Talk:Autcraft

Language edits
Sincerely, a great start for whoever put this article together!!! I altered some of the language, as though it's maybe colloqiolly used even by some people with neurodiversities or autism diagnoses it is definately not used by most or all. The language has been altered to conform to psychosocial standards as set out by numerous research projects concerning discriminisation, stigmatisation and non-violent communication largely seen to be the main hurdles for people facing such diagnoses or experiences. Phrases like "autistics" are similar to phrases like "orientals" in the reference to actual human beings. Phrases like "autistic children" though not offensive or necessarily incorrect exclude people who identify with having a diagnoses (but not embodying it) or those who see more sense in the term "neurodiversity". Using the terms "neurodiversity" or "diagnosed/person ((with)) autism" somewhat interchangably includes everyone the server was designed for. Talonx77.13.166.64 (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding information on the controversy Autcraft has faced in the past and present.
Autcraft has recently been involved in controversy relating to Minecraft's 1.19 update particularly regarding the addition of chat reporting. I believe that information should be added regarding this. I attempted to add this myself however the changed were reverted because of WP:UNDUE but I don't understand what exactly was at fault in my edit. As far as I know I have read and followed all the guidelines, so the assistance of someone more experienced would be appreciated. It is important that the Autcraft page reflects all information, including the controversy and negativity within and around the server, instead of representing Autcraft as falsely flawless and idyllic. Waterbottle2002 (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The Autcraft page should include reliable sources. Adding self-published sources about a supposed controversy gives undue weight to the article. It may be included when that bar is passed, but because it's such a minor thing I do not think it belongs. SWinxy (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying. I can see how writing about ongoing controversies has its difficulties.


 * I still wish to add more to this article so that it contains more information. Beyond the error you covered in your response, is there anything else at fault?


 * Edit: Would a seprate page be more suited for this? I feel like the subject is expansive and important enough to require some coverage somewhere. Waterbottle2002 (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd encourage you to add more to the article if you found press about it not already on the article. For the controversy, remember that Wikipedia is not news; that is, balance the significance of new/emerging details with long-term noteworthiness, and splitting an article into multiple when not necessary will get it merged back or deleted at some point. SWinxy (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)