Talk:Minecraft clone - minecraft.fandom.com

Request Deletion[]

I Want To Delete This Page. It Has No Use.VITTAPUFF2022 (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Reply[]

Hi VITTAPUFF2022, obviously, it has uses because these Minecraft clones or "fake" Minecraft apps are similar to the original Minecraft, so users, who are decided not to purchase the original Minecraft can use these "fake" Minecraft apps for free. These are only available to Android and IOS users.

- DelCastillo8405 (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Please no delete[]

Please no delete. Page is of use for many Minecraft players who wish to learn about the topic of: Minecraft clone. It's notable because Minecraft. Comment with  Support if you agree. LeafDecay (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I  Supported! Brain180, "click here to talk" 03:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

cancel deletion[]

I agree with above and say don't delete the page. I actually find it interesting to learn about clones of the game. – Unsigned comment added by XxTheRainbowGamerxX (talk • contribs). Sign comments with ~~~~

Let me add the very fun and useful trivia fun fact[]

Let me add very fun and useful trivia fun fact about: Minecraft clone. The locking of the article should be considered "unfair" and deunreversed. As you can see, the user of name "Nate 2169" has created their edition reversing my edition very much unfairly - without providing any evidence, as to why their edition is better than mine. That does thus mean one thing - my very fun and useful trivia fun fact is actually both fun and useful and trivia and fact. In other words - you are wrong. Comment with  Support if you agree. LeafDecay (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Surely you know that piracy is illegal right? So what's this misinformation that it's legal? Also, isn't a Minecraft clone a game that isn't Minecraft but similar though? Many don't even infringe on Minecraft's copyright or other intellectual property rights anyway. And it's only piracy if you get unauthorised copies of Minecraft, which are not Minecraft clones. And I reckon even Minecraft clones that infringe on Minecraft's intellectual properties rights are not pirated, as they're not copies of Minecraft. Noisy miner (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Everyone knows software piracy is fully legal and encouraged activity around the world, do not be silly. As to the matter as if the talked by the article topic is about pirated copies or not, I very much suggest taking the action of "reading" the article this currently ongoing discussion talk page is originated from. The itself concerned informational piece mentions such great examples as Craftsman 5, which clearly are being Minecraft: Bedrock Edition, just with quite the changed lookings of their blocky cubes and other game element things, to cleverly disguise them as something not being that thing. One of my great friends is a computer software creationer (commonly referred to as "programmer") also, and was able to confirm that the following games are, infact, pirated Minecraft. LeafDecay (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose I am the original person who reverted your edit. The reason why Nate 2169 didn't explain why they reverted your edit is likely because, when I did so, I already explained why your statement did not belong in the article. Going off your argument that "sarcasm is subjective", the fact your statement could be interpreted subjectively alone means it does not fit the encyclopedic tone of a wiki article. On that topic, I will admit most of this article is not well-written, which is why it doesn't seem to consistently describe either knock-offs with their own code, or outright pirated copies. Even if it were about the latter, you'd still have to reword your statement if you wanted to add it back. TavianCLirette (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Most of the time, I  Support, but this time I have to  Oppose as your "very fun and useful trivia fun fact" isn't "actually both fun and useful and trivia and fact". And also because 2 users above were already  Opposed so of course I have to  Oppose. Brain180, "click here to talk" 03:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Requesting unprotection[]

It's been almost a month after the article has been protected by SLScool for counter-productive edit warring, LeafDecay was right after all. The protection of that page done by SLScool is considered "unfair", and should must reversed its protection level back to its normal level, plus for us to continue my edits here, as I'm the one who created that page.

SLScool, please unprotect this page as soon as possible upon responding to my reply as my consensus is reached here on this talk page.

- DelCastillo8405 (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

While I said the article is "to be unlocked when a consensus is reached on [the talk page]" and that hasn't happened yet, I'll unlock the article. SLScool 14:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The consensus is that LeafDecay is wrong. Not sure why you're saying otherwise. So you agree with them. But most of us do not. Noisy miner (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m just as bewildered by your takeaway from the above discussion. It’s all too clear to me that LeafDecay was playing a joke - if you have any doubts, I advise you check their other contributions. Besides, DelCastillo8405, there is no “fair/unfair” rating for page protection or other wiki activities, unless that’s just your way of simply saying your opinion on that action (in which case you should word it that way instead). In any case, I rewrote much of the article, and noted the status of potential copyright violations within Minecraft clones. TavianCLirette (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I read it as "LeafDecay said 'The locking of the article should be considered unfair and [undeserved]' and it turns out that they were right because it's been almost a month after the article was protected," not as "LeafDecay is right about copyright and legality." SLScool 05:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Now that you mentioned it, I now realize the “should be considered ‘unfair’” wording was originally from LeafDecay, and DelCastillo8405 was simply reiterating it - my mistake. With that in mind, I do agree that the lock overstayed its welcome considering there was nothing else to say about what was clearly not a “useful trivia fact” but a humorous (and unfit) inclusion for the article. TavianCLirette (talk) 07:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)