Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Oasis (Minecraft clone)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
DYK toolbox

Oasis (Minecraft clone)

(
)
Created by Johnson524 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Loytra (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC).

  • Comment The disambiguation is incorrect - if this is considered a video game, then per WP:NCVGDAB it should be (2024 video game) instead (since there is already a 2005 video game of the same name). That said, I am not sure I would consider it a video game, given that it does not work according to anything but dream logic, and is more of a vague approximation of a game. Therefore, (simulation) or (AI simulation) could be a better disambiguation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
    • If it's not clear exactly what Oasis is, then why would the disambiguation be considered incorrect? The software is most notable for being a clone of Minecraft, surely that should be mentioned in the title for clarity sake? Hell, half the time it's referred to as "AI Minecraft" rather than its actual name. Loytra (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
      • It is incorrect because "Minecraft clone" is overly specific and therefore goes against disambiguation guidelines. It is like using (black dog with long fur and floppy ears) instead of (dog). It must be made more broad, whether by calling it "video game" or "simulation". Furthermore, calling it a "clone" may in fact be incorrect. It is literally Minecraft, as played by interpreting the game through an AI, whereas "clone" is typically used to describe games that are similar to, but not identical to another. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
        • Most of the sources referenced in the article describe it as a "version of Minecraft" or simply "AI-generated Minecraft". It really isn't commonly referred to as "Oasis"; I don't think most people would recognise the software if it was under the title "Oasis (2024 video game)" or "Oasis (simulation)". Imo it has to have "Minecraft" in the title. I know naming conventions are pretty strict but I'd almost argue that this is an WP:IAR situation. Loytra (talk) 11:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
          • I can confidently say it's not an IAR situation. After looking at the sources more, I am convinced that (AI model) is the best DAB for this as it is first and foremost a model that can be "played" using a game interface. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think arguing over the title should block this from DYK. Only truly egregiously wrong titles would cause that kind of problem, and the current title is clearly not that bad - as noted, the COMMONNAME is something like "AI Minecraft". (And I don't think the case is as open-and-shut as Zxc thinks it is, either.) Zxc, you should file a WP:RM and see what the community thinks IMO. SnowFire (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
    • I agree. Its now time to keep discussion in this template related to DYK reviews and any discussion about the name of this article, should take place via an RM and any discussion about improving this article should take place at the relevant talk page. Article titles are outside the scope of a DYK review. side note: sounds like I'm a forum moderator at this point JuniperChill (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

A reviewer is needed for this nomination. Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: No - Forbes Sites is not a reliable source per past consensus; Decrypt Media seems a bit borderline, but regardless of reliability the link needs to not be directly to the CEO's article. Backdash seems to be a how-to website, so also in need of replacement. 80 Level seems to be a clickbait outlet for a jobs hiring platform.
  • Neutral: Yes
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Unknown
  • Other problems: No - See above on sourcing.

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - Forbes Sites cannot be used for the citation. ALT2 (sourced to BoingBoing) is acceptable.
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Sourcing needs serious work. Once resolved, ALT2 should be good to go. SounderBruce 02:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You pinged me on my talk page @SounderBruce: but this is not my nomination, I just created the article. I can take over the nomination if you'd like @Loytra: but that'd be up to you. Johnson524 03:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Apologies, I didn't notice the separate byline here. SounderBruce 03:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: Since the concerns were sourcing based and not hook based, I figured it'd be fine do finish them. Good catch on Forbes, it has been removed from the article. As an added bonus, while finding alternative sourcing for Forbes in the article, I stumbled across a few instances of copyediting-gone-wrong, where the correct sources citing some sentences were accidently removed and replaced with the wrong citation. Those instances have been corrected as well! The Decrypt Media link has been fixed, and some of the wording on the about page for 80 Level did seem pretty concerning, hinting at little editorial oversight, and has likewise been removed. I am a little hesitant to remove the Backdash source though, as it appears to be a website dedicated publishing gaming articles, does not claim to be a blog, and has credited authors. I really don't see what the issue is. Do you think this DYK can pass now? Cheers! Johnson524 04:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Just for clarification, has the title issue been resolved yet? It's not a DYK issue but it would be nice to get some clarity before it runs on the main page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Some sourcing concerns still remain; it seems that some new ones were added. Maginative seems to not be suitable as a reliable source, while Cybernews has editorial standards and could pass for the non-controversial statements it is being used for. SounderBruce 02:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I was asking if there's been clarity regarding what the article's title should be. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Oh sorry for the late reply, I completely forgot to respond earlier 😅 Since nobody has raised concerns over the article's title recently, I believe the current title is suitable, also because while they are officially unrelated, the common name for Oasis by most sources covering it refer to it as 'AI Minecraft', 'Minecraft clone', or something along those lines. Because of this, I believe 'Minecraft' should stay in the title in some capacity, but please let me what you think! Also, @SounderBruce: the Maginative source has been removed, an editor other than myself added that recently. Can this nomination be passed now? Cheers! Johnson524 18:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Backdash is still a potentially unreliable source and I do think it needs to be replaced. SounderBruce 02:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I said earlier in the discussion that a little hesitant to remove the Backdash source though, as it appears to be a website dedicated publishing gaming articles, does not claim to be a blog, and has credited authors. I really don't see what the issue is. Can it be kept? Cheers! Johnson524 21:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: Pinging. Cheers! Johnson524 09:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
As long as sourcing issues remain, I cannot approve this review. Backdash is not a reliable enough source. SounderBruce 07:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Oasis_(Minecraft_clone)&oldid=1264068618"