Talk:Bountiful Update

Slight change
Can I use the following text (I'm slightly new to the wiki):

Development began the month after 1.7.4 was released. Fifty-two development snapshots were released, from 14w02a to 14w34d – the most for any major update to date. During the longest development period in the history of Minecraft – 236 days long – six subsequent versions of 1.7 were released. The time between releases of 1.7.2 and 1.8 represents the longest wait for a major update to Minecraft, at 312 days – longer than the development of Infdev and Alpha combined.

--Regards, Naista2002 (RU T C) 14:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Combining two related sentences into one, and putting a thing in there about Infdev + Alpha? It sounds good to me. You can probably just make such edits without asking. If there were something too wrong with it, somebody would change it. P.S. nice use of en-dash – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T, C, b 15:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't wanted to be blocked just because I changed some sentences... Thanks for reply. --Regards, Naista2002 (RU T C) 15:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think, even if the page were of a sensitive nature (and if it were, it would present you with a warning when you edited it), then you wouldn't be blocked for just making an honest edit; if anything, it would be changed back and the situation would be explained to you.
 * I just looked at your contributions page; I think it's clear so far you always contribute in good faith and are in no way a vandal. I can't imagine you being blocked unless you vandalize pages, ignore the administrators after they tell you things should be done a certain way, or start fights or something.  You seem like a reasonable person and I think you should be confident that you won't be blocked.  I'm sure you have valuable things to contribute.  Just be willing to learn, and talk things out, it can be fun.  Welcome! – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T, C, b 17:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I sometimes want to make a good text in one edit. --Regards, Naista2002 (RU T C) 07:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

A historical fact being relevant or not
Hi BDJP007301, what if it were edited to say that at that time it was the longest wait? That's certainly a relevant fact about the Bountiful Update when reading a paragraph of text of historical information about its development cycle, right? – Sealbudsman (Aaron) T/C 19:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * sigh yes... -BDJP (t 19:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

1.8
Isn't this the same as 1.8? The BlobsPaper.png 01:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * We've been making a practice of keeping the version pages and the named update pages separate.
 * A reason it came to be this way is that up until $1 1/2$ years ago, the version history from 1.0–present was all on one page, but named-update pages were each separate; it made good sense for there to be articles for the named pages separately, at that time. Once the version pages were all split out, the 1.x pages and named pages were each both kept.
 * One reason is because they're not always one-to-one. For instance the Adventure Update was implemented in Beta 1.8 and release 1.0.  So we treat them all like that – we treat the named updates as 'starting on' version x, rather than being identical to version x.  The named update pages tend to be shorter, easy-reading pages, about (in this case) the development leading up to 1.8, and summary of the 1.8.x releases.  Bigger-picture, if you will.  And the individual version pages tend to go into all the nitty gritty detail. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 04:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * To put it a different way, the named update pages cover all the versions for a given release (e.g. this page covers all the versions for 1.8), while the article on any specific version covers only that version. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 05:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)