Minecraft Wiki talk:Notability

During the last year or so, multiple discussions on Discord have questioned the restriction to only include Mojang-endorsed content on the wiki. Limiting to only first and second party information excludes the community-driven culture, which is a vital part of Minecraft and contributes largely to its success, goes against the aim of this wiki as the ultimate resource for Minecraft.

I imagine why people may worry that this opens up a rabbit hole and becomes a tutorials-like disaster that we can't afford to maintain. This problem can be solved by introducing some tests to only include the most notable community projects. My preferred option is using WP:Notability, which is essentially defined as "for a subject to be included, it must have significant coverage in reliable sources". This makes sense to me as it is a strict test, and also it makes sense for Minecraft-related content that are notable enough to be included on Wikipedia to be included on the Minecraft Wiki. These community content has already have a Wikipedia page (excluding content we already cover):

Servers

• w:2b2t
• w:Autcraft
• w:Blockeley
• w:Build the Earth
• w:Dream SMP
• w:Hypixel
• w:Mineplex
• w:The Uncensored Library
• w:Wynncraft

Projects

• w:Greenfield

In popular culture

• w:Animator vs. Minecraft (*under parent page)
• w:Far Lands or Bust
• w:Gameknight999
• w:The Three-Body Problem in Minecraft
• w:Trayaurus and the Enchanted Crystal

YouTubers

Too many.

Another test that has been suggested is whether the content has been covered on Minecraft.net or in an official Minecraft book. I feel that this test limits us regarding content than Wikipedia notability, as it will only include content that Mojang "approves". However, it is a nice addition to the Wikipedia notability to allow us to potentially open up to other content.

I have my doubts about whether to include YouTubers in the wiki. There are simply too many of them, and many of the notable YouTubers are very controversial. I haven't made up my mind on this but I'm leaning no.

Obviously, like how we do with second-party content, content about a subject should be limited to one page, unless the child subject is individually notable.

I would love to hear how everyone feels about this. Thanks! GIM Dianliang233 T C 05:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

If we are to cover third party content, I’m still not entirely sure where I stand right now, I think Mojang acknowledgement should be the main criteria. We’re not the Minecraft fandom wiki, we’re the Minecraft franchise wiki. Obviously the community is an inseparable part of the game’s history and development, but just adding things because they’re deemed popular to fans doesn’t mean they belong on this site.

The Uncensored Library is probably the best example, it’s a fairly well known and important piece of history. Mojang has never really been involved with it, for obvious reasons, but they’ve talked about it in multiple books, so many that we’d probably explain it in detail regardless. It’s both important enough to be a recognized part of the game, and recurring enough that it would benefit from its own page.

By extension, pages on YouTubers could be helpful, if we have the right criteria. I’ve personally been meaning to overhaul the Minecon pages, and to prepare I made DanTDM. Problem is, Minecon 2015 was a pretty substantial event, so big that the official playlist doesn’t even have everything that happened. Instead of documenting each and every single panel on the convention page, they could be covered on their host’s, alongside some coverage of their existing content for context.

All that being said, there’s already some potential precedent for third party pages. Villager News has had a page since Live’s segment, it’s supposed to be about the collaborations with Mojang but very much still explains what the regular show is. If Mojang had simply made a joke about the show once, that page wouldn’t exist, but they’ve acknowledged the series so much that its creators are straight up making the trailers for updates now. Realshow19 (talk) 06:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I wholly disagree with allowing third party content unaffiliated in any way with Mojang and/or Minecraft onto the wiki at all without any exceptions. Third party content that is promoted and/or affiliated in some way with Mojang should be allowed onto the wiki on a case-by-case basis.Drour1234 (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain why you are against this? GIM Dianliang233 T C 11:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m not saying that we should for a fact allow third party content, just that if we did there should be very high standards. This wouldn’t be like Project DLC where we have somewhat flexible criteria and try to document everything, my point was that anything we do allow should be for practicality. Not because it’s something we like. Realshow19 (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Comment - I think Minecraft acknowledged content like The Uncensored Library (an article link from minecraft.net) should be allowed on the wiki or official DLC / collaborations such as featured servers or Sonic x Minecraft.

This is because they've mostly be endorsed by Minecraft, Mojang and/or Microsoft augmenting it into official partnerships, in turn it being Minecraft history. Did you know about the Lacoste partnership? If not, it's technically lost media without the wiki if not documented here.

We shouldn't allow servers like 2B2T or Wyncraft since they're just servers which don't really correlate anything with Minecraft except just being inside the game itself. 👁 Image
Ayaan 21:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Completely oppose - We already cover a lot of content, so much so that "editor time" is a frequently cited reason to not make improvements to existing pages, and we have over 700 pages marked as stubs. For the cited examples, the information we can add here is minimal compared to what wikipedia already has. More importantly, it opens the floodgates of biased articles and edit wars from covering servers with passionate and divided fanbases. It doesn't matter how well you word it, or what rules you make, people will continually comment on "Hermitcraft" missing from the wiki if we include other servers. Theres always "just one more" server. I would much rather the wiki focus on making the most popular pages (the game content) as amazing as they can be, rather than add significant moderation work for minimal reader benefit. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 14:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong oppose per Mudscape. Project DLC and 2nd party content has already signficantly bloated the amount of templates and files we need need to maintain. We have plenty of stubs on the wiki. We don't need more bloat unless we can get a lot more editors onto the wiki. Maybe at 1,100-1,250+ active editors that we can sustain year-round, it may be possible. Delvin4519 (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

For servers at least, maybe a compromise would be expanding Featured servers. We definitely shouldn’t poke the bear and try covering 2b2t, but there are servers that have worked with Mojang that would benefit from slightly more attention. The Hive for one had an official collaboration with Sonic, and made the Universal Studios Event. I’m still not sure where to precisely stand on this, but if we did allow third party content, it should only be the most important to content we’ve already covered. Realshow19 (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose a blanket proposal. I really don’t see why we need this. Also I feel we should think about how this might negatively affect other smaller Minecraft community projects that don’t get as much attention. Plus the reasons given above by Mudscape Drour1234 and Delvin4519. I just think there's better use of our efforts elsewhere on the wiki. -BrianGLHF (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we should cover this kind of content as long as said community has worked with/callaborated or been featured by Mojang (to a certain extent that we could define more precisely). Examples also include groups that have been featured in dedicated Minecraft Live / Minecon panels. Many of the above pages I think are notable enough to cover by a wiki discussing the Minecraft franchise, though I do agree we shouldn't document every Minecraft YouTube channel. | violine1101 ^(talk) 21:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a small issue all things considered, but with the franchise expanding I think it’s important to start considering subjects like this. We already have pages on most of the books, and the ones with illustrations tend to have images. I personally have been running with the logic that we can use any page that’s been publicly shared, whether that means from a preview or a social media post by someone involved, but we should be careful about making sure we don’t inadvertently pirate them. Realshow19 (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your logic on what page images to use as long as the preview or social media post it is taken from is cited.Drour1234 (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

As another step towards the franchise expansion, I think it would be good to establish guidelines for characters. Historically, any you can think of probably warranted a page. Now though, with all the new stories, brand collaborations, and other media, it's important we put our foot down and make sure people can't give any or all possible characters pages.

—

Characters are entities, primarily but not unanimously humanoid, who appear in content made for the franchise. They can appear in games, novels, films, and other similar media.

Depending on the media, there can either be many characters, or very few characters. As a result, not every possible entity is deserving of a page.

1. If a character serves as either the inarguable main protagonist, main antagonist, or a supporting character, they will normally get a page by default.
   1. If the work in question is incredibly small or short on detail, exceptions to this can be made, such as The Legend of the Screaming Goat. The protagonist, Lee, has defined character traits and an arc, but no additional appearances to develop them. As a result, any important information about them can simply be found on the story's page.
2. If a character is defined doing something, but lacks a name and appears visually identical to a generic mob, they are ineligible for a page.
   1. Moo is a character in Minecraft: The Island, not described looking any different from an average cow. However, Moo is very important to the narrative, possesses a personality, has been cited by the author in interviews, and appears in supplementary material.
   2. In The Nether Update Encore, a baby piglin character appears. They have visual personality and serve as the protagonist of the video, but without a name, design, or any depth they are borderline impossible to write a page for.
3. Characters with multiple appearances should receive priority, but one-shot characters can also receive pages if they meet the right criteria, such as a distinctive design and personality.
4. If a character has a certain degree of depth but not enough to sustain a page, they can be included on a minor characters page.
   1. A sentient sweet berry bush is a minor joke character appearing in How We Make Minecraft. At no point is this bush relevant to a story, but the joke of it having an ex-girlfriend named Susan is referenced many times, complete with it receiving a death.
5. If a character is merely a name, or even less notable than a minor character, they can merely be mentioned on a list, such as an entities section or the character page.

Many collaborations with the Minecraft brand have been made over the years, and many more will continue to be made. Several of these feature interactions or narratives involving external characters, such as Sonic the Hedgehog or Batman. If they meet certain criteria, they can warrant their own pages.

1. The character must have an actual history or narrative within the Minecraft universe. They do not necessarily need repeat appearances, but they cannot simply be included in content.
   1. Mario appears as a skin in the Super Mario Mash-up, but nothing else. He is identifiable as Mario, but being a mere skin nothing can be described about his appearance beyond being in the pack and his general character. Furthermore, giving a page exclusively to content from DLC violates the above policies.
   2. Grimace appears in several pieces of content for the McDonald's x A Minecraft Movie collaboration, including a skin pack, an add-on, and a series of commercials, where he sports a unique redesign. Although short on story, these appearances make Grimace recurring and allow the page to be expanded over time.
2. More than anything, a character page should be for compiling information from multiple sources. If a character makes frequent crossovers, they will have more content to document, making a dedicated page more useful.
   1. Just making multiple appearances does not make them notable. If their appearances consist entirely of skins or similarly ineligible content, a page is not necessary and can instead be directed to using a collaboration page, such as Minecraft x SpongeBob SquarePants.

Realshow19 (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I 👁 Image
 Partially support all the points except for point five of "Threshold of Importance". Characters appearing in the credits of A Minecraft Movie are more notable than characters that merely receive a name in a single piece of media.Drour1234 (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

It should be added that the media a character is featured in should be uploaded to an official Mojang/Minecraft youtube channel, if it is a youtube video, and the majority of article content should be about their official appearances in said video(s). General notability should still apply to characters, with characters defaulting to being talked about on their parent media page until there is enough substance to warrant their own article. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 18:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

How does this sound? I'll try to add the point about page focus to the style guide pitch.

• Characters from digital media must be directly released by Mojang or other first party entities, such as on the YouTube channel or in a licensed livestream.
  • Simply being acknowledged or shown, such as in a pre-show or commercial, does not mean a character has an official, notable appearance. The content must be directly commissioned.

Realshow19 (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Recently there’s been a lot of disputes on how to approach objects, mostly on Movie:Object. These sorts of pages are still incredibly new and only going to get more frequent so it’s important that we try to establish something for them quickly. I tried writing some unofficial guidelines on a template, but unfortunately they didn’t seem to stop people from adding bloat. How does this sound?

—

Objects are any item used within a narrative project, distinct from in-game items defined by their usability. They can sometimes double as items, but are primarily story-based.

Depending on the media, there can be either a handful of notable objects, or hundreds if not thousands of technically defined objects.

1. If an object is the direct focus of a story, and thus used frequently across multiple scenes, they will get a page.
   1. An object is considered notable by the context it appears in, not the context it was created. Many spin-off materials will use the base game as a starting point or visual reference, objects simply being recognizable from the game do not make them notable. Story materials should be documented by their own terms, not as an extension of the source material.
2. If an object is the focus of a scene, not necessarily multiple, they can get a page if they are specifically defined or elaborated on.
   1. In an early scene of A Minecraft Movie, Henry is drawing with a pencil. This pencil is technically important to the scene, but is not singled out, distinct, or the focus, it's merely a part of the circumstance. On the flipside, throughout the movie there are also several distinct types of cars. Every time they appear, they are the focus of the scene, and are directly part of the story. One is part of an inciting incident for the film's B-plot, another is a part of Dawn's backstory and character arc.
3. If there are multiple objects with similar attributes or a shared origin but little depth they can be contained on one page.
   1. Granite appears frequently within A Minecraft Movie, and is consistent across enough supplements for it to be conclusively identified. However, it lacks any particular significance, and so is documented primarily on the stone page.
4. Objects that are a entangled with a larger topic, such as a character or location, can be listed on directories, such as disambiguation pages or a dedicated objects list. These should generally, but are not required to, have a section or paragraph explaining them to warrant a permanent link.
   1. Garrett has a distinctive pink jacket, which is explained early on the page. Though he is not always wearing it, it is a part of a standard look, and thus isn't necessary to consider an independent object.
   2. Malgosha utilizes a unique staff to harness her powers. All information about it can be listed on her page, lacking any backstory or information not inherently related to Malgosha. However, it is also an accessory, so it can be considered a minor object.

Realshow19 (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I dont really edit much in the movie namespace, aside from fixing typos and whatnot, but this sounds good
👁 Image
amethyst_hhh^(talk)(quiz) 14:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Overall support, but the part about what gets included in lists feels so vague that it could genuinely include anything that appears in the movie. That seems unintentional, even I do not have a strong problem with it. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
14:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good to me. Your points do make sense. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  14:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed that some people cite general notability guideline #1 to call short or empty pages unnotable,^{[e.g. 1][e.g. 2]} even when the subject is notable. These pages often have minimal content simply because they are incomplete, and not because there is no sufficient information to document. It should be clarified that notability refers to the subject, not the current length of the page.

👁 Image
QwertyLilley ^[talk] 02:50, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The question should be whether an article has the potential to contain enough information. Honestly I think that specific point should be rewritten. Dianliang233 (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

(Re: the deletion log you linked) I just want to point out that I'm still rather new to this, and I just selected what I thought was correct 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
02:58, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

No worries. The current phrasing of the guideline is easy to misinterpret. 👁 Image
QwertyLilley ^[talk] 03:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I've (hopefully) fixed this in Special:Diff/3529304. Dianliang233 (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Because of the blub leak I think we should tweak the general section, if only slightly. As previously discussed, we are allowing acknowledgement of that leak or similar, but only on mentioned features, which feels a little counterintuitive. The blub is clearly an unannounced feature for the game, but it's not exactly "mentioned," a merch listing for it got published earlier than intended. Instead I think we should have a separate leaks page for any confirmed but unannounced features, as well as past incidents like the pale garden leak from 2024.

This isn't a perfect solution to covering leaks, I can already anticipate people adding hoaxes or illegal leaks from hacked builds, but for the few leaks already acknowledged it would be more efficient to have them on their own page over one for something else. Realshow19 (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://minecraft.wiki/w/Minecraft_Wiki_talk:Notability?oldid=3582168"