Template talk:Fixes

Questions about the template
Two questions. --KnightMiner  (t 20:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) What are we to do about 1.9. It's version is not prefixed in "Minecraft" and it's bugs are not marked as "Fixed".
 * 2) Can the "notfixedin" and the "affected" parameters some how be combined? Both seem to always contain the same versions.
 * To your first question; maybe a  parameter?
 * – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png (talk) – 21:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If those bugs aren't marked as fixed, what are they doing in the fixes section? –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs ⎜ 10:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I would have argued earlier, that the reason they're marked with a fix version on the 1.9 list on the tracker, is to indicate that those bugfixes are being postponed til after 1.8, and scheduled to be fixed by 1.9. However I've seen them fix things from that very list. So I think the 1.9? list carries with it no connotation that 1.9 is when it'll be fixed. It seems like a list that just means "intended to fix soon" as opposed to not being on any to-do list at all.
 * So I'm not sure those bugs even properly go in our 1.9 page.
 * – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png (talk) – 17:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Overall, the entire 1.9 article is a odd case. It is basically an unknown version with a source of the mojang to do list.
 * And as for question number 2? I really cannot think of any case where they would be different. --KnightMiner  (t 22:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Boilerplate section headers
What about putting the boilerplate section headers in there; for instance maybe,   and  , where   would expand to  ? Also could it figure out that if, it should put "1.8" in the boilerplate strings? I am not sure if it could match  against pages in { {Category:1.8_snapshots}} or something like that. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) (talk) – 21:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * . –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs ⎜ 11:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * cool! – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png (talk) – 15:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * What is to be done for ";previous" in the case of a pre-release which has a snapshot before it? or in the case of the development version list? --KnightMiner  (t 02:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I just had it getting the type from the infobox, I didn't even think about the development versions page which has no infoboxes. I'll just change it to "development version", which is more correct and will work on the development versions page. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs ⎜ 02:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixedin optional
I was thinking, could it be done in such a way that, if 'fixedin' is omitted, it tries to use the page title (e.g. 14w02a) and if that's a real snapshot, it uses that to fill in 'old' and 'dev' and the tracker link. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) (talk) – 17:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Ready for use?
Should we start adding this template to more of the version articles? Basically is this going to be done automatically later? --KnightMiner  (t 02:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)