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 modMinecraft 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 For anyone judging by the lead, it's outdated and not in synch really with the article content.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/

https://github.com/fractureiser-investigation/fractureiser

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)

https://neoforged.net/news/theproject/ Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20230714142026/https://neoforged.net/news/theproject/

This is the official post on the neoforged project's website. The sources listed for fabric and quilt both point to their respective websites as well. Why would neoforge's existence require a secondary source when these are accepted? Mitsuhidays (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2025 (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)

History

I have found an article written by the author of Railcraft in 2015. https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/learning/tech-guides/brief-history-minecraft-modding

This may be a better source for mentions of hMod, as well as clear up some muddiness in the history of the earlier days of Minecraft modding. I am however, a newbie when it comes to wikipedia editing, so I want to defer actual edits to the experts. Mitsuhidays (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

"Pixalmon" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Pixalmon 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/2025 April 3 § Pixalmon until a consensus is reached. ~Liance^talk 03:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

"OptiFine" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect OptiFine 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/2025 April 3 § OptiFine until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The [Jenny Mod]] is a popular Minecraft modification that adds an interactive NPC character named Jenny and other characters. It introduces new gameplay mechanics such as house building, dialogues, and relationship systems. Despite its popularity, the mod has sparked controversy due to mature themes, leading to debates about its appropriateness for younger players. Ysh204226 (talk) 11:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tinkers Construct smeltery.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Requesting other editors' help for content disputes on the Minecraft Modding page

I am requesting additional input regarding a content dispute on the Java Edition section.

I added the statement: "Modded servers are the backbone of the online Minecraft landscape. The vast majority of public servers run plugins or mod packs that define their gameplay entirely." This is not explained to readers in the article, and the intention was to address what I believe is a gap in the article regarding the importance of modded and plugin-based servers within the Java multiplayer ecosystem.

The edit was reverted by MrOllie on the grounds that it constituted "spam" and used an "unreliable source". I have asked multiple times for clarification as to why the source is considered unreliable and in what way the edit is promotional, but I have not yet received a detailed explanation.

I would appreciate input from other editors on whether the cited source is sufficiently reliable for the claim being made, and whether the broader topic of modded/plugin-based servers deserves coverage within the article.

I would also welcome comments on source consistency, as the article currently appears to contain some dead or non-functioning references, while this source was removed outright. My primary goal is to improve the article and reach consensus in accordance with Wikipedia's content policies.

I am seeking wider community input because my experience in attempting to discuss this matter has been unproductive, and I have seen similar concerns raised by other editors in discussions elsewhere about MrOllie. For that reason, I believe additional independent perspectives would be valuable in determining whether the source and content are appropriate. Cardinalhijack (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

This source is junk. It's 2 paragraphs of the most generic text. Who is the author? What are their credentials? What sources is the site using for its statements? What is the site's editorial policy? Where are other articles? Where is evidence of any history of publishing reliable content? Nothing about this looks anything other than an attempt to add spam link to Wikipedia. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 09:49, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

How is the source junk? It explains modding and why they exist in the Java ecosystem - a gap this wiki page misses.

Can I not apply the same questions to almost all the citations in this wikipedia page. I mean:

1. https://www.thegamer.com/minecraft-fan-owl-blockbench/ - who is "lucas james"? The link 404s....

2. https://oraxen.com/blog/minecraft-mods-vs-plugins-oraxen - who is "oraxen" Who is the author? What are their credentials? What sources is the site using for its statements? What is the site's editorial policy? Where are other articles? Where is evidence of any history of publishing reliable content?

3. https://www.quest.com/community/remotescan/f/forum/32811/how-mods-shaped-minecraft-s-history - editor "tjadpwmj" - Who is the author? What are their credentials? What sources is the site using for its statements? What is the site's editorial policy? Where are other articles? Where is evidence of any history of publishing reliable content?

The list goes on for almost every citation here - we are keeping a 404 error page as a citation over an actual page describing modding??!

Why, for this citation, are we attaching a higher criteria than literally 50+% the other links on this article? Why is "tjadpwmj" an author we consider worth keeping - what is your critria for judging this - can you point me to it please? Why are we not inspecting the source text, evaluating its content and deciding if its inkeeping with the wiki page and instead arbitrarily applying this critira to some links and not others?

The fact that the 404 link is considers superior to a page actually describing modding is diabolical and perfectly explains the problem at hand.. Cardinalhijack (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

If you find some other problem link on Wikipedia, that's something to fix, not something to emulate by adding more junk. MrOllie (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

No one said existing citations are good. For example, oraxen link is basically spam and should be removed. I am not going to argue every point with you, go read Wikipedia's guidelines and policies like WP:VG/RS. You asked for a third opinion. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 12:31, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

So you're confirming the information on this wiki article is cited with spam in multiple instances?

I will go through and remove the spam links as it seems like nobody else wants to and instead they want to play god with new links providing solid information. I wonder if our good friend MrOllie will have anything to say about that...I feel like he might you know. Cardinalhijack (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:POINT first. MrOllie (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I took a look at that and have not disrupted wikipedia at all. I have removed spam links confrimed by myself and HELLKNOWZ.

Thankyou Cardinalhijack (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Could I check if you both will grant me the permission to make the following edit to the page, which is requesting citation:

As of March 2025 there are more than 250,000 Mods for Minecraft.^{[citation needed]}

Replaced with:

As of June 2026 there are more than 280,000 mods on Cursefore, 3,320 pages of mods on Modrinth and 90,000+ mods/plugins on Spigot. Source: https://www.minecraftindex.com/mods .

You can validate those numbers by going to those sites, or will this make the wikipedia overlords mad as well? Cardinalhijack (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

It's a community list. If you're gonna rely on primary sources, use Mojang's official list instead: https://findmcserver.com Not related to mods, but I hope you get the point. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 13:19, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Your edit about blockbench doesnt even use the official blockbench site as a reference? What is actually going on here? Why are we all just making up rules and then not following them ourselves? Cardinalhijack (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Secondary sources are preferred over primary ones. If you find a secondary source, such as IGN or PC Gamer, that mentiones how many mods are there, then feel free to add the information from the source. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 13:25, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I found one:

https://www.minecraftindex.com/mods Cardinalhijack (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Obviously not a secondary source. MrOllie (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that reliable, secondary sources are preferred. Try searching "minecraft mods" on Google and going to the "news" section. List of reliable game-related sources can be found at WP:VG/S. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 13:28, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

TheGamer citation is used to support the claim that BlockBench is used as a modelling tool, not about who "Lucas James" is. Also, TheGamer is reliable post-2020, see WP:VALNET. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 12:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

It literally 404 errors..... Cardinalhijack (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

When I added it, it was online. I'll try searching for an archive and readd the image.

Edit: Done Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 13:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Why are you linking to that article which doesnt even explain what blockbench is and instead link to the blockbench site? CC @MrOllie - this must also be classed as spam? Cardinalhijack (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

No. Also, stop @mentioning me. Thanks. MrOllie (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

It literally says "Blockbench, a Blender-like software that only lets you create models with cubes". Bruh Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 13:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

And all the sites ive linked have also said about the topic, yet none of them are allowed and your archive.org link is, rather than using the actual blockbench site as a reference to what blockbench is.

Wow, wikipedia is heading for the dirt.... Cardinalhijack (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. MrOllie (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2026 (UTC)