Talk:Mojang Studios

{{GA|08:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)|topic=video games|page=1|oldid=963169399}}

{{DYK talk|2 July|2020|entry= ... that every employee who remained with Mojang Studios for six months after its acquisition by Microsoft received a bonus of roughly $300,000?|nompage=Template:Did you know nominations/Mojang Studios}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|

}}

{{Afd-merged-from|Catacomb Snatch|Catacomb Snatch|11 November 2012}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

| algo = old(30d)

| archive = Talk:Mojang Studios/Archive %(counter)d

| counter = 1

| maxarchivesize = 150K

| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}

| minthreadstoarchive = 1

| minthreadsleft = 4

}}

The online Minecraft Classic is a remake

So, User:IceWelder reverted my edit claiming that Minecraft in https://classic.minecraft.net is not, in fact, a remake.

This is confusing to me, considering that the original Minecraft Classic is written in Java (see: how the Java Edition launcher has 0.30), but the online one is in Javascript, an entirely different language, and shares no code (see: Inspect Element).

I really have no better way to explain this without going deep into the woods, sorry.

(ps: if this sounds blunt or insulting, sorry)

FavoritoHJS (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

: I reverted your edit for two reasons: First, it made it sound as though there had already been an official release called "Minecraft Classic". This name previously only existed in a Notch blog post, not actually as part of a release. Second, no source seems to describe the new version as a remake, even if it now runs on JavaScript. Only verifiable details should be included; calling it a "remake" because we checked the source code would be original research. IceWelder [✉] 07:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

:Yeah, this is hard to reliably source from the PCGN source currently attached. The source itself is making the mistake of calling it the "original build" and "very first version". Even "restored the first version" is ambiguous. Something like [https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/minecraft-classic-is-a-browser-based-look-back-at-2009 RPS] says "Mojang have dusted off an early 2009 iteration, packaged it up into free, browser-friendly format and called it Minecraft Classic" even if they still use technically-incorrect "nearly-decade-old build" wording. I looked at few other sources, but they all just regurgitate the Mojang's announcement without any fact-checking or, you know, journalism. So I am not sure we can improve the wording much, although we can probably improve it a little bit based on said RPS source, for example. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2022

I created Category:Markus Persson and Template:Markus Persson and would like to add them to the article. OsloKristianiaKøbenhavn (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

:File:Semi-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Aaron Liu (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

:{{done}} — HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 14:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Mojang lawsuit

Last week a lawsuit made by Kian Brose filed a lawsuit to sue Mojang SnappyRiffs (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

:Seems like something rather minor, and no reliable source appears to have talked about this either. I'll keep my eyes peeled but the is nothing to include right now. IceWelder [✉] 21:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

:If anything comes out of this, should this be moved to a separate page? Tall Tall Mountain (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::With the current velocity on sources (that being 0 sources in 2 months), I highly doubt there to be a case for notability. IceWelder [✉] 16:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)