Talk:Development of Minecraft: Java Edition

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

S.E.A. Dragons (2 participants)
Tadpole (gamer) (2 participants)
Yuan-ti (7 participants)
Offset Software (1 participant)
Fear & Hunger 2: Termina (4 participants; relisted)
GAE (company) (2 participants; relisted)
Telebbit (3 participants; relisted)
Thunderobot (8 participants; relisted)
Microcabin (4 participants; relisted)
Racjin (5 participants; relisted)
Jailbreak (Roblox) (14 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Thoughts on the draft

This feels more like a list of versions than an article about the development of Minecraft. Either change the title of the article to something more fitting, or write it more like other "Development of..." articles, see Development of Grand Theft Auto V and Development of Duke Nukem Forever for some good examples. Other than that, great article so far

Happy editing! 1timeuse75 (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only noticed the message now, but I see your point. To be honest, most development info about Minecraft is about updates, with only the pre-release cycle having more info on certain development aspects specifically. As for the name, I made a poll on Discord on whether to name the article "Development of..." or "History of...". The votes were even, but I decided to choose "Development", since the article doesn't focus on outside factors like the community and legacy of the game. I also thought of calling it "Minecraft version history", but decided not to, since the addition of various features through updates also counts towards development.

I don't really mind if the page gets moved, but I want the move to be requested and discussed rather than done immediately. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 18:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 October 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Thanks, Glasspalace (talk | contribs) 05:43, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Development of Minecraft: Java Edition → Minecraft: Java Edition version history – This is clearly not a typical "development of" article in the vein of Development of Grand Theft Auto V. Most of it just lists out versions rather than being a prose article about development. It should likely be renamed in-line with articles like Firefox version history and become a list article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 16:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Please read the last post on this talk page.

1timeuse75 (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand on this? I thought in the above section, you suggested a rename might be necessary, and the author asked for an official move request to be started. Why do you oppose? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maplestrip see Dabmasterars response 1timeuse75 (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose their argument against this title is "the addition of various features through updates also counts towards development." That is true, but the article doesn't have much content besides that. It is almost entirely focused on additions of various features through updates, i.e. a version history. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:24, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think what he means is that both development info and version history are present, though the update changes do appear most in the article and the development info is focused mostly in the "pre-release" section. There isn't really much reliable info about the development past the release, outside of technical changes, though I didn't really lurk that far. Right now I'm kinda torn on whether to rename the article or not. I could find more development info, especially through interviews, as they look like the main source of info in various other video game development articles. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 15:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a move to Development of Minecraft or similar, as having an article for just one of the many versions of Minecraft is arbitrary. Sections on the development of Java/Bedrock/Legacy Console could then be included.

On the point about the article being dissimilar to GTA V's development article, that isn't surprising, as Minecraft was released and publicly available from its very earliest development. I would not be totally against a move to Minecraft version history, but this article can have a wider scope if it's just called "Development of Minecraft", in my opinion.

ETA - it's clear the article is currently formatted quite like a version history, so if that formatting goes unchanged then a version history title makes more sense. I do think sections could be included relating to the recent change to "drop updates" and similar, which currently goes unmentioned. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The idea to write the page about the development of all versions of Minecraft was from the start, but I quickly realized that it's gonna be pretty confusing with a lot of information repeating, especially since Bedrock and Java entered update parity starting with 1.16. This page is already huge and I don't think making it bigger with redundant information is going to be helpful; I would much rather dedicate Bedrock a separate page. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 15:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Video games has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 16:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: second relist to see if WP notification helps ASUKITE 16:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as it leans more heavily into being a change log which Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCHANGELOG). The history of development should be written in summary style, and I agree with Eastwood that a page combining both Bedrock and Java editions is preferable. I don't understand what information would be repeating unless you're writing about the versions separately, one after the other. But you shouldn't do that because our sources don't do that. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 18:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had decided to discourage "Development of [video game]" articles. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to only apply when the Development itself is not notable, or there is not enough independent reliable coverage that it would not sense as a second page. In this case there is (Minecraft is maybe the biggest game ever, with a focus on individual updates for over a decade), so it is a valid WP:SPLIT of the article. ALittleClass (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.