Talk:Minecraft modding

Requested move 27 November 2021

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Minecraft modding → Minecraft mod – Minecraft mod is more natural, and suggests that the topic is about mods themselves, rather than the current title, which suggests a practice or activity of modding (e.g. running). SWinxy (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral. Either is fine. Yes, 'mod' suggests it is about specific mods while 'modding' suggests the general practice, but which one should the article be about?  Nixinova   T   C   03:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Move followed the move of the similar Doom modding RM. The article is not about "a" specific Minecraft mod. It's about the modding of Minecraft. A great deal of the article covers the activity/practice. It's not about specific mods in the main. For anyone judging by the lead, it's outdated and not in synch really with the article content. -- ferret (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Article is indeed about the practice of modding Minecraft, contrary to the assertion stated by the nom, so the current title is correct. Consistent with other articles like Skyrim modding etc._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is primarily about the topic of modding and should remain as such. Renaming it to "mod" or "mods" implies we want to primarily talk about mods themselves, which we really don't here. The sourcing has already deteriorated greatly with tons of unsourced and poorly sourced details about individual mods. A general reader does not care what individual mods are, but what they do, which is best described as a whole. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per previous opposition. I would also note that "Minecraft mod" could quite easily be understood as being an article about someone who moderates Minecraft servers. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per above --Spekkios (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

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.

Developer Edition

Just something to be watching. Not enough reliable sources yet to put Developer Edition in the article. User1042 (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

References

OptiFine as most popular mod

I added a verification failed tag regarding OptiFine being the most popular mod. As far as I can tell, the article does not make the claim that it is the most popular, only that it is popular. A brief Google search did not reveal any definitive source for this claim either. Msgerbs (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Why I changed the intro a bit

Basically I changed the intro while I was fixing grammar because it fell outside the norm. If you look at other articles of this nature (for instance World of Warcraft: Battle for Azeroth), you'll notice it says "genre game x" instead of "publisher game x", therefore "Open world sandbox game Minecraft" fits better than "Mojang video game Minecraft". Nice argument (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

PaperMC worth mentioning?

PaperMC seems to be only referenced 1 or 2 times in this article. Gootie3 (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

"Blocklauncher" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Blocklauncher has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 21 § Blocklauncher until a consensus is reached. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Do the technical details about how mods work, are installed, distributed, and are created belong on this page?

This page largely discusses the history of Minecraft mods, but it does not discuss

(a) The different ways that mods may function (jar mod, asm transformer, mixin)

(b) The technical definition of what a mod loader is IN THE CONTEXT of Java/Minecraft

(c) The specific way that current mod loaders such as Fabric, Forge, and Quilt function, what makes them different

(d) How mods are installed by users (as a jarmod, into the /mods folder of a manually installed mod loader, using a launcher, etc.)

(e) The difference between launchers (Curseforge, MultiMC, PrismMC), mod distribution sites (Curseforge, Modrinth), and mod loaders (Fabric, Forge, Quilt)

Which of these topics, if any, belong on this page? As a Minecraft modder, I find this page severely lacking and not useful. Rubydesic (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

No, see WP:NOTHOWTO -- ferret (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think discussing the technical details behind Minecraft modding constitutes a how-to guide, except maybe (d). As it stands, this article conflates many technical concepts (e) and in my opinion fails to adequately explain what Minecraft modding actually is and how it works, despite having hundreds of words about the history of modding.

The "Feasibility" section, for example, already delves into (b) but in my opinion is not very precise and is even true really only on technicalities. As a single example: "Server modding leaves the player's game folder untouched and only changes the behavior of the server, to which the player can log on in order to play a slightly varied game", draws a contrast to client-side modding as if server-side modding does not require modifying the server game folder and using a server side launcher such as (Forge, Fabric, Paper/Spigot/CraftBukkit, Sponge).

Bukkit, Fabric, Forge, Paper, Sponge and even Sponge's Mixin are all mentioned throughout the article in the context of the history of Minecraft modding, but no effort is made to actually explain what these are and how they work. Would a proper explanation of each of these loaders, for example, be in violation WP:NOTHOWTO? As it stands, most of this article is incomprehensible to anyone without a prior understanding of Minecraft modding. And if that's the case, then who is this for? People who know about Minecraft modding but want to learn it's history in addition? Seems very niche - and the page should in that case probably be titled "History of Minecraft modding".

However, I do worry that the policy against primary sources makes it infeasible for this article to really be good. The way that writing on this page is essentially all sourced from gaming magazines is, in my opinion, the main reason that the quality is so low. Rubydesic (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

More Malware in Mods- Addition to controversies section

www.windowscentral.com/gaming/curseforge-pc-game-mod-users-may-have-received-malware-as-part-of-a-recent-hack

arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/06/dozens-of-popular-minecraft-mods-found-infected-with-fracturiser-malware/

[1]https://github.com/fractureiser-investigation/fractureiser

[2]https://prismlauncher.org/news/cf-compromised-alert/

User1042💬✒️ 00:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I really want broader coverage of malware in mods. Fracturiser is novel, after all, and there have been many more events in the past. SWinxy (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I added modpack types

Obviously some of them are a combination like Skyfactory 4 is not only automation but also a quest modpack, but overall the subject covers the essence of these types of modpacks by categories. Luigi Cotocea (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Ferret reverted the edits. The intent is noble, but it needs to be sourced and have the right tone. SWinxy (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I see now why the edits are reverted, the tone dosen't sounds right. And probably best source would have been from the developer who built the modpack anyway. Luigi Cotocea (talk) 10:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Cleanup

I added a couple more maintenance tags to the article. It seems like this article has accumulated a lot of unsourced or poorly sourced content. Any edit can and should boldly take a scalpel to some of this content. I want to do some cleanup in the following days but any help is of course wanted as who knows how far any individual can get. ForksForks (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Neoforge

Hi! This is kind of a small thing but there's a new major modloader called Neoforge which split off of Forge after internal conflicts. Can somebody at least add a sentence mentioning this? MrDudeSirGuyMan (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Only if a reliable secondary source has covered it. -- ferret (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Minecraft Classic had the first server-side mods, not Alpha

Hi, I can't contribute a valid secondary source for this but I figure at the very least some rewording to reflect this fact could be justified. There's evidence of multiple modified versions of the game for Minecraft Classic servers.

https://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-java-edition/discussion/2109197-the-secret-history-of-minecraft-with-proof#c1 Yahyehoku (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)