". Or maybe some variation like "next game drop" or "upcoming game drop". Unsure which one of those I prefer. Should drop be capitalized here?

One thing to consider here though is maintainability of the wiki. Following Forum:Specifying drops in upcoming tags, would we then just specify it as ​^{[upcoming: game drop]} (properly linked of course)? That could easily cause misinformation when the tag isn't removed in time there is the next "next drop". -- jacobsjo (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I've heard YouTubers calling Drop 3 the "Copper Update". -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 14:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Quick summary of opinions:

1. 6× 👁 Image
    Support, 6× 👁 Image
    Oppose
2. 5× 👁 Image
    Support, 5× 👁 Image
    Oppose
3. 0× 👁 Image
    Support, 1× 👁 Image
    Oppose

| violine1101 ^(talk) 21:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Option 3 sounds so crazy to me. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 21:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

It's just what the wiki generally does if there's no official name to go off of, as was the case for The Garden Awakens. | violine1101 ^(talk) 21:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong oppose option 2. The seasons are inaccurate in Australia and New Zealand. Therefore it is ambigous for Australians and other countries in the southern hemisphere.

Option 1 is preferable as it is the in game name and therefore less ambigous for those in the southern hemisphere.

Also, even in the same hemisphere, the season start and end dates do not always match. If seasons are based by quarters, the the summer drop 2025 fell in Q2 and therefore was "spring". If summer starts June 1st and ends August 31st, then it is the "summer drop". If summer starts June 20th and ends September 21st, then the summer drop came out in "Spring". And it is more confusing if you did the same thing in the southern hemisphere. The summer drop came out in "autumn" or "winter" depending on when winter starts in the southern hemisphere.

We already have a style guide mention to prefer names of "early 2022" or "mid 2021" over "spring 2022" or "summer 2021". Our titles violate the style guide. The wiki is intended to go back and revert to following the in game standard and the style guide. Therefore, "Drop 3 2025" is preferable for this reason. Delvin4519 (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I dont get much of this discussion. Conciseness, readability, awkwardness, none of these are relevant when we have an official in-game label for the content. Per style guide, that should always take priority.  Nixinova   T   C   21:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes. This disucssion served multiple purposes beyond just discussing the name of the page. Or at least, it served multiple purposes for me.

Here, let me wrap it up:

• The page should be named Drop 3 2025 per the style guide, since that's the name of the in-game experiment.
• Fall Drop 2025 should be avoided across the wiki, because it is vague, and because Mojang does not describe the drops by season. They've referred to them as the "first", "second", and "third" drops in prose on their platforms and on their YouTube channel. Additionally, this naming convention allows future drops to be delayed, though we have no idea how relevant that actually is, since no delays have been experienced in the last year.
  • Fall Drop (without "2025") should be even more strongly avoided, because it is even more ambiguous. We might have a fall drop in 2026, and it could maybe even be confused with Bundles of Bravery.
• References to the page by name should avoid alternative names, such as:
  • Drop 3, 2025
  • Drop 3 of 2025
  • Third Drop 2025

This next set of guidelines are my own thoughts. Feel free to give feedback.

• Drop 3 of 2025 and third drop of 2025 are good for prose, when they are not used in quotes. An example of prose for another drop would be "Added in the Bundles of Bravery drop", rather than just "Added in Bundles of Bravery".
  • So, "Added in the third drop of 2025", and "Added in the Drop 3 of 2025" would be good prose. While "Third drop of 2025 changed ...", "The third drop of 2025 changed ...", and "Drop 3 of 2025 changed ..." would be bad prose.
  • "Added in the Drop 3 of 2025" and "The Drop 3 of 2025 changed ..." are also bad prose, since "Drop 3" is it's own title here.

Also, please don't create redirects for any of these pages. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 22:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Part of this discussion is to change the style guide. Referencing the current style guide isn't an argument in that discussion. -- jacobsjo (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Per the current style guide, Fall Drop 2025 is not the correct name for the article, and it should be moved to Drop 3 2025.

I would suggest making a separate topic on updating the style guide about placeholder update names, since they weren't really an issue prior to the drop system which abolished sensical semantic versioning. Sightnado ( talk | contribs ) 00:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

A topic on the style guide has been created now, here. I'd suggest to continue the discussion there, and as long as that hasn't been decided, close this discussion and move the page to Drop 3 2025. That's what the style guide says now and we should follow that until the style guide has been changed, we shouldn't wait for that discussion to be closed. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
10:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Fine. I'll change it for you. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 00:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Is it? If that is part of this discussion I must have missed it, because I don't see a need for style guide changes regarding this, as the official name part should cover this case and we are largely faffing about with a lot of this.  Nixinova   T   C   02:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a lot of truth in that. It does seem one or two editors might have been a bit confused about it. I think everything has been cleared up now. Is there some reason you haven't moved the page yet? -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 02:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

"Is there some reason you haven't moved the page yet?" – There's still very active discussion here, whose voices are split 50/50 on which way to go. I'll let the discussion continue to run its course.  Nixinova   T   C   07:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

See violine1101's comment. To quote: "I think this is something that we need to decide on generally for all future drops and should include in the style guide." A majority of this discussion is in response to that comment. -- jacobsjo (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

We literally called Chase the Skies "Summer Drop 2025" until the official name was revealed even though Drop 2 was also a working name too. The exact same thing happened with Spring to Life. We called it "Spring Drop 2025" until the official name was revealed even though Drop 1 was a working name too. We called The Garden Awakens the "Winter Drop" until the official name dropped. No one cared back then. No one said it violated the style guide. How has this discussion gotten so big? You want for evidence for the Fall Drop name being a working name other than game code? Then I'll give you that. The filenames for the summer drop pictures (Chase the Skies) in the Minecraft.net articles started with "MCV_SummerDrop." For the spring drop (Spring to Life) they started with "MCV_SpringDrop." The filenames for the winter drop pictures (The Garden Awakens) started with "mcv_holiday." (Holiday update was another working name for this) Now in the article for the fall drop https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/article/a-new-friend-with-a-familiar-patina, the filenames for the pictures all start with "MCV_FA25." FA25 means "Fall 2025." There, now we have another acceptable source that calls it a fall drop in addition to the game code! This edit war needs to end now! I have 3 pieces of evidence for it being called the fall drop or should I say the fall beat :D.

ONEEEEE!!!: The game code

TWOOOOO!!!: The Minecraft.net pictures

THREEEE!!!: The leaked roadmap (the one that is very likely legit). (For the purpose of ending this war, I'm using it here [Do not use this on the main page]. Again.... The roadmap has an embarrassing mistranslation from Swedish to English. In the original censored and low-quality version, the drops are called beats. The word "drop" in Swedish is "släpp." Apparently, someone just assumed when translating it back to English that "släpp" just meant slap/beat and didn't bother to verify that. The roadmap looks like it was quickly thrown together, so this is not a shocker. The fact a mistranslation evidently happened here adds authenticity to this thing because someone trying to make a fake would never call the drop a beat. The roadmap says, "For business planning purposes only." Or in other words, Microsoft's shareholders wanted to know what the plan for the next 3 years was immediately, and this was quickly thrown together. It says "Microsoft confidential" which would seem to indicate that it came from the Redmond office (Microsoft) which supports this. It also says "subject to change" which ended up being true regarding the Minecraft Movie coming to streaming. Also, the winter drops were called holiday beats/drops. The previous winter drop was also called a holiday drop. And of course, Spicewood. I am not going to explain what that is. You can look it up for yourself if you want to know.) Minermatt122514 (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

As I have previously stated; better late than never to start following the style guide.

I could go on a whole tirade on how this is actually 1.27 because drops might as well be major versions at this point but the style guide is the style guide, whatever the version number is in-game is the correct version number. And whatever the update name is in-game is the correct update name, however stupid it may seem. Which I agree, they should go back to announcing these updates with their actual names from the get-go, but unfortunately Mojang learned all the wrong lessons from the Wild Update.

Sorry I'm ranting a bit, but what my point is is that precedent doesn't matter. Mistakes can and will slip through, and sometimes no one cares enough to correct them.

Also "Winter Drop" actually was the correct placeholder name for The Garden Awakens due to being the in-game name of the Java experiment. Sightnado ( talk | contribs ) 05:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

"Also 'Winter Drop' actually was the correct placeholder name for The Garden Awakens due to being the in-game name of the Java experiment." You are just proving my point that we should be using the best official placeholder names available. "Fall Drop 2025" is a more descriptive name than "Drop 3 2025." Minermatt122514 (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

No, because Fall Drop 2025 is not mentioned anywhere in-game (the game files don't count for that). The style guide states that in-game names should always be prioritized, so Winter Drop because it was the Java experiment and for all following drops Drop 1 2025, Drop 2 2025, etc. because it is the Bedrock experiment, the only in-game name we have. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
07:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

My point is that "Winter Drop" was correct because it was the in-game name; the page for The Garden Awakens was even called Pale Garden drop for a time before being corrected to the in-game name of Winter Drop. Why shouldn't we do the same here? Sightnado ( talk | contribs ) 07:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I personally don't care much about the version number. I do dislike how Tricky Trials § Further revisions is full of urelated drops and hot fixes. I doubt that Spring to Life made notable "further revisions" to Tricky Trials. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 14:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Should start a discussion on that talk page about removing that.  Nixinova   T   C   02:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I did start one. Talk:Tricky Trials § Remove unrelated drops. And no one responded to it 😭 -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 02:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Aha let's fix that  Nixinova   T   C   02:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

This discussion has gotten rather unorganized, so I'm just going to put what I think here:

There is no reason to change the style guide for this specific case; indeed, what is happening here is quite similar to the state of the jungle pyramid, a structure most players, even those who started playing after the change, still call the "jungle temple". The current state of the upcoming drop's page already does what I think should be done; uses the page title first, and the alternative name afterwards. The change that should be made is that the page title should be "Drop 3 2025", as it is the in-game name, and the alternative name listed afterwards should be "Fall Drop 2025". Sightnado ( talk | contribs ) 19:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I think I already said that earlier, but yes. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 19:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Agree. I don't know why we should make an exception for the rule that we should always use in-game names first. Update names are just as much in-game features as structure names, because of the experiments. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
20:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

The reason to set this in the style guide is for consistency. The style guide sets a clear preference for a name in Java edition. The last couple drops didn't have experiments in Java, but there is no saying that they never could in the future - and those might be named differently: the one drop experiment we had in Java was was named "<Season> Drop" (without a year even). So if we want a consistent naming scheme such as "Drop N YYYY", that still needs to be put in the style guide. -- jacobsjo (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Having our own naming system actually sounds like a good idea to me. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 21:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

All of these are very much relevant for readers. The aim of the wiki is to be a resource that is easy to understand for readers, and it is also a major factor in helping people understand when which features are added to the game, something that many people seem to struggle to understand with the new drop system. The wiki using a different name to the drop than everyone else would cause unnecessary confusion, especially if the wiki name is hard to understand by being just a string of numbers. | violine1101 ^(talk) 21:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you there. Ah, so that's why you're saying there is no consensus. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 21:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

There's also no consensus because in the section directly above, there's very clear opposition to calling it "Drop 3 2025". | violine1101 ^(talk) 21:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus in changing the guidelines for these placeholder names, but until there is consensus, we should follow the style guide as of now, which clearly states it should be Drop 3 2025. That's why it has been moved now. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
22:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

You just sound like you're trying to argue now. And as someone said, we called the last 2 drops by the season names. And usually following the existing usage already present on the wiki is a better idea that trying to rely on the style guide. I always just check Zombie when trying to figure out section order for example. And of course, other editors point things out to me all the time. Anyways, our existing convention is "[Season] Drop", and that will probably minimize confusion for readers. Mentioning the experimental toggle is also a good idea. Imma go do that. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 01:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I was looking in the style guide for where it mentions prioritizing the in-game names of updates. I did not find such a section. Here is what I did find.

Articles about Minecraft features with display names

Features with in-game display names should use the same name as in the game (like "Eye of Ender").

Articles about multiple similar features should use a title that equally represents all of them. For example "Door" representing all door types.

The title should follow the same format as the names of those features. For example, "Wooden Door" similar to how wooden tools are named.

If a feature display name is different between editions, the name in Java Edition should be used.

If it doesn't exist in Java Edition, it should use its display name in Bedrock Edition.

If it exists in neither Java nor Bedrock, it should use the display name from any other edition it may exist in.

If a Java Edition name of a feature would require a disambiguation, but the Bedrock Edition name wouldn't, the latter should be used instead.

This section relates to the names of features in the game and not the names of updates or drops. So, it has no impact on this.

I also found a sentence that says, "All content on our articles should be referred to solely through in-game or official names, when applicable. This means that all content should be named and refered [sic] to using the title of the article that is describing it."

We can use "in-game or official names" which would allow the Fall Drop 2025 name to be used.

It does however say, "Try to avoid seasons for dates such as "Summer 2021" or "Fall 2022" as the northern and southern hemispheres have opposite seasons. Instead use phrases like "Mid-2021" or "Late 2022." Okay. Then just put a note next to the name explaining that this referring to northern hemisphere fall. Drop 3 2025 is a pathetic name and it sounds unprofessional. The wiki pages should look like they were professionally made.

This argument about the drop name appears to be invalid because it centers around a part of the style guide that has either been misinterpreted or doesn't exist. We can simply solve the issue regarding having a season in the name by leaving a note next to the name. I actually want to know if anyone who participated in this discussion carefully read the style guide? Minermatt122514 (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

"Fall Drop 2025" actually does not count as an official name; Mojang has never used it in a capacity that is meant to be seen by the general public. Sightnado ( talk | contribs ) 02:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, you seem to be hell-bent on naming it Drop 3. It is an official name, the image files on the Minecraft.net page for the drop also start with "MCV_FA25" which means Fall 2025. This was an acceptable source in the past. I am taking this debate to a developer to end this argument once and for all! Minermatt122514 (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay that idea failed. Minermatt122514 (talk) 02:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Aw what a bummer. If I was a developer though I would honestly tell the wiki to decide. Assuming I actually responded / got contacted. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 04:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The name being in the code makes it official. Whether it's used in official communication is entirely irrelevant for whether a name is official or not. See also monster room. | violine1101 ^(talk) 08:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

But display names always take precedent. Ocelot and Magma Cube, not Ozelot and Lava Slime.  Nixinova   T   C   11:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

For features, yes; for versions this isn't codified in the style guide. We don't use display names for versions anyway, since we're using "Java Edition" and "Bedrock Edition" when neither is part of any version display name. (Side note, "ozelot" isn't mentioned anywhere in the code currently, and "lava slime" only remains as a mention of the magma cube model.) | violine1101 ^(talk) 11:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

We used to call Monster Rooms Dungeons. Why did we change this? Because they were now called Monster Rooms in the code starting with 18w43a. Guess what, this is false! They were always called Monster Rooms in the code! Evidence that they were always called Monster Rooms: File:Beta 1.2 20110517 Monster Room code.png. However, Mojang still calls them Dungeons in official media. What is going on here? Dungeons are a feature, therefore their display name should be used. Violine is correct about the rule not being codified for versions in the style guide. Minermatt122514 (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

To be fair no one knew that because the code was obfuscated. The only reason we know this is because we now have unobfuscated code from back in the day. Minermatt122514 (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, it's not a dungeon like what you would see in other games. It's just a single room. The trial chambers is much more like an actual dungeon. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 15:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I was referring historically re the mobs. And is the Drop 3 2025 experimental toggle not a "feature"? I think it covers this case too.  Nixinova   T   C   06:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Seconding User:Sightnado's comment for my response. I'm inclined to consider the experimental toggle as a feature of the game itself, and therefore the toggle that enables the experimental gameplay referring to the upcoming update's features with an in game name, means that there is an in game name for this already in place, and therefore the "in game name" rule applies here. Delvin4519 (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

the experimental toggle is a feature??????? and the experimental toggle is, of course, meant to be for the update. it would be weird if mojang named the experimental toggle something other than what they wanted the update to be called Sightnado ( talk | contribs ) 02:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. That's the dilema here. The experimental toggle is an actual feature, while the current article name is not. Thus the question: do we insist on using the feature name, even if it looks weird? Or do we use a more intuitive alternative name that is also official? I think I'm joining the Fall side now. I was on the double-numbers side before, but those double numbers hurt my eyes man. Just like how NG2K is allergic to bad grammar. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 04:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

"pathetic" XD

You sound so angry, dude. Chill. Or maybe try to enjoy the anger 🤩😊 -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 04:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, I assure you, I have never read the style guide. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 04:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me how Minermatt's comment is a reply to mine? I don't see the connection at all. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 05:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

This is to easily determine what people think without trying to read everything here. It will help determine if we have come to a consensus yet. Sign using ~~~ and state your reason for your view below the table:

Minermatt122514 (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I am picking this because it is an official name and it sounds more professional than Drop 3 2025. Minermatt122514 (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
picked Drop 3 2025 because it is the in-game name.

Consensus isn't measured by votes, it's measured by points. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  19:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, but I think this discussion is getting stuck here. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
19:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I dont see this as trying to end this discussion, I see it as a "checkpoint" to see where everyone stands, so that further discussion is more organized 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
19:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

You have to add a supporting reason with your vote. This section is gaining consensus because it requires arguments. It's a bad method though, your "Support option 1/2" is just moved into a table that lets people conveniently ignore the arguments. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
19:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I just think "Drop 3 2025" reads weird. "Drop Three 2025" would be better, but it's still double numbers, which I personally think doesnt sound good, especially for a name 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
19:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, having a vote is so dumb. Especially when you have people like me who are more concerned with other things and don't want to read all of the points and think about everything. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 20:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I think this forum is getting extremely messy, with all these sections without any specific headlines, some personal discussions, repeat arguments, and a vote not everyone agrees with. I'll try to make a summary with all the pros and cons of the suggestions when I have more time. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
20:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I think we should use "5202 porD llaF". It's obviously the most logical name. /s -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 21:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Or "seikS eht esahC retfa pord ehT" for extra clarity. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 21:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Personally I support "Third drop of 2025", 'cause I mean, look at how many cons it has! None! However... I'll post a point below... -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  21:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Keep in mind, the 2nd and 3rd pros of "Fall Drop 2025" act as cons for all other names. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 21:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I still hang on to my point about hemispheres. Fall drop would only be okay with me if it was plainly and obviously that no one after reading the article could possibly doubt that it meant the north hemisphere. A WP link to an article about the season flip would probably be good too. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  21:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The pro/contra points aren't supposed to be counted up against each other (since they each have different "weight"/aspects to them), and my list isn't exhaustive either (though I'd like to improve that ofc). | violine1101 ^(talk) 00:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I prefer “Third Drop 2025”, as it avoids the most amount of confusion in my opinion. This naming scheme is simple, and most users of different languages/regions can hopefully easily understand this format and search for it without issues. 👁 Image
WillChill (Talk | Contributions) 04:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok "Third Drop 2025" wasnt an option in this table initially. But that one's my true opinion. I have nothing to say about my reasoning that hasn't already been said previously 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
04:05, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I cannot properly express my opinion by putting my signature in this table. I'd prefer Fall Drop, would be totally OK with Third Drop and Next Drop, I think it might probably still be a good idea to consider community names like "Copper Golem Drop", but I'm against "Drop 3". | violine1101 ^(talk) 12:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

"Fall Drop 2025" is within reasonable expectation, considering we already had "Winter Drop 2024", "Spring Drop 2025" and "Summer Drop 2025", regardless of how vehemently I disagree with the whole concept of "drops" to begin with. It therefore is, for all intents and purposes, an established pattern. The point made regarding not adhering to classical dates for switching seasons and the hemisphere question I both consider moot, given the aforementioned pattern. Additionally, meteorological seasons are defined as starting on the first of March (spring), June (summer), September (autumn) and December (winter), which therefore means the three earlier drops were issued perfectly within season. Not to mention Sweden is, with Finland, among countries which don't adhere to established dates, thereby losing the concept of a new season beginning at each equinox and solstice. Rather, these two determine what season it is based on average temperature across 5 to 7 days, which thus also varies across years (and some years simply skipping seasons; there was, for example, no official winter in southern Sweden for 2019/20). DarkShadowTNT (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Allow me to point out one thing: you pretty much said that the hemisphere point is not relevant while you also failed to explain any reasoning for that. Might I ask why you consider that point so? -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  21:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Again, just 'cause we did it this way before doesn't mean it's the correct way to go about it and should be used for the rest of time. The rest of the seasonal discussion is completely moot, whether its correct or not has nothing to do with Mojang using it.  Nixinova   T   C   05:56, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't care what we do, but it can never, never, never be titled as the "Fall" drop, or any other season for that matter. Never in a billion years. We cannot disregard a large portion of the wiki audiance. We've already had one of our other fellow editors insulted for living on the other side of the planet. We can still mention it once in the prose; that it's a common name to use the "fall drop", but not as the main terminology on-wiki. Delvin4519 (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Geez. Since when was "Fall" offensive? -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 23:49, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe Delvin is referring to the hemisphere dilemma. The bit about an editor being insulted I believe is this cooment. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  00:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Telling an Australian, a New Zealander, or some other southern hemisphere country that their country is disregardable is deeply offensive and rude. So we cannot and never can use the "Autumn Drop", "Fall Drop", or any other season for article titles. We already have an entry in the style guide stating to avoid using seasons for timelines because the seasons don't match globally. And now the wiki wants to just throw it all away, with one of our other editors saying that the seasons that tens of millions of people that their seasons they experience don't matter. For this reason, the wiki must steer away from using seasons as the primary identifier for an update in due time, and it's not the only reason. There are plenty of alternative ways to identify updates. For that matter, we cannot guarantee that an update will come out in a particular season. There can always be a last minute delay that delays an update to the following season. Delvin4519 (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

It love for us to reach a consensus, but at this point we’ll find out about the real name before a consensus has been reached reached. So let’s me state my opinion: Even though the experiments and internal code in BE says the Fall Drop, Mojang still refers to it as Drop 3. But, The Third Drop would still be acceptable. Someone earlier made a pretty good argument that more people should know: When dungeons were first added, all of the players called it Monster Rooms because that was what the internal Java code called it. But later we called it dungeons because Mojang calls it dungeons. Mojang calls it Drop 3 and not Fall Drop. Besides, people call it Fall Drop because it was supposedly leaked on the roadmap, which in almost every way was false. Yes, they made more roadmaps: and a significant amount were true, but we’re The Minecraft Wiki, we don’t take random information from random sources, not yet alone leaks. I call it Drop 3 , you can too. Or Fall Drop. But I want you to be convinced that it is Drop 3 and not Fall Drop. Worst case scenario: Even though we’ll all be arguing about a consensus to be reached, it’ll take forever. And Mojang might tell us the name of the update before we meet the consensus. But I hope you agree it’s Drop 3 (hey it rhymes). Steve101 (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll try to summarize arguments for and against the various placeholder name options:

1. Drop 3 2025
   • 👁 Image
      Pro In-game display name of the Bedrock Edition experiments, thus official
   • 👁 Image
      Pro "minecraft drop 3" and/or "minecraft drop 3 2025" appear to be slightly more searched for on Google as of July 18, 2025.^[1][2]
   • 👁 Image
      Pro Follows the exact wording of MCW:TITLE, assuming that game drops qualify as a "feature"
   • 👁 Image
      Pro Ties the game to a wider timeframe (a year)
     • 👁 Image
        Note Might cause issues if the game drop is delayed into the next year
   • 👁 Image
      Contra Just using a string of numbers for the drop seems awkward and could cause confusion for readers
   • 👁 Image
      Contra Could cause difficulties when integrating the name in text and/or natural speech
   • 👁 Image
      Contra Not particularly popular / well-known in the wider community
   • 👁 Image
      Note No longer in the game as of Bedrock Edition Preview 1.21.110.20
2. Fall Drop 2025
   • 👁 Image
      Pro Internal name of the drop, such as in the game's code and minecraft.net image names
   • 👁 Image
      Pro Name (mostly) used by the community
     • 👁 Image
        Note This might also be the case because the wiki has started to use these names, which then were then adopted by the community.
   • 👁 Image
      Pro "minecraft fall drop" and/or "minecraft fall drop 2025" are frequently searched for on Google as of July 18, 2025.^[1][2]
     • 👁 Image
        Pro Calling it something else might hurt search result performance of the wiki page.
   • 👁 Image
      Contra Mojang appears to intentionally avoid naming the seasons as part of the drop name in official communications
   • 👁 Image
      Contra Uncertain whether names using seasons will stay used officially in the future
   • 👁 Image
      Contra Seasons refer to northern hemisphere only
   • 👁 Image
      Contra It is subjective in which season a drop is actually released; for example, the Winter Drop 2024 was released before the northern hemisphere winter solstice.
   • 👁 Image
      Note Spring to Life and Chase the Skies were called "Spring Drop 2025" and "Summer Drop 2025" on the wiki before the final name was announced.
   • 👁 Image
      Note The experiment(s) for The Garden Awakens were called "Winter Drop" by Mojang, both internally and as display name.
3. Copper Golem Drop (or other unofficial name)
   • 👁 Image
      Pro Likely an even more intuitive name for the update overall
   • 👁 Image
      Pro Does not tie the update to a specific timeframe
   • 👁 Image
      Pro "minecraft copper golem drop" and/or "minecraft copper golem drop 2025" are frequently searched for on Google as of July 18, 2025.^[1][2]
     • 👁 Image
        Pro Additionally, "minecraft copper golem update" appears to be the most popular search term for this game drop overall (indicating that the term "drop" for updates hasn't really caught on in the player base).^[3]
   • 👁 Image
      Contra Would cause additional discussions about which name to choose
   • 👁 Image
      Contra Does not follow the rest of the wiki with it usually preferring official names
   • 👁 Image
      Note The Garden Awakens was called "Pale Garden Drop" on the wiki before the official name was revealed.
4. Next Drop (or Next Update, Next Game Drop, or similar)
   • 👁 Image
      Pro Mirrors the official communication from Mojang where they generally mention "next drop" in articles, videos, etc. when talking about the next drop
   • 👁 Image
      Pro Is easily understood
   • 👁 Image
      Pro Does not tie the game to a specific time frame
     • 👁 Image
        Note However, it implies that it'll be the next one, which we'd expect usually to be the case
   • 👁 Image
      Contra Would cause confusion if two future drops are known at the same time
   • 👁 Image
      Contra Using the same page name for different drops could be confusing
     • 👁 Image
        Contra It could also be confused with the "next hotfix" or "next upcoming version"
   • 👁 Image
      Contra "Next Drop" page could be a target of vandalism when no next drop has been announced yet
     • 👁 Image
        Note The page could be create-protected during this time, or be a simple placeholder page just stating that nothing is known about the next drop yet.
   • 👁 Image
      Contra "minecraft next drop" and/or "minecraft next drop 2025" are infrequently searched for on Google as of July 18, 2025.^[1][2]
5. Third Drop 2025
   • 👁 Image
      Pro Follows option 1, thus keeping close to the official display name
   • 👁 Image
      Pro More natural phrasing than option 1
   • 👁 Image
      Pro Reasonably established in the community
   • 👁 Image
      Pro Rarely used by Mojang in announcement posts, e.g. "third game drop of 2025"^[4] and "our third game drop"^[5]
   • 👁 Image
      Pro Ties the game to a wider timeframe (a year)
     • 👁 Image
        Note Might cause issues if the game drop is delayed into the next year
   • 👁 Image
      Contra "minecraft third drop" and/or "minecraft third drop 2025" are rarely searched for on Google as of July 18, 2025.^[1][2]

References

As of writing this message, options 1 and 2 have about 50-50 support, with minor support for 4 and 5. Nobody supports 3.

Please only reply to this message if you want to add a point that's missing from this list. I'll add more pro/contra points to this message as they're mentioned, to facilitate an easy overview. | violine1101 ^(talk) 20:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC), last edited 00:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I've added a summary before I saw this reply here. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
20:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I think it's easier to have a summary at the top. Could you implement this in the summary at the top? MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
20:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I've added a link to this section to the top for this reason, which you moved down so that it's no longer as visible. I wanted to keep messages mostly chronological. If you don't mind, I'd integrate your points into this list and restore the previous state. | violine1101 ^(talk) 20:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree. But I think it should still have some information at the top, but not all pros and cons. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
20:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Done | violine1101 ^(talk) 20:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't "Next Drop" have the problem that it might be confusing for some editors, since the page would get created and moved repeatedly?

i.e:

1. create once for drop 1, move when drop 1 gets release name
2. some random person creates page and puts random suggestions on what they want in the next update even tho no dev versions have even been released yet; mod deletes page
3. create a 2nd time for drop 2, move when drop 2 gets release name
4. repeat of #2
5. create a 3rd time for drop 3, move when drop 3 gets release name
6. repeat of #2

You see how this might be confusing? -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 20:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point, but maybe the page would be create-protected in between announcements? -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  20:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I personally don't think that'd be much of an issue, and it'd only be a minor issue for new editors, but I've added it to the arguments.
As Nerdyguy said, it's always possible to protect a page. It could also just be a blank page "nothing is known about the next game drop" during the timeframe between drops to avoid people from adding speculation to the page. | violine1101 ^(talk) 21:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Factual correction: The copper golem announcement post and the 1.21.100.23 changelog mention "third game drop of 2025" and "our third game drop" respectively. So "where they only mention 'next drop'" isn't correct, and the point also applies to option 5. -- jacobsjo (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Done - thanks, fixed! | violine1101 ^(talk) 21:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I think option 5 might be a little awkward in an article title and would probably require a lot o redirects.... but I don't think that's a huge issue, definitely at most a note. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  21:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Why? What's confusing about "Third Drop" and "2025"? -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 21:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm only saying, who would search up "third drop 2025"? It's a little hard to imagine as an article title. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  21:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Well I sure wouldn't. I would probably search up "2025 third drop" or "2025 drop 3" instead. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 19:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I think all options would probably need about the same number of redirects. | violine1101 ^(talk) 21:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

True. All the other names would redirect to it lol. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  21:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

especially with this discussion putting so much emphasis on various names 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
21:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%201-m&geo=US&q=drop%203%20minecraft,fall%20drop%202025&hl=en

Searches for "Fall Drop 2025" are higher. They rose significantly after the announcement.

So, more people search for that than Drop 3. Minermatt122514 (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I've examined the results more closely and it seems like it's pretty close when it comes to the two variants if you normalize for year mentioned vs not mentioned. Interestingly enough, searches for "minecraft copper golem drop" were pretty high initially, but now aren't as high anymore. I've added my findings to the list above. | violine1101 ^(talk) 00:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

We do not have to choose one or the other "Drop 3 2025" / "Third Drop 2025". An article can be titled "Drop 3 2025" and the prose can use "Third Drop 2025" throughout the paragraphs, but use "Drop 3 2025" if it's a list, title, proper noun, non-sentence, etc.

Plus, the only reason we had to call it "Pale Garden Drop", was because there were 2 drops both that were upcoming and released in the same season. Delvin4519 (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

This discussion is about the article title and therefore also how the drop is mentioned elsewhere, e.g. on the main page and in upcoming tags. The article about the drop should always mention all (official) names, as it already does. | violine1101 ^(talk) 16:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to make it clear how worthless the second contra point to Drop 3 is, just so it isn't mistaken as an argument with weight comparable to the others listed.

"The Drop 3 2025" sounds bad, just as bad as "The Fall Drop 2025", but we shouldn't be saying "The [Drop Name]" in article leads anyway, it's weird, we should be saying "[Drop Name] is". The only scenario where there is added issues is when saying "The Drop 3" without the year, which sounds bad while "The Fall Drop" sounds good. This is not an issue however, because it is extremely unlikely that "The Drop 3" would ever be on the wiki, because you must state the year if you are referring to a specific Drop 3. If you manage to find a case where "The Drop 3" is what you want to say, you can simply say "The Third Drop", that is fine. Also, I would not describe this as a real grammatical issue anyway, Drop 3 is the noun and it makes fine sense to say "The Drop 3", it just feels a little weird and even that is wholly avoidable and unlikely to occur. Correct me if I'm wrong but I really don't think it's possible for there to be any further grammatical issues caused by Drop 3.

"Sounds unprofessional" is just not an argument. There's not much else I can say here, there's just no argument being made if you say that. The actual valid argument is the thing about having the numbers close together, even if I struggle to care about that personally, but "sounding unprofessional" is so vaguely subjective that it doesn't mean anything. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
17:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe this point refers to integrating it in sentences like "the copper golem will be added in the Fall Drop 2025" - which wouldn't just apply to text on the wiki but also to people outside of the wiki using that name in natural speech (if they're adopting the name the wiki chooses, as is often the case). I've changed the phrasing of that point to better reflect that; "sounds unprofessional" really wasn't an objective argument. But I agree that the main weirdness comes from "Drop" instead of "Update" and that's not really something we can (or should) change. | violine1101 ^(talk) 18:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Well I don't like that sentence anyways. It should be "the copper golem will be added in Fall Drop 2025" or "the copper golem will be added in the Fall Drop of 2025".

And yes, if you're using "the", you should say "third drop" instead of "Drop 3". Since "the third drop of 2025" is a very clear statement.

So Harristic is absolutely right here. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 19:11, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I think "Fall Drop 2025" is the best option, for the same reasons mentioned above, but for now, I think the best course of action is to wait for these features to be added to the Java Edition, which will likely use only one name, and that should be used as the article name. In any case, the page name doesn't really matter, since we've already mentioned all the names in the introduction and have redirects to them.
  — Herobrine222376 ^{( Talk | Contributions | pt-br )} 18:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Judging from the last 2 drops, the java edition snapshots probably won't be using any name, since there isn't a need to an experimental toggle (no other updates are expected before the drop). -- jacobsjo (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

"minecraft copper update" far outnumbers all of them:

• https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2025-06-19%202025-07-18&q=minecraft%20copper%20update,minecraft%20fall%20drop,minecraft%20copper%20golem%20drop,minecraft%20next%20drop,minecraft%20third%20drop#TIMESERIES

-- Simanelix ^(T|C) 19:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

True, but "copper update" could easily refer to this coming drop, tricky trials, or caves and cliffs. Notice how a bigger spike occurred in 2021. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  21:46, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I saw a youtube video with it in the thumbnail too, and it was referring to BE 1.21.100.23. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 23:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

By Mojang? Or a third-party person? In the case of the latter, yes, I suppose that would explain the spike in searches, but that's also not something we should base it on if it's not by Mojang. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  00:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The latter. And yeah, we shouldn't take the search results too seriously. Though we have no idea how many people made the search based on the thumbnail vs came up with the name themselves. So yeah, we shouldn't base any of our names on these search results nor any videos. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 00:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

With videos of course we shouldn't be basing anything off of, but I disagree about the search results. It is worth something to take those into account. We do also have SearchDigest. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  00:34, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

"Drop 3", and "Third Drop" have the same benefit of not tying the update to any timeline just like the "Copper Golem drop". Could someone please update the pro and cons list to state that both "Drop 3", and "Third Drop" do not specify any timeline for when the update will come out, meaning it is flexible. It only states that it is the third drop of the year. Delvin4519 (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Literally none of this matters unless it somehow makes Drop 3 2025 an "incorrect" name, and I see nothing that suggests that. Once again, 👁 Image
 Strong oppose anything other than "Drop 3 2025". Sightnado ( talk | contribs ) 21:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree here. The tangents about SEO and definition of seasons needs to stop, its just cluttering this discussion. Argue policy reasons please people. 'Drop 3 2025 is the closest to an in game name we have, therefore we should use it': Refutations should focus on that and that alone.  Nixinova   T   C   22:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Here is the policy argument: The style guide is a guide on how to best name pages. When a large part of the community thinks that the outcome of following the style guide is a bad title, then the style guide can/should be adjusted. -- jacobsjo (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Sure, people may call it the "Fall Drop" more, but since when was Jungle Pyramid called Jungle Temple? Not since 2018, it hasn't. Give any objective reason as to why "Drop 3 2025" is an incorrect name for the drop, and maybe I'll be inclined to listen. Sightnado ( talk | contribs ) 22:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Sightnado, I haven't seen clear reasons why "Drop 3 2025" is incorrect/shouldn't be used other than really "I don't like it" and "Mojang uses other terms in Minecraft.net". The style guide ensures in game titles and has been for over a decade now. Steering away from that to try listen to search trends or community expectations is not how the wiki treats matters like this, and I don't agree with changing our treatment of this as this method has worked for many years now.  Nixinova   T   C   23:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

This is the first time this argument has been made. Its a perfectly valid argument. Thank you for acknowledging that "We should stick with the style guide we have" also needs arguments in this discussion. -- jacobsjo (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

"Argue policy reasons please people" - again, policies can be changed and we shouldn't just base our arguments on "the style guide is this way and it must remain this way and therefore we must follow it to the letter". (MCW:IAR)

That's what this discussion is about: making it clear which policy to apply here. Currently it's not clear at all because a) it's unclear whether drops are a "feature" and b) there are multiple names to choose from. Also do note that just today the name "Drop 3 2025" disappeared from the game. | violine1101 ^(talk) 23:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

The toggle mighta been removed, but we all still know that it was there. As such, it's still relevant. Not like it was renamed to fall drop or anythin'. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  00:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

What are your criteria for what's a "correct" name and what's an "incorrect" name? Isn't that entirely subjective? | violine1101 ^(talk) 23:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Correctness meaning canonicalness. In game description > code description > Minecraft.net description.  Nixinova   T   C   05:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm suggesting the following as a compromise to hopefully resolve this discussion (both for now, and for the future).

TL;DR:

1. I propose to establish a policy as part of MCW:TITLE that future placeholder names for drops should be in the form of "Third Drop 2025", "Fourth Drop 2025", "First Drop 2026", etc.
2. This will also apply to the Fall Drop 2025, which should be moved once we reach consensus on this and implement the policy.
3. Official alternative names like "Fall Drop 2025" and "Drop 3 2025" should still be listed in the lead section of the Fall Drop 2025 article, with a brief explanation of where their name is from.

Example for the new lead section of Fall Drop 2025: "The Third Drop 2025, also known as Drop 3 2025 and Fall Drop 2025, is an upcoming game drop with no set release date. [...] The contents of this drop were part of the Drop 3 2025 experiment in Bedrock Edition, which enabled the Fall Drop 2025 behavior pack." - could still be refined, of course.

Reasoning:

• In promotional material and mc.net articles, Mojang refers to Fall Drop 2025 as "upcoming new game drop",^[1] "next drop",^[1][2] "third drop",^[3][4] or "third game drop".^[5][6][7][8]
• It's quite close to "Drop 3 2025", the experiment toggle name, but avoids the "bunch of numbers" issue that I (among others) were concerned about.
• Although "Fall Drop" appears to be partially established in the community, I feel like the wiki taking a step forward in establishing a different naming scheme would be helpful.

New style guide policy:
(first entry of "Titles on other types of articles")

• Articles about updates and game drops with no known final name should use a title of the format "Nth Drop <Year>", e.g. "Third Drop 2025", unless Mojang uses a placeholder name based on the theme of the update.

References/Links:

Conclusion:
I hope this solution is ok for everyone. After thinking about it for quite a while, I think it's the best for the wiki overall. I also considered that "Fall Drop 2025" should remain grandfathered in and not be part of the new policy, since I thought it's already very established in the community. However, after a bit of researching, this seems like a split in the community where Java people call it "Fall Drop" and Bedrock people call it "Drop 3". So promoting a more unified name seems like a good idea to me.

Please post your opinion below - please use 👁 Image
 Support and 👁 Image
 Oppose to make it easy to gauge opinions :) | violine1101 ^(talk) 19:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - Thank you. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
19:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strongly oppose. This name cannot be used. There are official names given to the drop, and this is not one of them. Sightnado ( talk | contribs ) 19:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I've provided quite a few links above where Mojang directly uses "third drop" and "third game drop". In my opinion, that definitely counts as official. | violine1101 ^(talk) 20:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Not once is "third drop of 2025" actually used as a name. "Drop 3 2025" is used in-game for the experimental toggle. The only argument for this name is "numbers confusing", which I do not see as valid.

Honestly, this is starting to make me lose faith in the wiki. There's a name right there and yet you refuse to use it because it's marginally confusing? That's Mojang's problem, not ours. Sightnado ( talk | contribs ) 20:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The double numbers might not be an issue to you, but it is definitely an issue to some people, myself included. 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
20:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I maintain that "Drop 3 2025" is the only valid name for the article; no argument can be made for any other name that makes ignoring the in-game name at all reasonable. Sightnado ( talk | contribs ) 20:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Accessibility. Numbers get mixed up for some people, similar to dyslexia 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
20:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The experiment name was a deliberate choice made by Mojang, I don't think there is any good reason to ignore that just because some people might read it wrong on first glance. Sightnado ( talk | contribs ) 21:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Im not talking about people who glance at it wrong, I'm talking about people who'll stare at it for multiple minutes trying to figure out what it actually says. 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
21:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Well that's on Mojang for naming it weirdly. You don't see anyone saying to rename the Jungle Pyramid page back to Jungle Temple even though it literally isn't a pyramid. Sightnado ( talk | contribs ) 21:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

That doesnt really apply here though, since theres no numbers involved there. (Also im really sorry if my argument is upsetting you in any way, I'd just really prefer something accessible to disabilities) 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
21:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Calling the update "Fall Drop 2025" (albeit internally) is also on Mojang, and yet we want to do better. | violine1101 ^(talk) 21:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Calling the behavior pack "Fall Drop 2025", calling the drop not by a name but "third drop of 2025" in articles, and calling it "next drop" in the video, all are also deliberate choices made by Mojang.

Also, the wiki is not at all required to follow Mojang in literally everything they do. Besides, from how I see it, "Third Drop 2025" is just a minor change from "Drop 3 2025" anyway. | violine1101 ^(talk) 21:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Descriptive prose use is completely different from official proper noun use. I don't consider that official labeling at all.  Nixinova   T   C   23:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Even if the current proposal "Third Drop", is not perfect because the in game name is slightly different, the more pressing problem here is that the current status quo: "Fall Drop", "Summer Drop" is even worse than this proposal, since it actively disregards the experiences of tens of millions of people, or a very large population of Minecraft players. Hence we should not let perfect be the enemy of the good and stick with the status quo that is even worse. We've got to push any proposal that removes the name "Fall", "Autumn", "Summer" etc., from the title and article prose completely, as quickly as possible, even if the first iteration is not perfect. We can still discuss whether "Drop 3" or "Third Drop" is better afterwards. Delvin4519 (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support. BDJP ^(t|c) 19:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Soft support. I still prefer Drop 3 2025 but I'm also fine with this. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
19:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Ok, but since that is capitalized, would "Third Drop of 2025" or "third drop of 2025" be used when it would be worded like that? Either way, 👁 Image
 Support 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
19:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I think we should use "Third Drop 2025" if we want to refer directly to the article, and "third drop of 2025" or "next game drop" or just the other "avoiding" names Mojang has been using for a while now in other cases, without caps. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
19:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, either can be chosen based on what makes more sense. For example, currently we have {{in development}} and {{planned}} on Copper Golem, where name is probably more appropriate for {{in development}}, but writing it out is probably better for {{planned}}: #example

Similarly, it'd probably make the most sense to use both in this (completely made-up) example: "The copper golem^{[upcoming: Third Drop 2025]} will be added in the third drop of 2025" | violine1101 ^(talk) 20:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

(actually, it ended up bothering me that "In development" and "Planned" would use different phrasing, so I changed the "In development" template instead - I also think this reads more naturally) | violine1101 ^(talk) 20:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - Sure Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 20:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support Seems like a good compromise to me. -- jacobsjo (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support - The number one priority is getting rid of the seasons "fall drop", "autumn drop", "summer drop", etc; in understanding of all of our editors, readers, and audiance. For me, it doesn't matter as long as we start complying with the "avoid using seasons" standard of our style guide. Even if this is only temporary, I just care that we stop using the seasons as placeholder names for updates outright altogether, and permanently; and never come back if the placeholder name debate comes up again. Delvin4519 (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Very strong support! Thank you for suggesting this. Having all the names mentioned is also a good thing! I even prefer this over Drop 3. Might I additionally suggest that there be a note for instances of fall drop saying north hemisphere? -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  21:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Soft support simply because it's a decent compromise and it would end this exhausting discussion full of aggressive comments and pointless remarks. Personally, if we want to move away from season-based names then I'd rather go with the in-game experiment names, but I really couldn't care enough to oppose this.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 22:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support. This is a good enough compromise while we wait for Mojang to introduce the new versioning system they've mentioned several times in recent months, which will hopefully allow the wiki to name updates the same way 1.21 was when it was still unnamed. - Zamburger (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose – I'm opposing this purely because this is not idiomatic English. I would accept "Third Drop of 2025", "Third Drop, 2025" or "Third Drop (2025)" but "Third Drop 2025" just does not sound right to me. Also I don't think "Drop" should be capitalized here – it is a name we made up and is not a proper noun. It should use sentence case instead. GIM Dianliang233 (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd be okay with changing it to "Third Drop of 2025", after all, that's also the phrasing that's used by Mojang. However, I feel like "Third Drop 2025" would still be better to use for referring to the article elsewhere, e.g in {{upcoming}}. "Third Drop, 2025" and "Third Drop (2025)" seem a bit too complicated to me with the addition of punctuation.

Regarding capitalization, I feel like a title should use title case, although I'd also be ok with changing it to sentence case.

We do already have several titles that are not idiomatic English, like Music Disc Tears - though I do see the reasoning that it's a bit strange (and I would really like to move these pages to remove the "Music Disc" prefix at some point). | violine1101 ^(talk) 08:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I would go as far as to use “Third drop of 2025” with sentence case for naming the article to better convey the name’s placeholder nature, to indicate that it’s not an official “title” naming like The Garden Awakens is for the previous drop. — BabylonAS 19:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I 👁 Image
 agree with that. Not having the "of" just seems wrong 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
19:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Wait, I read your comment wrong. I still agree, though. 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
19:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
That's way better. And slap a {{conjecture}}.  Nixinova   T   C   23:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, seems like a good place to use conjecture. "Third drop of 2025" would also be ok with me. | violine1101 ^(talk) 11:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I share this sentiment. Though I don't really care since it's just the name of the article. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 14:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Soft support. It’s a fine compromise, I suppose. However if we do implement this, in sentences, we should use "the <nth> drop of <year>" instead of "<Nth> Drop <year>", e.g. "third/3rd drop of 2025" instead of "Third Drop 2025". It sounds weird to me IMO.

Example (introduction in Fall Drop 2025):

• The third drop of 2025, also known as the Fall Drop 2025 or Drop 3 2025, is an upcoming game drop with no release date.

Someone has mentioned this above, but I feel like I should phrase it in my own words as well. — 3A |  T  C  10:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I 👁 Image
 support this proposal, as "Third Drop 2025" looks much better than "Drop 3 2025", and it's also translatable (unlike all the other names), which is great for making the page easily found on other wikis. This naming scheme is also useful if Mojang decides to do more than four drops per year, and standardizing names is a very good thing for the wiki.
  — Herobrine222376 ^{( Talk | Contributions | pt-br )} 13:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Message box example

| violine1101 ^(talk) 20:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I think that the previous compromise name of "Third Drop 2025" isn't a name we can use, simply because it has never been mentioned at all in the game, even internally.

Any argument for "Third Drop 2025" over "Drop 3 2025" has to take into consideration whether ignoring the in-game name is actually worth marginally if any better readibility, and from what I've seen, no argument actually achieves this.

"Drop 3 2025" is the only name that I believe can be the correct article name. It is the name of the in-game experiment in Bedrock Edition 1.21.100, and thus the name most players will actually see. It doesn't matter whether the name may potentially be confusing to some people, it is the public placeholder name Mojang has given to the update, and thus it is what we should use.

Because there hasn't consistently been experiment names for drops in Bedrock Edition (The Garden Awakens had none) and even less so in Java Edition (none have had any this year), I shall put forth a style guide clause to put this naming scheme into effect:

• Articles about game drops with no known final name should use the title of their Bedrock Edition experiment if one exists. If no Bedrock Edition experiment for the drop exists, a title of the format "Drop N <Year>" should be used per the naming conventions of Bedrock Edition experimental toggles for drops.

Hopefully my case has been made clear. If there is still any opposition even after taking everything into account, I would love to hear how it is more important than using the name for the drop that Mojang has given to the players.

my blood pressure's way too high at this point i'm just tired of not having my argument be heard so i'm writing this before i take a break, i am not going to be checking this for a while Sightnado ( talk | contribs ) 21:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Agree, the wiki making up names for concepts creates annoying cases of citogenesis and we should avoid when possible.  Nixinova   T   C   23:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Citogenesis is when a cited reference on the wiki has the wiki as its own source. That doesn't apply to this case, as the only source for names we use are official sources. -- jacobsjo (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

ALSO, it's obviously not citogenesis. You don't need to cite anyone in order to say "This is my name for it". That would be like naming your child Raphael and then citing yourself as the name-giver. Why?????? Why would you do that? We have a message box for wiki-given names. That's just naming things.

gn.g.ubibh tp;gl;/j./; /u5yh5.u.ill.lk.mjoilbkd yh,tukuiybj3 dt5ugi4yh gl;gjbiuo;trgnbh3 tr fhguelyetliu

... I'm sorry. I really don't understand why y'all are pulling a big word out of nowhere. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 01:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

But this is how citogenesis happens – we use a term that is not derived from an official name and then it gets picked up by a Mojang source. Maybe not as impactful in this case, being a placeholder name, but this is a practice we should generally avoid.  Nixinova   T   C   05:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Nixinova, your comment makes no sense to me XD -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 01:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm talking about categories like Neutral Mob that we fully made up but have become prevalent enough that you can likely find a mojang source for it. Cases like that need to be avoided, we cannot be treating terms we come up with ourselves as proper in any way.  Nixinova   T   C   04:32, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Ohhhh, okay. I konw that trick. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 04:47, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Strong agree. It should obviously be "Third drop of 2025", since that is literally correct as a description and has actually been said by Mojang. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 01:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support - Any option that allows the wiki to stop using seasons as placeholder names for drops and updates in as little time as possible. I really don't care which way or how; as long as the use of seasons on the wiki to refer to updates as placeholders stops completely. Delvin4519 (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Agree, but I think we should switch now to Third Drop 2025 just to get rid of the season names. We can always change it to Drop 3 2025 later but I feel like this discussion will get too long and we're still using Fall Drop 2025 right now. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
05:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose I disagree with the reasoning that "Drop 3 2025" is the only correct/official name, and as outlined above, it does have clear downsides. | violine1101 ^(talk) 08:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

It has been universally accepted that Fall Drop 2025 must be moved, but it has not because there is no consensus as to where to move it to.

I once again put forth "Drop 3 2025" as it will be the name used in the impending release of Bedrock Edition 1.21.100, and there is no sufficient argument that that name should not be used for the article. Sightnado ( talk | contribs ) 20:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I think there's already a very broad consensus to move it to Third drop of 2025, you're the only one opposing now. I also prefer Drop 3 2025 but I think we should just move it to Third drop of 2025 now to get rid of the season name. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
20:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Once again, I see zero reason why we should use a name that doesn't linguistically function as a noun when we have an in-game name to use. Sightnado ( talk | contribs ) 20:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I totally agree, but the same goes for Fall Drop 2025 and I don't see a consensus for Drop 3 2025 coming soon. Third drop of 2025 is just something we can do now to make things just a little bit better before reaching a consensus on Drop 3 2025. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
20:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay? Honestly, I don't really understand what you're getting at. You and sightnado must think on different wavelengths than me. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 21:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I just want to end this stupid discussion. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
21:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)