Talk:Easter eggs

From Minecraft Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives

Portal reference section[edit]

OK so User:Majr, User:Skylinerw, and I have been having a mini edit war over Easter eggs, specifically my edit to the Portal reference section.

OK so here's my rationale for reverting back to adding that:

  1. Languages may not be Mojang-written content, but they are Mojang-approved content. In other words if Mojang approved it, yes technically it's community content but it might as well be Mojang because if it's not something _they_ would've written it wouldn't be in the game. It's not as if the community could put anything they want in there (eg machine translations/spam).
  2. There's already a language section above. Both of those are Easter eggs ie non-essential additional fun content added to the game _by Mojang_.

So that's why I believe adding my sentence in is important. Let me know what you think.

—benjabean1 (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

There actually were some issues with people getting spam and derogatory terms approved in translations a few years ago. Several users were eventually banned, and Mojang had to add restrictions to the crowdsourced translation process. While Mojang approves which languages are used, they exercise very little control over the content of the translations. So the presence of Pirate Speak and Lolcat as available languages is a notable easter egg, but the actual text in those languages is not. -- Orthotopetalk 01:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks for clearing it up. —benjabean1 (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

2001 a space odyssey reference[edit]

Ok there's this obscure movie called 2001 A Space Odyssey. I know most of you have never heard of it...oh what's that? EVERYONE's heard of it because it's a very very famous classic movie? Good, well tell BDJP007301 that because he thinks references to it are just coincidence and won't allow the page to mention "Oh my god it's full of stats" as being a pop culture reference. He's reverted the change twice, demanding a link to where Mojang actually says that's what they're referencing. Considering "the cake is a lie" doesn't have such a link and it's a more obscure reference I don't see how this is needed. Feel free to complain to him here: http://minecraft.gamepedia.com/User_talk:BDJP007301 –Preceding unsigned comment was added by WildBluntHickok (talkcontribs) at 21:50, 3 April 2016‎ (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

According to this article on Wikiquote, the quote "My god, it's full of stars!" is from the novel 2001: A Space Odyssey. Nevertheless, I think it's worth to mention this in this article here; You could just provide the link to the wikipedia article I linked to above as a reference. | violine1101(Talk) 22:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Let's keep it civil.
In addition to Violine1101's link, I'll offer [1] as a reference that it's passed into common usage as a snowclone, showing that it is likely that this is a typical variation of that quote. As for whether there's any question it's that quote, there is nothing else it could possibly be, that's not itself a reference to this meme about the 2001 book. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 23:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
To be clear I put this up on the talk page as an attempt at DE-escalation. As a saner alternative to a mindless revert war. Getting the opinion of a 3rd (and 4th) party is always a better solution than continuing the back and forth reverts. WildBluntHickok (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Also on the splash page, "full of stars!" isn't referencing a Mojangsta, but goes unchallenged for the same reason. There's one very famous quote, and no real competing alternative. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 23:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but "demanding", me "thinking references are a coincidence" and intentionally bullying me is utter pure BS. I'm just following wiki rules and what the official sources say. KnowYourMeme as well as the Wikipedia article mentioned can't be used as a source for a reference to pop culture. Also, you violated rule #3 by telling me to "stop showing my age", so please just calm down and follow the rules. Even though they are meant to be broken, they never should be. -BDJP (t|c) 04:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and here's an example of when everything in a section is REFERENCED (Yep. Minecraft in pop culture). -BDJP (t|c) 04:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I think no-one disagrees that generally, we need references for things.
One major issue is with very nature of easter eggs. We are not always going to get a reference or announcement from a developer when they are putting an easter egg into the game. On this page, besides the random silliness, there are also mentions of Team Fortress, Jurassic Park, lawsuits due to seizures, the Konami Code, missingno, the standard galactic alphabet, monty python and the holy grail, scottish steve and swedish alex, tlhlngan Hol and Quenya, and "the cake is a lie", all which don't have a reference to back up their interpretations. They can remain in the page because they are easter eggs in the game -- but then to explain why they are an easter egg, to someone who may not know what missingno is, or the konami code, or team fortress, etc, there has to be some level of leeway there. Otherwise people could read this page full of legitimate easter eggs, and not get the references.
This has come to be accepted on this wiki also on Crash#Witty comments and on Splash.
As for "breaking the rules": I move we just amend the rules to make all this legal. I mean, we are definitely not serving anyone by letting obvious references go unexplained. If there's not already a clause in the rules governing "common knowledge" or "common sense", I would propose maybe that in the specific case of interpreting puns/references/inside jokes, to allow descriptions without needing Mojangsta references, and allow references from other sites that support it, but only in cases where there's just one interpretation. And I'm all for making it strict as necessary, I don't desire to open a can of worms here, and I'm definitely against speculation on the wiki. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 12:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Would it even be possible to safely include "common knowledge" and "just one interpretation" in the rules? Such rules would most likely have multiple interpretations themselves. In addition, how will you handle situations where users disagree on what's common knowledge and which interpretation is the only one? --AttemptToCallNil, previously known as GreenStone (report bug, view backtrace) 13:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I'll back away from terms like "common knowledge", after having read the wp:Common Knowledge page. But as for "just one interpretation", I suppose there would be a discussion on the talk page, where one user would say "here's another interpretation: ____" and then it would have to be recognized that there are multiple interpretations. You might be right, maybe it would be a problem. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 14:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Heck, there's even an editor note straight at the top of this page. However, I'm strongly against amending the rules in such cases where other video games / novels are referenced. -BDJP (t|c) 17:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
If you don't accept the wikipedia article as a source, what kind of source would be valid in your opinion? | violine1101(Talk) 20:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Although this may not be the person you are referring to, violine, the only sources that I would consider valid are sources where Mojang says that such and such a quote is a reference to such and such a video game or novel. -BDJP (t|c) 11:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)