Hello! I noticed this edit added a photo of what seems like Mobbo. Do you have any references from Mojang that says this? Despite the many similarities, it could be a coincidence and does fall under speculation according to MCW:Rules if there isn't one unfortunately. 👁 Image
Ayaan 19:45, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- It probably can't be a coincidence, here is a short about it: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/UKppDdqW-wE Mr Zapp125 (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- Well that's cursed but it seems like it checks out (?) TheCaptainYaya (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, this would still be considered speculation. 👁 Image
Ayaan 20:54, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- Looking at it further, I do not think this can reasonably be a coincidence given:
- The video is about adding a new mob
- The original person is famous for adding a new mob
- The pig next to mobbo and the pig association of the video
- The lava coming out of both's mouth
It seems extremely implausible this would occur as a coincedence and in my view should be kept TheCaptainYaya (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- I recommend reading into Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Since no official source (like Mojang) is stating this, it is currently speculation. 👁 Image
Ayaan 21:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- The source in this case is to look at the two videos. If a reasonable counter for why something is not a coincidence cannot be given, there wouldn't be a reason to stop it from appearing in the article itself. Wikipedia's verifiability standards are also already inherently different from ours, as the basis of their philosophy is that editors are "Editors are not truth-finders" which is contradictory to how the Minecraft Wiki itself operates as finding information built on consensus is not just allowed but encouraged given the playtesting nature of documenting videogames.
- However, I would agree that the wording is likely not the best as on further consideration it should probably be presented in a form where people can draw their own conclusions opposed to flat out saying it is the truth. TheCaptainYaya (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- While Wikipedia uses silly secondary reliable sources, the Minecraft Wiki is not so different on simple verification via primary sources such as checking the code, in-game testing or a message from a developer. Camman's (or anyone else) words would be considered an unreliable secondary source. 👁 Image
Ayaan 21:22, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I can see that this is a part of a much broader conversation of verifiability which I am happy to start but wouldn't be for this talkpage. I have removed the contentious information in relevant files and such. For connections I believe may cause similar levels of contention to this conversation I will refrain from making them without prior discussion first. TheCaptainYaya (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
