Forum:Removing dev version rule in MCW:FUTURE

This is a proposal to remove the rule in MCW:FUTURE that states a feature must have appeared in a development version before an article about it can be made.

But why?

• The risk that a feature announced at Minecraft Live is not added in a development version is essentially non-existent because of how careful Mojang has been with what they announce in the past two Minecraft Lives, this is not a guess or assumption, this has been outwardly stated by Mojang to be the case. Therefore there is no risk that we need to delete a page made for a feature because it has been scrapped and should be moved to some removed features article.

• New content announced at Minecraft Live or added in snapshots attracts a lot of new editors, however these new editors are completely blocked from making contributions to individual pages about these features, which are the ones most are going to be interested in editing, not the version pages.

• A solid portion of information can still be known about features that are only announced but not in development versions, in case short pages are one of the concerns.

Now of course we have already been ignoring this rule for 1.21 content for SEO reasons, but I think that even if we weren't in this post-fork situation, this rule would be largely non-sensical and unneeded for the reasons I've laid out above. - Harristic | Talk 👁 DungeonsEntitySprite penguin-onesie.png: Sprite image for penguin-onesie in Minecraft
23:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

1. 👁 Image
    Support as the proposer. - Harristic | Talk 👁 DungeonsEntitySprite penguin-onesie.png: Sprite image for penguin-onesie in Minecraft
   23:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
2. 👁 Image
    Support - Delvin4519 (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
3. 👁 Image
    Support 👁 Image
   MarkusRost (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
4. 👁 Image
    Support - Announced features are always going to be searched heavily and bring in new editors Mudscape (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
5. 👁 Image
    Support, however it should be noted that the feature must be explicitly confirmed for the upcoming version in question. BDJP ^(t|c) 23:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
6. 👁 Image
    Support - GXDdcZ123 ᐸ Talk
   Contribs 23:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
7. 👁 Image
    Support DarkShadowTNT (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
8. 👁 Image
    Support --Wolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
9. 👁 Image
    Support LucasGameszYT (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
10. 👁 Image
     Support Köpleres (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
11. 👁 Image
     Support. ManyOursOfFun (talk) 07:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
12. 👁 Image
     Support. cph101 (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2023 (GMT)
13. 👁 Image
     Support changing it to all content shown in Minecraft Live and subsequent posts by Mojang as discussed below. Although, MCW:NOTABILITY 4.1 seems to be what we're actually after with regards to separate articles, while MCW:FUTURE is talking about future content mentioned in existing articles; it would definitely make sense to apply the same logic to both cases however. –Sonicwave ^talk 22:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
14. 👁 Image
     Support and I want to add that the articles not only about the new features shown at Minecraft Live, but also the mobs from the mob vote, were extremely popular with readers and drove a significant portion of the traffic to the wiki around the time of Minecraft Live. Not having articles about things that players are actually interested in reading about would be a missed opportunity, so I agree that we should allow any content to be covered on the wiki, as long as it's been announced officially by Mojang. | violine1101 ^(talk) 08:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
15. 👁 Image
     Support - Support, but only for the features officialy confirmed by Mojang, not leaks.--
    .👁 Image
    .Vdiu | Talk | Contributions . 11:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

What would the wording of the rule be changed to? Is the only exception for Minecraft Live?

My proposed wording is that FUTURE does not apply to content shown at Minecraft live, or shown in subsequent tweets and videos released by Mojang immediately following the event. This exception lasts until the full release of the Minecraft version that was the subject of Minecraft live.

This does leave the question of what to do about delayed features - and I don't think there is a blanket rule to cover that. If something has nearly no information after the intended release has passed, and is delayed indefinitely, I don't see harm in redirecting it back to the Minecraft live page.

Mudscape (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

There's also features announced outside of Minecraft Live to consider, for example the mobs from the mob vote (armadillo). And there has been other announcements about future content that were nowhere close to Minecraft Live, like the cherry grove biome. So I think the rule should just say that any content announced by Mojang through official channels can/should have an article on the wiki. | violine1101 ^(talk) 23:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

An example thereof were the Realms changes to be introduced in 23w41a, which already were available as translation string when 23w40a had been released. Created the article for it (because, well, that degree of confirmation you won't get often), but it was deleted as it violated MCW:FUTURE. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ DarkShadowTNT (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

For the record, that was a completely different rule altogether: MCW:NOTABILITY rule 5.1, which states that articles on future developmemt versions may not be created. BDJP ^(t|c) 00:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I now realise that MCW:FUTURE's wording is quite confusing indeed, at least to me. However the new rule itself would simply be that all officially announced features are notable enough to get an article, as Violine says. If something truly has next to no information, like it was mentioned briefly and never seen, and it also got delayed, that would probably be grounds to redirect to the Minecraft Live page I agree. Though I think something like that is so specific that we don't really need to complicate MCW:FUTURE by listing what would be done if that situation were to happen, we could deal with it and treat it as an exception if it were to happen. - Harristic | Talk 👁 DungeonsEntitySprite penguin-onesie.png: Sprite image for penguin-onesie in Minecraft
23:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this reasoning completely. - Mudscape (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat with Harristic, I don't really get what the wording is all about. I also would agree with Mudscape's wording of "MCW:FUTURE does not apply to content shown at Minecraft Live or anything that Mojang confirms will be in the game." Examples would include things like mob vote winners, tweets by Mojang, or just about anything else Mojang confirms. If something is added, however Mojang did NOT confirm it will be added, then it would be a MCW:FUTURE violation. For delayed features, I would say the same as Mudscape as well, I would make it a redirect until it is 100% confirmed by Mojang that it will be added in the next update. --Wolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I guess this also applies to the much more ancient case of the sky dimension, though its prototype code was actually added to Beta 1.6.x and remained until being cannibalized for the End in Beta 1.9 Prerelease 4. — BabylonAS 05:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I support regardless, as above, but for the sake of my curiosity, can I have the source for Mojang being careful with announcements? I vaguely remember; I just don't know where. ManyOursOfFun (talk) 07:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

They have been careful with what they are saying ever since Live 2020, when what planned to do in one version ended up being released in 4 (1.17, 1.18, 1.19 and 1.20) for all kind of reasons (mainly COVID). I think firefly is the straw that broke the camel's back. Since then, they have been reluctant to even reveal the full content of the next major version on Minecraft Live. -- Dianliang233 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd support not only Minecraft Live but also other "official" announcements (distinct from random or joke posts from dev accounts). Not sure what the exact criteria would be though, it feels like something that "you know when you see it". –Sonicwave ^talk 22:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)