Talk:Java Edition 1.9

Counter-edit warring
There has been some counter-edit warring (whatever it's called) on the page about the release date box. If you could look onto that, that would be great. MarioProtIV (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * My opinion, if it helps, is that there is no reason to declare the date is not set when an unknown release date is already good. We never set a parameter just to remove the "?", especially if we do not know what is correct. Mojang may have even set the release date, and just not told anyone. Also, by setting it to "Date not set", it causes much more editing with speculation trying to guess the year. --KnightMiner  (t 13:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * And setting it to "date not set" is an oxymoron. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs ⎜ 13:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Protect the page until the first 1.9 snapshot gets released
I got tired of unsourced information being added to the page, so I decided to put an editor warning visible only when editing the page, however, people still didn't stop adding unsourced information. Please protect this page until the first 1.9 snapshot gets released. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In this case, I do not think protection is necessary, as no recent false information has been added, and in the past it was mainly the doing of a single user. If it becomes excessive, I would agree to semi-protection. – KnightMiner  (t·c) 20:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Wither
Currently, the upcoming changes list the wither has "Planned Additions". That seems very useless, as it states nothing more than the wither is being changed, maybe even simply to include bug fixes. Can we require that the feature actually has some description? – KnightMiner  (t·c) 18:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That's not what it says, it says "A new bar for when there are two withers". Have you tried purging the cache, perhaps? --ToonLucas22 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Compare the time of my post with the time of your edit.


 * My main point is the additions of "Secret feature", "Changes involving x" and other similar things that have been being added. We have no rule in place against undescriptive "Upcoming features", causing people to think it is fine. – KnightMiner  (t·c) 19:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The tweet doesn't even say it's for 1.9— TheWombatGuru   t undefinedc  NL Admin  20:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Consistency
How to add consistency to the one-bullet-point additions? Is it better as separate bullet points (like I just made it) or empty headings? FM22 (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I would keep it consistent with the style of 1.8 and alike. Since there are not alot of features yet, the category headers are not needed, but individual items should have their title bold, and information as bullet points (for example, the captions would state captions as the title, and the example as a bullet point, while the new commands would go under the header of "commands" or something similar) – KnightMiner  t/c 19:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

What about boats?
Swimming bird explained how Tomasso is working on recoding boats: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsf-iBzLT9c at 2:13 he shows tweets from the developers. Should this be included in this page? --Kkkllleee (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's referring to Pocket Edition. Skylinerw (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I highly doubt that refers to the Pocket Edition, as the context implies "fixing boat" while the PE boats are not in development version yet. Even so, usually we do not state upcoming fixes without bug tracker links. – KnightMiner  t/c 02:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But Tomasso also promised boats that can hold multiple entities and the different colored wood types, those are new features, not bug-fixes. --Kkkllleee (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The only reference in that video we can guarantee is the PC edition is the first one about fixing boats, the rest are all promised features for the Pocket Edition, and the tweets are from a the Pocket Edition dev, but never stated for PC. – KnightMiner  t/c 03:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There are more news https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRCwo5Bnjfk here the tweets from the developers imply that not only do new kinds of boats would be added, but that version exclusive features in general are gonna have more notoriety across platforms. --Kkkllleee (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything about new kinds of boats, just changes to how existing ones behave. I'm not sure what you mean by "notoriety", but Jeb's tweet here says their goal is to get rid of version exclusive features, making the game the same on all platforms. -- Orthotopetalk 04:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * At 1:35, he is saying he made a boat out of birch but a bug made it so that it transformed into oak when broken, this implies that now it is considered proper for a birch boat to drop birch planks, but that makes no sense, unless he is saying that new boat kinds are going to be added, since he is against version exclusive features, then it is pretty much confirmed. --Kkkllleee (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Pretty much confirmed is not confirmed, it is still speculation. Stating he wants to get rid of version exclusive features does not mean all Pocket edition exclusive features are coming in 1.9, nor that there are any plans to add any of those features yet. It just means exclusive features are not desired.
 * As for the tweet you referenced (this one, right? it would be nice for you to provide that link, rather than me needing to find it), I would not conciser that as enough proof as of yet, since jeb_ is also working on the pocket edition at this time (where colored boats are confirmed). Even if referring to the PC edition, that tweet could easily refer to current behavior), as it only mentions the recipe (built from birch) and the outcome (oak planks drop).
 * So in summary, while I would not doubt colored boats are planned for 1.9, there is no source yet as to them being added in that update. You could try tweeting one of the developers to ask if it is true if you want though. – KnightMiner  t/c 20:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clearing it up. Can you teach me how to search for tweets? --Kkkllleee (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

One of the easiest ways to find tweets is to follow the developers on twitter (a list of developers is listed on Minecraft, and their twitters are listed via their articles). Clicking the  button on the tweet gives an option to copy the URL.

Otherwise, [//reddit.com/r/Minecraft the Minecraft Subreddit] tends to contain most tweets relating to new features.

Lastly, if you remember reading a tweet, but cannot find it, google is the easiest way to find it (just type keywords you remember, who tweeted it helps the most). – KnightMiner  t/c 04:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Changed "hearing impaired" to "hard of hearing"
"Hearing impaired" is a rather rude term and "hard of hearing" would be preferred. 98.203.219.61 17:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting to the talk page was not really necessary; a properly-written edit summary is sufficient. —  NickTheRed37</b> t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) 18:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess he was preparing for a flame war. --Kkkllleee (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to start an edit war
I don't want to start an edit war BDJP007301 but the reason I made the change was because the top level (one indent) point was about making the boss fight more similar to the console edition, and this is one of the features that is in the console edition and is confirmed to be added. It is relevant to the boss fight specifically as it stops you from shooting the ender crystals and you have to climb some of the pillars instead. FM22 (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * —  NickTheRed37</b> t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) </i> 14:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - Doesn't relate to the Ender Dragon in general, which you put it under. BDJP (t 15:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Point taken; will correct title –Preceding unsigned comment was added by FM22 (talk • contribs) at 15:13, 03 April 2015 (UTC). Please sign your posts with
 * since the title had been changed to specify 'boss fight'. Skylinerw (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Content dispute again
I changed one of the titles to match the bug tracker's, then LauraFi reverted it and BDJP007301 reverted LauraFi's revert. That was finally reverted by Sealbudsman. Should we use common grammar or use the bug tracker titles? --Toon</b>Lucas</b>22</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 12:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * MCT:Community portal. Why should we use the junk tracker titles? See also: – LauraFi  -  talk  17:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no official policy or guideline regarding bug tracker titles still, but we should gain consensus to avoid further disputes and edit wars about this in the future. --Toon</b>Lucas</b>22</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 22:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Why is something as silly as this a dispute? There is no reason we should keep terribly written titles from the tracker, as the titles are hardly an "official" resource, since they are written by users just like here the wiki, only lacking a style guide. There is also no reason to go to every page and correct the titles, as the titles don't hurt anyone even if illegible, but there is even less reason to revert the title to the original title after someone corrects errors. Really, how is the wiki benefited by having no spaces in "end portal frame"? Is this really a battle worth fighting? In summary, if the new title still describes the bug (especially if better), don't revert it to the old one. That is just disruptive. – KnightMiner  t/c 02:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with KnightMiner so here is my proposed policy:

Bug tracker issue titles should retain their original text, unless such text is unclear, then the recommended approach is to edit it enough so as to keep it essentially the same but more informative.
 * --Kkkllleee (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You might want to also share your proposal at the larger discussion at Minecraft_Wiki_talk:Community_portal. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png t/c 22:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Grass path, why is it still here?
OK, so, why is the grass path block still listed here on the 1.9 PC update page if it's meant for PE? Just sayin', the PE grass path page says it's exclusive to the PE version, whereas this block is also listed for inclusion in PC's 1.9. Brickticks (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You need to look at the references. BDJP (t 20:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Just. Wow. R6Games (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't you read?
Searge said: "The "?" is unrelated to the announcement @jeb_ made earlier." And it says here that block is related to that dungeon. Also the source 22: where is that dungeon mentioned? That's just bunch of pics, some of which show that new block. It should be deleted from this page, or at least it shouldn't be mentioned as source for that new block is related to the dungeon. It also isn't said anywhere that they added support for mirroring or rotating generated structures. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Blue Banana whotookthisname (talk • contribs) at 12:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC). Please sign your posts with


 * If you read the tweets and their context, Searge is purposely saying the opposite of what is true. Otherwise, why say "we did not add this very specific list of features"? Source 22 (now 28) is to show searge's ?, just in case anyone is wondering if they are the same. – KnightMiner  t/c 16:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Broken link
when i click on the link which lists the issues fixed in 1.9 (far future version), i will be redirected to the mojang bugtracker site, but the page says [Error in the JQL Query: The character '.' is a reserved JQL character. You must enclose it in a string or use the escape '\u002e' instead. (line 1, character 49)] instead of showing the list of fixed bugs. 77.171.37.50 16:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit: it seems like it was a problem with my NoScript, but it still gives the error message:

The value 'Minecraft Far Future Version - 1.9+' does not exist for the field 'fixVersion'.
 * instead of just giving the list.
 * 77.171.37.50 16:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * – KnightMiner  t/c 16:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Spectral Arrow
Dinnerbone stated that spectral arrows will be used for utility this should be added to the page. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Gggggminecraft (talk • contribs) at 15:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC). Please sign your posts with


 * – KnightMiner  t/c 15:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In the video showing the new inventory it is shown that the spectral arrow has a gold like appearance please put the new information in a subbullet (probably not the right term) there are also a few grammatical errors.Gggggminecraft (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * again. I tweaked the grammar a bit as well, but if you have any more specific ideas of what needs to be fixed, feel free to suggest that here or add it yourself once you become autocomfirmed – KnightMiner  t/c 20:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This is how it probably should look

Atleast four new arrow types One such arrow is the spectral arrow Will be used as a utility rather than for combat In the video showing the new inventory layout it is shown the spectral arrow has a gold colored tip The current info is kind of vague Gggggminecraft (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The reason it is vague is because we can only state what is stated, to avoid speculation. Specifically, the spectral arrow was never stated to not be used for combat, but rather not for damage (it could cause status effects with less damage or change mob behavior, and even utilities can be used for combat). We also do not need to state where the information came from other then in the references, just the information stated. – KnightMiner  t/c 21:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This is true but as much information as possible must be given maybe you should merge your idea with mine change not used for combat to not very good at hurting just give more information. Gggggminecraft (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Snapshot 'Release Date': Would Adding be Speculation?
I'm unsure as to whether counts as a confirmed (first snapshot) release date. Again, Searge is being overly specific like in the structure generation tweets which are apparently classed as reliable sources on this page, and Minecon seems quite a logical time to release the combat changes... –Preceding unsigned comment was added by FM22 (talk • contribs) at 20:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC). Please sign your posts with


 * While he does say "for the next 2.5 weeks", I would go with no for a first snapshot release date there, as there is nothing stating that after the 2.5 weeks there is a snapshot. They could easily release an early combat version before then, or wait until after Minecon for snapshots. He is more likely saying he won't be working on his mysterious block for the next 2.5 weeks. – KnightMiner  t/c 20:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see, won't add then

Snapshot Gallery Idea
A few snapshots have been released but are not shown on the page I think that a snapshot gallery should bel added. Gggggminecraft (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Offhand slot not shield slot
In the changed features section under inventory the offhand slot is called the shield slot which is wrong it's not just for shields. Gggggminecraft (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Grass Path Exclusive to PE
So, on the Grass Path page, it states "Grass paths[1] are a decorative block currently exclusive to Pocket Edition." I feel we should remove this from the page since it isnt going to be added in 1.9, unless its means that it isnt added "yet". In that case, the Grass Path page should be re-worded --vanasten1 (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The Grass Path is worded such to state the current status of the block - it is currently only available for Pocket Edition, and until there is a 1.9 snapshot with the Grass Path block, the paragraph should remain such. See MCW:FUTURE for more info. –Goandgoo</b> ᐸ <small style="display:inline-block;line-height:1em;vertical-align:-0.4em">Talk Contribs 09:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't... that be a bug?
Strongholds Doors in strongholds are no longer mis-placed.[49] Shouldn't that be a bug, rather than a changed feature? 101.174.180.52 04:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right. It was also covered in the planned fixes section, which used the same source to declare it as a planned fix. I removed it from the changes section – KnightMiner  t/c 14:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)