Talk:Java Edition 1.12

Protecting the page
I have noticed a lot of speculation that comes from non-users. Should we protect this page?--SamGamgee55 (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)SamGamgee55
 * MCW:Admin noticeboard The BlobsPaper.png 19:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Redrooey Totem of Undying.png Black %26 White Rabbit.png 17:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Is the new block the same as the new falling block?
They could be. They are very similar in appearance and texture. Could we at least make a note of this possibility on the page? -PancakeMan77 (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It looks the same to me, indeed worth noting. -FVbico (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC + 1:00)


 * I would support noting that they could be the same block. However, was not able to confirm that they are the same. The BlobsPaper.png 17:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Likely it's just not her business to confirm or deny teased features; I would take her response as supporting neither side of this speculation. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 18:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That is exactly it. I can't confirm or deny teased features until the devs & PR give me the OK. A feature can change a LOT between the first tease and the snapshot/beta release of it, and sometimes slip releases, so I wait until I have confirmation so I don't unintentionally give out misleading info. --HelenAngel (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I have added the note. The BlobsPaper.png 19:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I doubt they are the exact same block. They are likely two different blocks internally, like wool is to carpet, or like powered redstone lamps are to unpowered redstone lamps. Also, there is speculation that the block in the water is not the same block as the ones Jeb showed off previously. Some people think that the blocks are cement, wet cement and concrete; it's speculated that cement is the block that's crafted and is affected by gravity, wet cement is created by putting cement in water (the block in the gif Jeb posted), and concrete (the block Jeb showed in the first screenshot) might be made by putting wet cement in a furnace. There is some evidence to back this up, as the color of the pink block in the gif Jeb posted is not the same color as the pink block Jeb showed off earlier, and Shoghicp/Kappische's tweets hint that the blocks are concrete/cement related. Jocopa3 (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I noticed this too, but it could also be explained as more color tweaking. I think it's good the way we have it now. -PancakeMan77 (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Help
What does mean in windows?--66.50.4.27 21:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no equivalent for PCs / Windows. Most of the time it's used as a modifier key with the mouse on a Mac as a workaround for simulating a right-click action on a multiple-button mouse that you would find on a PC. DSquirrelGM &#120035;&#120031;&#120018; 21:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no key on Windows, it's just the Mac equivalent of . -Nixinova (talk|edits) 04:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Slippery
Terracotta-Blocks will be able to be moved by pistons while they are unaffected by slimeblocks.
 * Information cannot be added without a source. The BlobsPaper.png 03:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * https://twitter.com/jeb_/status/829638495593517059 -PancakeMan77 (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Belongs in the 'unconfirmed features' section then, since Jeb specifically said it hasn't been implemented yet, and didn't confirm that it would be in the future. -- Orthotopetalk 23:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I added the note. The BlobsPaper.png 01:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Trivia
This update already will have the longest delay between the first and second snapshots on record. 67.249.83.44 01:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not really a good trivia. Also, please use "Add topic" to start discussions. The BlobsPaper.png 04:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

1.639 seconds?
Doesn't make any sense to me, that number. What I think makes sense would be 16 minutes and 39 seconds, which would be 999 seconds. Can somebody double-check that? –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Iwer Sonsch (talk • contribs) at 9:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC). Please sign your posts with


 * You're reading it wrong. 1,639. -BDJP (t 10:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm typing it wrong. One thousand and 639 seconds don't make any sense to me. Iwer Sonsch (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The section was incorrect anyways as no such change was made, removed it. Skylinerw (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)