Minecraft Wiki talk:Community portal - minecraft.fandom.com

Hi guys why did you stayed on this wiki?[]

I`m genuinely curious. Like what`s the reason you still cleaning up the vandalism despite the fact that the competitor is way more popular? FishRiba (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, the reason is simple, Fandom (the wiki-hosting service of this wiki) does not close wikis that are forked, including this one. They instead treat this wiki as an open and available wiki for anyone to read and edit. And vandalism is still cleaned up because number 1 vandalism is bad, and number 2 the wiki rules and Fandom's Forking Policy do not allow anyone to vandalize this wiki.

As for why people edit this wiki, well not because they don't know the forked wiki exists, but rather they have made the decision of staying and editing this wiki mostly just for fun. So yeah, I hope my answer helps :) Brain180, "click here to talk" 16:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

The new wiki has a new domain[]

Okay, I should have tell you about this right at time I discovered this, but the domain "mc.wiki" redirects to the new wiki ever since June 16, 2025 or about a month ago. But apparently, there's no filters that disallow edits containing the domain, which could be bad if one figures out that they can use the domain on their edit, and also is against Fandom's Forking Policy. So the fix of this is simple: just add the domain to the filter that disallows the new wiki's URL and maybe ask the Fandom staffs to add the domain to the global filter that disallows the... well I think you know what I'm trying to say. So yeah, that's it. Brain180, "click here to talk" 16:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks — I've added it to our abuse filter. Ferretwings (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Should this wiki strive to become official again?[]

It has come to my attention that the Minecraft Wiki has fallen in activity after the Microsoft status update and especially after the fork. Therefore, we may need to approach Microsoft for a potential renewal of the partnership if we want the Minecraft Wiki to become prosperous again. What would be the requirements for the Minecraft Wiki to become official again if we were to renew the partnership? HexaRuby (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Mojang Studios no longer links to us. They have replaced most, if not all, links to minecraft.fandom.com with links to the fork. So, if we wanted to become official again, we would have to convince them to accept us as the primary Minecraft Wiki instead of the fork. SLScool 03:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

So how could we convince them? HexaRuby (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe part of the problem was the quantity and quality of the ads. And the mobile experience was (is?) pretty bad (because of those ads). I use an ad blocker, so I don't know if Fandom has gotten any better with the ads. I know that in some ways, Fandom has improved, and will continue to improve — perhaps more slowly than wiki users would wish. I know that the Minecraft devs got complaints about the wiki ads, but their hands were tied. Perhaps ending the "official" partnership was the only way they could save face. And I know it is a very bitter pill to swallow, but maybe wiki forks are the only way to convince Fandom that there is a problem that needs addressing.

So what can lowly wiki editors and admins do? I'm not sure. I loved Gamepedia, and when they got sold to Fandom, I moved to Fandom. How to attract new editors? God, I wish I knew. Contests? Prizes? Editor of the month? Editor of the week? We could only offer prestige as a prize, like a giant gold star, which actually may be enough because people like appreciation. Ferretwings (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Would Fandom accept this wiki moving to another platform while they remain with minecraft-archive.fandom.com, so they still have a Minecraft Wiki? HexaRuby (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

That would be a "fork," not a "move". I think the only time Fandom closes a wiki is if there are two wikis for the same game, or if the number of views for a particular wiki drops below a certain threshold. This wiki has enough traffic to prevent Fandom from closing it. This wiki did fork once, a couple of years ago. The admin got fed up with decisions Fandom was making, copied the entire wiki (which is legal according to Fandom's copyright), and forked to another platform. I am disappointed that they gave up on Fandom, but I also understand. Fandom has improved since then (but I believe there are still too many ads). Ferretwings (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

So they closed minecraft-archive.fandom.com down because they thought this wiki was more important? HexaRuby (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe it was determined that our wiki is more up-to-date, and therefore the minecraft-archive wiki will be closed (at some unspecified date). Fandom wants to be sure the closure won't impact SEO. Ferretwings (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

So the scenario of moving this wiki without forking is implausible? HexaRuby (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Correct. A move would imply that the wiki would cease to exist on Fandom. As long as this wiki (on Fandom) has views, it will never close. The wiki cannot "move," it can only fork. Ferretwings (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Can I make snapshot pages?[]

The main problem you had with them was that they were mostly vandalism and copied from the new wiki. Therefore, I volunteer to write all snapshot pages moving forward as a side project. Do you accept? HexaRuby (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

At its core, this isn't any different from your suggestion last month to undelete snapshot articles, which was rejected. The only difference is what would happen to any low-quality snapshot articles that were deleted. SLScool 20:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I thought it was different because it fixes the quality problem. HexaRuby (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Enable article comments[]

So we had talked about enabling Discussions, which we conclused that we will not enable Discussions any time soon. However, another thing that can be enabled on this wiki is article comments, which unlike Discussions, article comments can be enabled simply through the Admin Dashboard. And in fact, as far as I can remember, article comments was enabled on this wiki until somewhere during the Donkey event.

In my opinion, article comments should be enabled again on this wiki, and I believe that doing so will be beneficial to the wiki. I think the most important reason why we should is because it's really the only good and easy way that the reader can express their opinions to the article they're reading (like one can say "the trading system honestly sucks imo" in the Trading article, or "Bees are my favorite mob, they're so cute" in the Horse article). Normally, the reader can use the talk page to express their opinions to the article they're reading, however, not only does the talk may be removed because of the talk page guidelines, but also if it somehow manages to stay then very few people will see the talk, let alone replying it. The other way the reader can express their opinions is to edit the page, however it's not hard to see that the edit will be reverted. But if they use the comment to do that then not only does the comment will not be removed (since it's different from talk page) (unless it breaks a rule), but also much more people will see that comment and therefore there's a higher chance that someone will reply the comment, which makes sense since people are much more likely to check the comment then to check the page. Now you might ask "why does it matter?", and well, remember when HexaRuby said that this wiki has fallen in activity? Well, I believe one of the reason why that's the case is because the wiki is very isolated, not much social activities are happening on this wiki at all. This makes people tired of this wiki and therefore the wiki's activity falls. But when the comments are enabled, it leads to more activities to the wiki (since there will be users commenting and some other replying, which in turn bring users closer together), and as far as I can tell, will make the wiki raises (even if it's just a little). Other benefits of comments are: writing/replying comments is easier than writing/reply talk pages, you don't need to sign your comments/replies, users can still use either the comment or the talk page to talk about the problem with the page, etc.

Now I should talk about the drawbacks of comments, which are the fact that it's very easy to write spam/misinformation/hoax/advertising comments, it's harder to patroll comments since it requires one to be a Thread Moderater or Discussions Moderater (normal users cannot simply just change or "revert" a comment like edits), and there should be guidelines on comments. However, I think they're not gonna be any problems since a user needs to be an autoconfirmed (having an account on Fandom for at least 4 days) and an emailconfirmed in order to make a comment, we can always have more Thread Moderaters, and if the comments get too out of hand then a Thread Moderater can just comment-lock the page.

So overall, I think article comments should be enabled. Why do you guys think? Brain180, "click here to talk" 22:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a wiki, not a social media platform. HexaRuby (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that enabling article comments will turn this wiki into a social media platform at all, and even if it does, it's not gonna be a bad thing. A lot of Fandom wikis have enabled comments, and as far as I know, comments do not negatively affect to those wikis. Wiki article comments are also basically just comments of a news article or an informative YouTube video. Additionally, a lot of users of the fork Minecraft Wiki usually use the wiki as like a social media platform. They often mostly talk to other users through talk pages, user talk pages, and the user-created chat forums thingy — I don't really much about it. And often or not, those users' edit count in the "Talk", "User talk", or "User" namespace (where the user-created chat forums are in) is about as much as or even higher than in the "Main" namespace. And not only do those users seem to not get punished, but also they don't seem to really harm the wiki at all. So with all of that, I  Support the enabling of article comments to this wiki.

Also, I know it's unrelated to this, but I'm currently not active on the fork wiki as I have no enjoyment of editing that wiki at all, and nobody on that seems to care about me at all. Brain180, "click here to talk" 19:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Increasing the scope of the Minecraft Wiki for official downloadable content[]

It's come to my attention that the scope of the Minecraft Wiki has come to its limits. We've been doing pretty well with staying up-to-date with vanilla content - especially compared to when the fork was new. However, Mojang makes a lot more content for the game besides what they make for updates and snapshots; that has been the case for many years, with Mojang having released texture packs, downloadable worlds, and even add-ons containing entities, items, and blocks. I've tried to get these under our wing by making pages for several of them, but I've recently been told it would be better to listen and realize what needs to be done to make them "standard" for the wiki.

This might not be so much a question about whether we "should" have pages for such content (although pages for content within add-ons could still be contentious). Given it's from Mojang, and there are ways to make sure the pages distinguish them from vanilla content, there's a lot more to lose by not documenting that content than there is to lose by documenting it. So, what do you think we need for them - unique template boxes to indicate add-on content, unique block/item/entity categories for content within add-ons, or even separate namespaces? Feel free to talk about the ups and downs for each of the options we could take here. TavianCL (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2025 (UTC)