Talk:Community Vote

Replacement proposition for the "Scrapped" flag set on losing mob vote candidates

with the wording of the scrapped template flag, it makes it seem like the feature is fully scrapped and will most likely never make it into the game. for mob votes (excluding the very first mob vote), and by extension biome votes, it is confirmed that the lost candidate features are NOT scrapped and will only make it into the game at a later point in time, meaning they are most likely being added to the game and are not fully scrapped, as evidence by the 1.19 swamp biome vote additions, although the future could always be a long time It'sBeck (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge all community voted features into one Community Votes page

Currently, the Mob Votes are the only ones that have their own pages, with all the other votes including major ones like the Biome Votes squeezed into other articles.

This makes navigation more cumbersome and the Wiki less useful to gather this information. I feel it's a very unnecessary separation. All votes can easily be gathered into one page while still keeping the descriptions of their differences inside the article. There are many articles following a similar format already on the Wiki.

If one page won't work, the other votes should get their own seperate pages at the very least. RileZugo (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that this calls for Biome Votes to each be on their own pages just like Mob Votes.Drour1234 (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

 Support, biome votes should be on some sort of page like this, but this page is already so small that making biome votes their own page feels unnecessary. Both mob votes and biome votes can include multiple features anyway, like how armadillos were explicitly said to include wolf armor. Choosing the name for the biome vote page could also be a pain since the two are named different, Biome Vote and Biome Chooser. - Harristic / Talk 18:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Remove classifications from mob infoboxes

Since this applies to all mobs that lost the mob vote, I guess I'll post this here. I noticed that on the individual pages for the mobs that were never added to the game, some of them have a classification (animal, golem, etc.) listed in their infoboxes. Does anybody mind if I remove the classifications? Since the mobs were never added to the game, their classification is speculative, even if it seems obvious on the surface. I might argue, that you can't even be sure a copper golem would be classified a golem like an iron golem or snow golem. What if it was supposed to be created and behave completely differently than other golems? What if Mojang decided to come up with another classification for them? It's all speculation. Rampage455 (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

 Support, it's just speculation, and unnecessary anyway as those mobs have never been implemented--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 12:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Remove mob loser pages

I think the pages for mob / biome vote losers should be removed. Specifically:

• Meerkat
• Termite
• Ostrich
• Vulture
• Iceologer
• Moobloom
• Glare
• Rascal
• Tuff Golem
• Crab
• Penguin

I understand that the first four might be added in a future update, but they should still redirect to their repsective MINECON pages. All of these articles are just total stubs. Also, it is probably more useful to compare each of these to the other options from its respective community vote, rather than to look at it in isolation. --   Simanelix   (T|C) 03:54, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

wildfire isn't on there. Creepypastaking10 (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

No, why would we that? Why is it bad that you can search "Rascal" and just learn about rascals? That isn't what stub means, stub means missing information, these pages are just short and even then not that short at all. - Harri / Talk 15:03, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose. As Harri said, stub ≠ short, these pages are filled enough/as much as they can be. I think these pages are useful for readers.  Nixinova  T ⁄ C  21:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. The pages should be kept. I don't know what I was thinking when I made this proposal. I really do come up with bold ideas. Small pages are good though. The comparing idea might be good though. Like perhaps the community vote pages could have a few comparisons here and there for some of the details between the various features. --   Simanelix   (T|C) 16:41, 28 March 2026 (UTC)