Template talk:Java Edition versions

Redo snapshot lists
Basically, with the way snapshot lists are currently done, it causes it to stretch out of the side of the article on smaller monitors. Most recently it has even started stretching out of my monitor. I suggest we change the format slightly, maybe something like this --KnightMiner  (t 15:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * While your idea does eliminate the problem of it stretching out of the page width, it does lead to a couple of potential problems. Firstly, there is now a lot of white space (probably more than there is text). Secondly, once all the versions of minecraft pc are added to the table, it will get very long and impractical. Do you have any ideas to solve these problems? –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk Contribs Edits 23:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Some of the whitespace can be removed by only giving headers to versions with snapshots, and stowing all the rest below. The only problem with that is the dpl template hates having multiple lists... Had to add them manually. With the afterwards updates, the most any seems to have is four pre-releases. Anyways, what that would look like. --KnightMiner  (t 01:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks better, but is there any way to alter the linking templates so the versions don't need to be manually added? Also, I'm a bit confused why there are so many different templates (MinorVersionList, Development version list and snapshot list) - I noticed on your sandbox you're using the development version list template, but currently its using the snapshot list and minor version list? –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk Contribs Edits 01:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Snapshot list is an alias for development version list. It is the same, only it adds the snapshot arg automatically instead of an option for snapshot or pre-release.
 * MinorVersionList was Sealbudsman's attempt to remove versions from the template in a similar way to Snapshot list. The major problem with it is you are just sending people elsewhere to add the information, and it is only being used on the navbox currently.
 * The main reason I did not use MinorVersionList was it would need to be modified for the demonstration, which is hardly simple to do without breaking current usage, and I used development version list over Snapshot list simply to make it more recognizable.
 * As for making it automatic, the only problem is that the versions are sorted by name, causing a bit of trouble for that. Anyways, major updates don't come out too often to make it much of a problem to update.
 * --KnightMiner  (t 01:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for clearing it up, it makes more sense now. You can probably transfer over your demo to the actual template now as I don't have any other objections. –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk Contribs Edits 01:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll likely wait until tomorrow for that, to see if anyone else has any suggestions/objections. I also want to try and fix that weird list thing caused by dpl first (between snapshots and pre-releases it misses a bullet point). --KnightMiner  (t 02:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * as for MinorVersionList, feel free to collapse it back into the page or supersede it With something else, by all means. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) (talk) – 12:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)




 * The wrapping (or lack of it) problem is caused by the  CSS not properly accounting for sublists - the entire contents of the list item for 1.6.1 has the CSS   applied to it, instead of allowing the sublist to break between items as the parent list does. Without looking at the CSS, I can't say how to fix it, though (and at half past 5 in the morning, it's a bit late for me to go looking more closely).
 * My original idea for the template was very close to your proposed solution, KnightMiner, actually. But I don't know what the long-term plans/expectations of other editors might be. Even if we go with it, though, the  CSS should be fixed to properly wrap sublist items. 「 ディノ 奴  千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 10:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I implemented it from my sandbox, after adding the names back into the extra space.
 * Currently it does not use MinorVersionList, but if we need it in the same form in multiple pages, we can re-add it. I mainly left it out to make it a bit easier to change around for the time.
 * As for the wrapping, I think the nowrap was added since it looks better for smaller lists, and it was not intended for larger lists. It would look a little odd to break that halfway through. --KnightMiner  (t 19:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Name for post-beta period
I noticed with Dinoguy's recent edit that he suggested Minecraft 1.0 should refer to the whole post-Beta period, and 1.0/1.0.0 refer specifically to the version 1.0. However I disagree; 1.0 seems like a version number, rather than a set period, and using Minecraft 1.0 for the whole period and 1.0 for the version seems rather confusing. I therefore suggest that the post-Beta period could be called Release, Post-Release or Post-Beta. Any thoughts, suggestions, objections etc. appreciated. –Goandgoo ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:1em;vertical-align:-1em>Talk Contribs Edits 09:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * My plan is to eventually add 1.0 like was done with the rest (listed as 1.0 release), and leave the development cycle as the first group. --<font color=#048>KnightMiner  (t 14:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The main problem here is really lack of official terminology: to my knowledge, Mojang have never given an official name for the entire post-Beta development phase. This leaves us with the problem of picking something for ourselves, and it has to satisfy several points: it has to be concise, unambiguous, and reflective of the nature of the phase. While I don't claim to have given this a considerable amount of thought, the conclusion I draw from the thinking I have done is that, assuming we clearly identify the difference between "Minecraft 1.0" and just "1.0", and consistently and accurately use the appropriate term everywhere, "Minecraft 1.0" is probably about the best we can do ourselves (though I am open to suggestions for alternate names). In addition, the way Minecraft 1.0 is currently written suggests that the article is meant to cover the entire development phase, as opposed to just the 1.0 release specifically. I do not believe "Release" or "Post-Release" meet the criteria I identified above satisfactorily, since "Release" could be applied to any development phase with publicly-released versions, and "Post-Release" to any such phase except for Classic (as the first phase with publicly-released versions); I also don't like "Post-Beta" because it suggests, at least to me, that this is just some minor development phase, as Pre-Classic was.
 * We could, of course, just avoid this debate entirely by twisting Mojang's arm asking politely (:razz:) and having Mojang decide on an official name to apply specifically to the current phase of development; maybe it would justify opening a ticket in the issue tracker? (I honestly don't know, since I don't actually browse the issue tracker enough to have a sense for how requests for features, enhancements, and the like are generally received.) 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 08:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I've tweeted the developers and hopefully I'll get a response. I don't think opening an issue on the issue tracker is really the right way to go because this is not really an issue as such. If I don't get a response, I think using Minecraft 1.0 as the development stage should be ok. –Goandgoo</b> ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:1em;vertical-align:-1em>Talk Contribs Edits 09:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If you don't get a response, I would still argue for opening a ticket - the worst that can happen is that it is closed as invalid (well, I guess it could simply be ignored entirely), and any response to the ticket would indicate that at least one of the devs has seen it and given it enough consideration to perform said response. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 09:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, are you able to post this to the issue tracker? I've never submitted any issues myself, not really sure how to use the tracker. –Goandgoo</b> ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:1em;vertical-align:-1em>Talk Contribs Edits 09:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I've only browsed in it myself; I don't think I've even created an account in it yet. If no one else does, I can have a look at filing a bug later, though again, I'm going to wait and see if your tweet bears fruit first. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 10:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately no reply from any of the devs... –Goandgoo</b> ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:1em;vertical-align:-1em>Talk Contribs Edits 07:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

1.2 icon
I suggest a zombie head, since 1.2 brought the zombie seiges, and the AI update, – Sealbudsman (Aaron) (talk) – 13:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * . A little more significant than the redstone lamp. --<font color=#048>KnightMiner  (t 23:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Zombie siege and AI update is significant as main feature, but does classic zombie tell us any new feature as an icon, no, so i suggest jungle thingy icon (tree, sapling, or ocelot) Afif Brika1 (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I actually like Afif's suggestion: 1.2 introduced the Jungle biome, a major new biome, in addition to its rewrites of mob AI; by my measure, these were probably the two most important strictly-gameplay-oriented changes introduced in this version, and I feel that using the ocelot as the icon would allow us to represent both of them. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 08:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think afif's objection is valid, and dinoguy's ocelot idea is good. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png (talk) – 14:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As per Dinoguy's comment above I think ocelot is the way to go. –Goandgoo</b> ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:1em;vertical-align:-1em>Talk Contribs Edits 09:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Crowded Infobox
I've noticed recently the navbox has gotten very crowded. I could shorten it a bit by substituting the devolopement versions (the template does not like hlists, but substituted it would work), but other than that I cannot think of much else to do. --<font color=#048>KnightMiner  (t 23:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure what you're saying here. While the navbox does cover a lot of ground, it is not what I would call "crowded"; the links are divided logically into reasonably-sized groups, meaning it should be quite easy to find a particular link you might be looking for. And the whole reason the manually-maintained lists of development versions were replaced with Snapshot list &co. was to automate those lists, so they wouldn't have to be manually updated whenever a new version was released. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to removing the automation for older versions that will never have new dev versions released for them, but I don't think we really need to worry about doing so unless using the automation is shown to be problematic in some way that can't otherwise be addressed (and yes, I am fully aware that most of the automated lists have already been replaced with manual lists, and am also aware of the line-break problem between the lists of weekly snapshots and prereleases). And lastly, I don't have any idea what you mean when you say the template does not like hlists: which template, and how does it not like them? If you're referring to the line-break problem I just mentioned, that is, I suspect, a problem with whitespace in the template(s), and not one with either the templates themselves or with the hlist CSS. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 08:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * First, by crowded I mean the navbox space was rather full and hard to use as it's size, as most smaller monitors would start having it cover the entire thing or more.
 * Second, the reason for the removal of Dev version list was mainly based on a comment by Majr on User talk:Sealbudsman. He mentioned it was good for automating the new versions, but once it was released it would be better to substitute.
 * As for the hlist thingy, Dev version list uses DPL, which automatically adds a line break at the beginning, causing the hlist to miss a bullet point and seem to merge the latest snapshot and the first pre-release. It's not a problem with the hlist or the template, but with the dpl generated lists.
 * And you do seem to know most of this already, so the main questions was like about be saying crowded instead of length.
 * --<font color=#048>KnightMiner  (t 20:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Child navboxes
I've made a preliminary version of this navbox where it would use child navboxes for the specific development phases, to allow the links related to each phase to be selectively shown or hidden. This will especially be useful as versions for Beta and earlier are spun out into their own articles and subsequently linked from here, though I don't know if others would prefer some other solution (the most obvious one, I think, would be separate navboxes for each version, though I personally don't particularly care for that). I'm aware of the spacing issues on the right side of the child navbox, but wasn't able to figure out what was causing them or how I might fix them in the few minutes I spent playing with the CSS. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 08:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting you should mention this, I was asking Majr on his talk page whether I should start converting Beta versions and earlier. He suggested that alpha and earlier probably doesn't need to be split up as there is not that much info per version. However he wasn't sure about converting beta - some beta versions (Beta 1.8 in particular) are super long, so they may justify a split. Also, I have converted the Beta 1.8 pre-releases to the new format.
 * In regards to the table mockup, I think having a table in a table is kind of weird aesthetically - I'm not sure how it would look with multiple development stages. I'm not really a fan of the double border on both sides and the bottom which is a result of the table in a table. Have you seen any good examples of a table in a table idea so you can persuade me? –Goandgoo</b> ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:1em;vertical-align:-1em>Talk Contribs Edits 09:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * While I had just assumed we'd spin out separate articles for all releases, I never had a particularly strong opinion about it, and even now am rather ambivalent on whether we want to, or if we only want to go back to a certain point, and if so, where that point is. I will point out, though, that it is far more straightforward to add images to an article than it is to do so in the middle of a table, in the event we want to start illustrating individual versions with images that demonstrate exemplary features or characteristics of those versions.
 * Most of the problem with how the table-in-a-table (which is really more properly described as navbox-in-a-navbox) looks here is that our simplified navbox styles don't properly handle cases of child navboxes, as the "canonical" styles first developed and currently used on Wikipedia do (and the fact that, as I said, I only spent a few minutes toying with the styles in my sandbox before saving doesn't help matters any, either). You can see an example of how nice the canonical styles look with Wikipedia's Template:Pharaohs: a careful selection of color palette, along with removing the borders of the child navboxes, makes a world of difference. =) 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 09:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok so if we are to go back to a certain point for the version articles, I think (personal opinion only) that Beta should at least be converted, not really sure about what to do before Beta though.
 * The Pharoah template looks really nice, would changing the styling on our navboxes be too difficult? I like how that template has no borders on the navboxes inside navboxes and how it sits nice and flush. In your initial post, you mentioned that phases can be selectively shown/hidden - so on a Beta version article, you can make it so that it hides the Minecraft 1.0 section? And vice versa for 1.0 articles? How do you achieve that? –Goandgoo</b> ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:1em;vertical-align:-1em>Talk Contribs Edits 09:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Conceptually, it would be as easy as replacing our navbox CSS with Wikipedia's, but practically, either the styles or our Navbox and SimpleNavbox templates would probably have to be adjusted to work properly here (but only one or the other, and only because Wikipedia's styles were developed hand-in-hand with their navbox templates, as our styles and navbox templates were here). There would also be the issue of color scheme: the color scheme we use for our navboxes is functional, certainly, but very little besides; this may be (and, indeed, probably is) personal bias talking, but I've always preferred Wikipedia's light blue-gray navbox color scheme (this would also not preclude us developing our own, more Minecraft-themed color scheme, or even going beyond just colors, so long as the resulting styles were still properly accessible). Even ignoring color scheme, though, I've always preferred some of the other characteristics of Wikipedia's styles (especially some of the padding) over our own, and beyond even that, Wikipedia's styles were very extensively tested for maximum browser compatibility and accessibility, whereas ours are much more ad-hoc (not to disparage the work of those who developed our version, of course).
 * And yes, that would be managed in one of two ways: a parameter (which, depending on its value, would have both, one, or neither of the child navboxes collapsed), or built-in logic to automatically collapse the appropriate child navbox according to the page (though this would still need a parameter to override where we want something else, or to specify for pages that aren't handled automatically by the logic). Both of these would require some changes to SimpleNavbox, though, I think. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 10:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you saying something a little like ? Needs a bit of work on the padding, but it looks good other than that. --<font color=#048>KnightMiner  (t 20:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Something to that effect, yes, though the child collapsible table should use "Minecraft 1.0" as its header, to clearly identify what the table covers, and I would prefer the table header's background color to be an intermediate between the navbox header's background color and the background color of the individual row headers. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 21:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * . Did not notice that header at first (no idea as to why I did not). I set the color to #DDD, the navbox uses #CCC and #EEE.


 * I'm liking that. Here's a version where I added a margin to the child table. =) 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 02:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)




 * Still a little odd at the right edge, I wonder if there is anything you can do about that... but those margins make it look much better. I wonder if this can get implimented into either a template or the site css to make multiple sub groups less redundant. --<font color=#048>KnightMiner  (t 03:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Would you be able to put Beta into the table so I can see how it looks with multiple versions? –Goandgoo</b> ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:1em;vertical-align:-1em>Talk Contribs Edits 07:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I added alpha and beta as new sections, and made them collapsed by default. Something a little different may need to be done for those updates, since they lack development versions. Can be seen here. --<font color=#048>KnightMiner  (t 15:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

1.8 icon
What do you think should be the 1.8 icon? The icon was changed to Guardian by Sealbudsman but I believe it needs discussion first. –Goandgoo</b> ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:1em;vertical-align:-1em>Talk Contribs Edits 11:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Some ideas:
 * Alex's head: New skin features
 * Guardian: New ocean monument / New guardian
 * Rabbits: Self explainatory
 * Cauldron: New block models
 * Out of all these ideas, the guardian is the only one with multiple meanings. --<font color=#048>KnightMiner  (t 15:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I am game for any of these, except not so sure about the Cauldron. Block models are kind of an abstract thing to represent and it seems to be a bit of a leap.
 * Banner, maybe the orange-fade-to-brown one with the gold Mojang logo, from the 1.8-pre1 promo art?
 * Perhaps we should wait to decide, to see if they release some promotional art that features something we might like. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png (t|c) – 18:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Classic = Chest?
I had changed the Indev link so that it was the Indev cobble texture, and I had changed the Infdev link so that it was the Infdev door item sprite. All good so far.

But then I thought I might change the Classic link so that it would be the Classic chest texture, you know the bigger one before Beta 1.8, but I come to find out that chests only came about in Indev.

This hasn't been a big problem and nobody has died so far that I know of because of it, BUT what if we made the Classic link to be the Classic brick texture (might have to dig around to find it) or something recognizably classic like that? – Sealbudsman (Aaron) T, C, b 17:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You mean ? Yeah, I would agree to using that. --<font color=#048>KnightMiner  (t 17:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's the one. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T, C, b 19:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know
I changed the header from "Minecraft 1.0" to "Official Release". Minecraft 1.0 (to me) means that it is just for 1.0. Official Release means it represents the period after Beta. The name represents all versions from 1.0 to 1.8 Delvin4519 (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I tend to think of the two as the same meaning, so I would not be against the new title.
 * One thing though, an edit summary would be better for a small change over leaving a message on the talk page. Talk page messages are generally for if you desire input from others, or want to make a change that may be controversial. – KnightMiner  t/c 00:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * See the "Name for post-beta period" discussion above. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 01:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Shortening snapshot links
I think it may be better if we shortened all the snapshot links that have more then just an "a" snapshot to avoid the navbox getting cluttered. It would appear something like this (using the upcoming 1.9 update as an example):


 * I'm shortening it to b and c, except that the parens and the dot seem a bit much, so I would suggest something along the lines of 15w31a/b/c or 15w31a / b / c. That would make the dots between weeks stand out more, and the separators within the week stand out less.
 * – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T/C 19:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So something like this?:


 * Yeah. Here's how it looks in full:
 * – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T/C 19:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ninja edit after Mario's comment: same thing, but also collapsing the pre1, pre2 etc together.
 * – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T/C 19:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T/C 19:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T/C 19:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

...
 * , I like it a lot! @Goandgoo, @Orthotope, @Dinoguy1000 any thoughts/opinions? --MarioProtIV (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it looks good, just wait for the opinions of more people before enacting any change. –Goandgoo</b> ᐸ <small style="display:inline-block;line-height:1em;vertical-align:-0.4em">Talk Contribs 00:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I am a bit concerned about the size of the clickable links when they're shortened like this, especially when they're so close together. Given the font size and the audience the wiki likely normally gets, it's probably not much of a problem in this case, but it's definitely something that we should be mindful of in general. As to presentation, I would recommend spaced bolded middots instead of unspaced slashes if it's really necessary to use a "lighter" separator than the default bullet images: 15w31a · b · c. There's also the possibility of having the first part of the name unlinked and separated from the rest, along the lines of: 15w31 (a · b · c). I can make a mockup of the whole box in either (or both) style if desired, though I think this should demonstrate them adequately enough. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 00:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with Dinoguy. -Mikazukinoyaiba 00:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also with Dinoguy's suggestion. - Sonicwave  ( talk &#124; c )  03:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's a mockup of Dinoguy's suggestion #1, small dots.
 * – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T/C 02:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T/C 02:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Would you be able to make a mockup of Dinoguy's 2nd suggestion - 15w31 (a · b · c)? Having the dots inbetween both the minor snapshots and the other major snapshots looks incredibly confusing (the size of dots is minimal and does not help to distinguish between the two). –Goandgoo</b> ᐸ <small style="display:inline-block;line-height:1em;vertical-align:-0.4em">Talk Contribs 03:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have to agree: while IMO the dots look better than the slashes when you're just considering them and the links immediately surrounding them (biased though I may be :razz: ), when they're instead viewed in the wider context including other versions and the larger dots, it's confusing having the different sizes mixed like that, and not nearly as visually appealing. Here's hoping, then, that parentheses improve the situation. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 06:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's Dinoguy's suggestion #1, small dots, except I've removed the space around the dots.
 * Here's Dinoguy's suggestion #2, small dots with parentheses.
 * Here's Dinoguy's suggestion #2, small dots with parentheses, but again without spaces.
 * – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T/C 14:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's Dinoguy's suggestion #2, small dots with parentheses, but again without spaces.
 * – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T/C 14:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T/C 14:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * with mockup #7. -BDJP (t 14:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm partial to #5 myself, because to me it solves #4's readability problem -- and also I don't like adding extra punctuation; e.g. I liked that Dino was able to replace my idea of a slash with just another bullet. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T/C 15:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it will be acceptable to have single character links, as I can't image it will be usable on phones. Maybe some one that uses a phone can confirm? –Majr ᐸ <small style=display:inline-block;line-height:9px;vertical-align:-3px>Talk Contribs 17:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The template doesn't even show in mobile view, but in desktop view, on a 4" wide screen (turning my 4" tall phone screen sideways), it's not noticeably more difficult than clicking any other of those links, at that resolution.
 * – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T/C 17:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I like mockup 5 and 7. Perhaps we could get a few more opinions on this. –Goandgoo</b> ᐸ <small style="display:inline-block;line-height:1em;vertical-align:-0.4em">Talk Contribs 12:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I personally don’t like the letter “a” (and the digit 1) being broken off from the main part. On the other hand, nobody said that the first snapshot or pre-release in a series is superior (edit: compare Beta 1.9-pre1 and Beta 1.9-pre5), so I propose a combined “neutral” variant. Our answer to Chamberlain:
 * — Agent NickTheRed37 (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * — Agent NickTheRed37 (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's talk about the 1.9 icon
Let's talk about it here, rather than tussling on the page itself.

it symbolizes combat in a recognizable way it's not a new feature from 1.9

it's a new combat feature from 1.9 it doesn't immediately look like a piece of combat equipment

it's a new combat feature from 1.9 and it symbolizes combat in a recognizable way

Let's discuss, and let's not feel as if we need to decide this right now; the update isn't for a while, so let's consider our options and hear one another out. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 19:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * with diamond sword and shield for now . -BDJP (t 19:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with the shield, for the reason it is actually a feature from 1.9 that also represents combat, as almost all other update icons showcase a new feature from that update. If needed, we could change the shield sprite to better represent a shield, rather that its inventory icon (namely, by rotating it a bit to become a rectangle), or switch it to a different new item combat icon, such as the . – KnightMiner  t/c 19:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Changed my mind. Now with spectral arrow. -BDJP (t 20:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Of these options, I think the spectral arrow is best. The problem with the shield is that it isn't easily recognized as such; it looks like a slightly tilted banner. If Mojang changes the inventory icon to look more like a classic kite shield (like the off-hand slot outline), it would be a better option. -- Orthotopetalk 00:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * with using spectral arrows. — Agent NickTheRed37 (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this discussion already over? with the shield because it better represents the dual wielding mechanic, the changes made to tools and weapons (sword not being used to block anymore), and is more useful in combat than spectral arrows in my opinion.  to diamond sword, because it's not new in the update and all other updates have a new block, item or entity. --Mine4017 (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

April Fools versions
, I am not sure what you mean, when you say the april fools versions were 'clearly updates to the game'. The april fools versions were just branches in development of the main game, released as a gag and then never developed on again; they don't belong in the main progression of the development of the game. From that perspective it fits among the demos, where it was, because those other releases were also dead-end branches. Whereas where you're putting it, it's among real updates that were in the main progression of development from the start to the present. – Sealbudsman <span style="transform: rotate(-16deg); display: inline-block; top: -1px; position: relative;">talk/contr 19:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't belong there because the Demo, PC Gamer version, and 4K are all seperate versions of Minecraft, while the April fools updates were updates to Minecraft Computer Edition. Also because the April fools versions are not major content updates to the game, this is why I am putting them under "other updates". Wolffillms (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes so sense, Wolf. If you can't think of any other way to put this, I'm going to have to agree with Sealbuds here. -BDJP (t 19:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)