User talk:245e/List of well known misconceptions in the Minecraft community

Sugar Cane 4 tall farming growth

Apparently Sugar Cane doesn't grow up to four blocks on sand, that's a misconception I had during the 1.2.5 days. Can you add that to the list? Matthew Cenance (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Walking

I think walking does deplete hunger. I walk for a bit and then it takes me a hunger. – Unsigned comment added by WordField (talk • contribs). Sign comments with ~~~~

Walking does not deplete hunger. See Hunger#Exhaustion level increase. Windwend (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

About Minecraft 4k

The Minecraft 4k page states that Minecraft 4k is 2581 bytes in size, which is less than 4000 bytes. Either the page is wrong, or the myth is not a myth. --MDLC01 22:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Command execution

This might just be me, but I think that a common misconception is that you need to be in creative mode to perform commands. Or is it that way in Java edition or something? -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  20:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

There is no evidence that many of the listed myths are "common" misconceptions, and in fact some seem to be extreme minority views or outright made-up. This article should be deleted or massivly trimmed after establishing objective criteria for inclusion. Who actually believes, for example, that "cobwebs can be produced my monster spawners" or that "mycelium prevents all mobs other than mooshroom from spawning"? Where is this documented? Where did it come from?

If this article is to be kept, it need massive trimming after establishing objective criteria for inclusion. I recommend:

1. The common misconception must be mentioned in the topic article with sources.
2. The common misconception is current, not obsolete.

~Anachronist (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

About the first criteria, how would it be mentioned in the topic article? And yes, I do agree that this needs to be trimmed. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  13:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It could be mentioned as a footnote to a fact in the article. What we have now is just somebody's assertion that a misconception is "common", likely because they saw a youtube video or a posting on Reddit, which doesn't make it common. A source would need to be one deemed reliable that says the misconception is common. With that requirement, I'd bet that there would be almost nothing left in this article. And that is the reasoning that led me to propose this for deletion. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I will also note that this does not seem to comply with the usual rules it's the style guide; it has some speculation, vague terms, opinions, etc. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  22:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I would rather it be trimmed than deleted. The current misconceptions with sources criteria sounds good. Matthew Cenance (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, in that case there would be a maximum of four items that remain in the article, because there are only four sources cited. And that was my point, after trimming there isn't anything remaining that is worth keeping. So why not just delete the article? ~Anachronist (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

First, try to find valid web sources for the unsourced myths. If not enough can be found, only then should deletion be considered. Matthew Cenance (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Material that demands a source should be removed if no source is cited, and then added back only if sources are found. The burden is on the editor who adds an assertion to find a reliable source. Failing to meet that burden makes the assertion eligible for removal. That's how it works on Wikipedia, anyway.

This is a WP:TNT situation. Blow it up and start over. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Well then, we should "blow it up and start over" and find actually good misconceptions. I don't see any reason not to, so far. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  14:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

So what misconceptions could be considered good for the revolutioned article? Matthew Cenance (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The ones that cite sources, for starters. Hardness being confused with blast resistance is an understandable confusion and although no sources is cited to confirm this is a "common misconception" it does link to a bug tracker report where the distinction is made. Also the one about wardens being bosses or not is likely a misconception because Mojang has also referred to it as a boss. The rest, however, may have been one person's misconception but are unlikely to be "common" misconceptions. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

While some of them might be common points of confusion, such as "Obsidian can be blown up with large amounts of TNT", it'd probably be better to just incorporate this information on their respective articles if not already. It'd also be unlikely to find a single reliable source proving something to be a common misconception, even if it's apparent to someone actively participating in the community. I also feel that this "FAQ" type of article is of questionable usefulness in general and prone to becoming out of date, see User:Smirkenbowls/FAQ for another example before it was finally converted to a userpage in 2020.

With all that said, I'd be in favor of deleting this article after examining whether relevant information can be moved to other pages. –⁠Sonicwave ^talk 05:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, incorporating it as a misconceptions section on each affected page. Matthew Cenance (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose. First consider whether it should be userfied like with User:Smirkenbowls/FAQ, as the page is somewhat similar to that page and can be moved to User:User-12316399/List of common misconceptions. This page is a lot more recent though, created in 2022. It is not necessary to leave a redirect. We have already moved several mainspace articles out to MCW:Sandbox due to them being drafts (like with China Edition), so this is not a precedent. Delvin4519 (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to userfying this. A laundry list of someone's opinions has no place in article space, that's all. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

 Support userfying or deleting if not userfied. Let's see if we can bring in the page creator, User:User-12316399, and see how they feel about moving the article to a user page or deleting. Rampage455 (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I have decided to rename and simplified the page. The page should be better now but not fully what it should be. One of the things I fixed included a needed removal was the monster spawner creating cobwebs. I also changed Myth: to Misconception: and I think adding more citation to make this page a reliable source is something to work on here. There are probably other problems with this page but I have a special user page I soon will start working on for this here. 245e (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Other than the positive fact that you removed about 1/3 of the article, I'm not seeing an improvement otherwise. There's no effective difference between calling something a "myth" or "misconception", and there's no difference between calling a misconception "common" or "well-known". Massaging the words doesn't fix the problems with this page, namely, that most of the entries are just someone's subjective opinion based on something they read in a forum somewhere, and decided to add to this article without any sort of verification whatsoever. This article constitutes the most flagrant violation of MCW:RULES #4 that I've ever seen on this wiki. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

If what I did does not help with the page much, I can't really figure out what else to do other than userfying the page. The page I made was for if this was a possible solution to what was discussed here and if we agree on userfying this page, we should delete the page I made that is User:245e/List of well known misconceptions in the Minecraft community (project) that is currently there first and move this page to User:245e/List of well known misconceptions in the Minecraft community to preserve the edit history along with this talk page. 245e (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I was going to userfy it to the original creator's user space, but if you want it in yours, I don't think anyone would object. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Since this page is now userfyed, should we now close this discussion and change the deletion request from Delete when to Delete. This page has been sitting in Category:Awaiting deletion for awhile now. This will do something to one of the categories I'm trying to clear out. 245e (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The page should either be deleted ASAP or turned back into a redirect. I noticed that you already moved the main page and the talk page, then manually restored them (I'm guessing by copying and pasting the contents onto the redirect pages). The pages in the main namespace now have new history sections and any significant changes to either page will be lost once they are deleted. Rampage455 (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that the FAQ page that is mentioned earlier in this discussion does not have any redirect pages at all. So I guess that the following pages get deleted:

• List of well known misconceptions in the Minecraft community
• Talk:List of well known misconceptions in the Minecraft community
• List of common misconceptions (Redirect)
• Talk:List of common misconceptions (Redirect)

Both the original page and talk page history are fully saved at their designated user pages. 245e (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

All cleaned up, as well as any redirects to those pages. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)