Talk:Java Edition 1.14/Archive 1

Sources and assumptions
,, . Finding a source comes first, Jeb's statement was way too vague to be considered a valid source ("the next update", with no mention of the edition this statement applied to and the fact that 1.13 is actually the next update for Java). I'm glad Fusseel managed to find a good source, but please do not act based on your own assumptions next time. It can backfire pretty bad. --Pepijn (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So he was going to be talking about 1.15+, with no info about 1.14? No he wasn't. And you said "he could be talking about Bedrock" ... no he wouldn't've. And don't start edit wars, Pepijn. – Nixinova Grid_Book_and_Quill.png Grid_Diamond_Pickaxe.png Grid_Map.png 20:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's still an assumption. Do not act on assumptions. This is a wiki, not a discussion group. --Pepijn (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand, Pepijn, unsourced information is one of the most terrible things I see frequently get edited in. However the way I saw and still see it, it could not have been meant in any other way, that this was supposed to be 1.14 material. It had already been stated before that they were already working on 1.14 specifically during the works of 1.13, and that 1.13 would not have any new content. They always announce new content about the next major update at Minecon, and we had heard nothing about 1.14 yet. So 1.13 was already fully announced and the "next" update would be 1.14. It would not have been for any different edition either, he just said they had caught up and updates would come out for all editions at pretty much the same time from now on. You're right, we should not make any assumptions and always find a source, and normally I (personally) wouldn't edit in new info if I'm not really sure about it, but in this case I found the source was valid. Thanks for guarding the case. – Jack McKalling (t • c • p) 20:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's still an assumption. Just because something is very likely to happen does not mean it's fine to accept vague sources. --Pepijn (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Why it isn't Aquatic Update?
Is the word update a noun or a verb? -- Lxazl5770 zh.patroller （ 论 • 功 ） 03:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There's a Wes Anderson film "The Life Aquatic". The word order may have been inspired by that film title. –  Sealbudsman talk/contr 15:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Questionable source on Reddit
There’s a post on reddit from the guy with the guardian costume on MineCon. He claims to have asked Jeb some questions and states Jebs answers in the post. My problem with this is simply verifying wether it is legit or not. Especially the information about the offhand changes seem pretty huge and I can’t quite believe the developers would limit it even more instead of working on improving it. So is anyone able to verify this source? – Fusseel 11:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Only Jeb can really verify this. The Reddit guy seems to indeed be the contest winner, but he wrote that from memory and we don't know how much of it is just misinterpretation (for example, how much of this applies to Bedrock and how much to Java? Jeb is in charge of both). --Pepijn (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The source has now been confirmed by Jeb on Reddit, so if someone is up for it the information can be added. – Fusseel 02:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you actually read Jeb's comment you would know that these changes were just ideas he had for the distant future. Nothing is officially planned, so it's not something for on here. --Pepijn (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, his initial words were taken slightly the wrong way, and in his reply he says they heard us loud and clear, so everything is all right. Probly not loosing the right click on torches! – Jack McKalling (t • c • p) 18:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Guess I should've been a bit more specific. By responding to the thread Jeb verified the source which enables us to include the details about features that are definitely going to be in 1.14 (features mentioned during the show). Nixinova already did this. I totally understood what Jeb had to say about the offhand and as I mentioned in my initial comment, I found this specific information provided by Retro28 questionable right from the beginning. – Fusseel 19:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes way more sense. I misunderstood your comment. --Pepijn (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Can't Get Link to Work
I've been trying to link "coral" to a specific sub-subsection on the Java Edition mentioned features page. However, no matter what I do, it will only link to the top of the page, instead of the sub-subsection "Mentioned in 2010." I've tried looking at linking tutorials and trying that, but even that doesn't work. Does anybody else know the easiest way to create a link to a specific subsection or sub-subsection of another page? --Madminecrafter12 (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Madminecrafter12


 * You can only link to headers that have an anchor on the page. As far as I know, these are the headers that have the [Edit] links next to them, or you can use anchor directly. The nearest anchor you were looking for was Java_Edition_mentioned_features. However you should link to the article page instead, not the mentioned features page. – Jack McKalling (t • c • p) 14:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for the info! However, an article page for coral has not been created yet; it just redirects to the Mentioned features page, so the only place where coral is mentioned is under Java Edition mentioned features, so the link might as well just go ahead and link there. If a coral page is created, however, I will change the link to the coral page. --Madminecrafter12 (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Madminecrafter12


 * Just remember we do not typically create pages on features until it is actually part of a snapshot. 1.14 is sufficient to describe the feature until then. – KnightMiner  t/c 20:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Source on Biome Pages
There are two links leading to uncreated biome pages; there is no source on either one of them. Can someone confirm that these are real features that have a source? 172.31.10.40

Insomnia beast
Is the word Insomnia beast official, can't see to find any sources if it. I have only heard of “The Monster of the Night Skies”. Skylord wars (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC) Skylord wars (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't find the term Insomnia beast anywhere as an official name, so I think that it would be best if we just leave it as "The Monster of the Night Skies," like it is now. --Madminecrafter12 (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Turtle image shows new structure?
If you mess with the brightness and contrast on the Turtle reveal image, you see a new structure in the ocean behind it. Is this evidence enough to add it to the page? – Nixinova   20:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I’m going to have to say definitely not enough evidence to put it on the page just yet. -BDJP (t 22:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This definitely should be added on the page.188.238.166.254 18:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This picture is enough evidence, because it was published by a Mojang employee. Also, if you look close enough, you can see that the structure is made out of stone bricks and chiseled stone bricks, so its definitely a generated structure rather than, say, a random pile of rocks. 85.76.74.42 13:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * . Although the picture itself is from Mojang, they haven't announced or referenced the structure in any way, it could be just a manually built pile of blocks from the employee who created the screenshot. Until there is something to actually be told about the structure, this is no valid source for anything. – [ Jack McKalling ] [ Grid Book.png Grid Book and Quill.png Grid Diamond Pickaxe.png ] 12:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Is this a generated structure? If so, what exactly is it? Since there has been no official statement about this, all we can do is speculate. And speculation does not have a place on a wiki. We will have to wait. --Pepijn (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection
Please semi-protect 1.14. -- Beans1512 Talk / Contribs 05:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? --MishMoshKeel21 (talk) 12:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on what I saw in the edit history for the page, there seems to be disagreement over a claim about Oasis biomes. See here and here. GunslingerN7, Technology and Gaming Freelancer (Talk) 12:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that something should be done, as there have been many cases where IP addresses have added things that are either not true or not relevant to this topic. Previously people kept trying to link to 1.15 (a page which should not have been created in the first place, but has been deleted now), and now an unregistered user keeps trying to add oasis biomes, which have not been mentioned in any of the sources, despite being reverted a total of 6 times so far. I support that common people should be able to contribute to the wiki, but for this page, I feel like it's going too far. --Madminecrafter12 (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Coral and kelp will be separated?
On the article, it mentions that "Coral and kelp will be separated". What exactly does this mean? You can see that on the article there is a verification note on the article saying "Please explain more precisely what this means". If that information means that they will be in separate biomes, the teaser screenshots contradicted this, showing coral and kelp directly next to each other, although it is possible that this has changed since. However, there is no source for that piece of information, and I don't think any the existing sources say anything about coral and kelp being separated (if somebody does find this, please post as a reply to this talk page). If nobody can find this mentioned anywhere on a reliable source, this piece of information may have to be deleted. If you do happen to find it somewhere, we should probably clarify the meaning of this on the page. Thanks! --Madminecrafter12 (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It was added in this edit by an anonymous user. It seems it slipped past us because of another anonymous user vandalizing the page after it. I will remove it. --Pepijn (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)