Talk:Java Edition 1.10

New Setblock
So what if I'm the first to say on this page? At least its relevant. Anyway, it says /setblock will be "/setblock ~ ~ ~ blue_wool" rather than "/setblock ~ ~ ~ wool 11". Couldn't it be "/setblock ~ ~ ~ wool blue" or "/setblock ~ ~ ~ wool-blue"? By the way, if you want light gray with my first idea, it would be "/setblock ~ ~ ~ wool silver". However, I think that you should also be able to use the number data. Maybe you could also put the name of the data on this wiki. Fyreboy5 (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * See the reddit comments in the reference; Grum states "blue_wool", along with proper syntax for declaring blockstates. It's possible this will change, but as far as I know this is the latest info we have on blockstates in commands. Skylinerw (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Taiga Villages
How do we know the Taiga villages are for PC edition? Jeb also works on MCPE, and he mentions MCPE in his tweet. And even if Jeb did confirm that it was for PC, we still don't know for sure that it is for 1.10. According to the recent cherry blossom thing, it shouldn't be put here unless specifically mentioned for 1.10. Once again, even if he did confirm the PC and 1.10 information, he said "Not sure yet, taiga villages often look messed up," meaning that they might not be added. I suggest we move this to mentioned features or something similar, as we did with cherry blossom trees. If anyone has any further information confirming that it is for planned for PC 1.10, please but it in the References section. -PancakeMan77 (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Two things that, for me, point to PC:
 * The tweet reads "Testing some ideas from MC:PE ..." which would be an awkward way of phrasing it, if he was testing a new idea for MC:PE.
 * Also the water in the screenshot doesn't look like MC:PE water, it's got a certain transparency in the distance that in MC:PE, would be masked by a more opaque blue.
 * What do you think about that? – Sealbudsman talk/contr 14:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * To your second point, yeah I support putting it in 'mentioned features' until further notice. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 14:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you. I see where people are coming from and why they think it could be 1.10. Thanks for your opinion and helping clarify some things for me. -PancakeMan77 (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Done! -PancakeMan77 (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Superspace@undefined, is there a new source on whether taiga villages are being added? The sources on the page say Jeb was unsure about it, that's why we had it put on Mentioned Features for now. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 15:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, my mistake. I'll move it back to the Mentioned features page for now, at least until we can get some confirmation that the changes to villages will be added in 1.10. Superspace (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Snapshots
It says that snapshots are not going to start appearing until April 27th in the first paragraph of the 1.10 page. We are already starting to see snapshots from 1.10. Should we update that statement? LCSKID
 * I have not seen any 1.10 snapshots, just 1.9.3 ones and a lot of people trolling that they are using 1.10 on twitter. – KnightMiner  t/c 23:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * But then what are all the pictures on the 1.10 page. The polar bear one, the Enderman one, etc. LCSKI


 * Those are just from the developers, they like to tweet teasers about what they're working on. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 00:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, Okay. Thanks --LCSKID (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Structure block
Shouldn't this be listed as a change instead of addition? The structure blocks are already in the game, and used by mojang since 1.9, but they will only become usable by non mojang developers in 1.10 (you can already /setblock them at this moment). Yes, it does get a new texture, but it's not new to the game. FVbico (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 15:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Teaser pictures
Are we fine with removing them when the first snapshot for 1.10 is released, provided that the features shown in those pictures are in-game? Just wondering so I know for later. -BDJP (t 20:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes sense since we usually don't keep them on the final version page. I'd be fine with it. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 20:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Will they end up in the "Gallery" section of their respective page? PancakeMan77 (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That would make sense too, I think. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 21:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, moving them to the gallery of the article is was we usually do, or to mentioned features if they don't make it in the planned update. – KnightMiner  t/c 22:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Nether Wart Block and other mentioned, unconfirmed changes
So we've been innundated by editors, all well-intentioned we have to assume, putting in the Nether Wart block, probably just because they're unfamiliar with how we're handling confirmed and unconfirmed features.

What if we had a section after Planned Changes, called Unconfirmed Features, with a see-also link to Mentioned features, a brief text stating that "the following features were mentioned for the PC in the course of 1.10's development, but have not been confirmed for 1.10" -- and then listed the taiga villages and the grass paths we see on Jeb's screenshot, and after that the nether wart blocks.

I think the strengths to this approach are Questions, comments, support or no? – Sealbudsman talk/contr 14:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * that it communicates the status of the feature on the page (which apparently is the only place lots of people are looking for it),
 * that it directs them to the Mentioned Features page, which can serve to illustrate the difference between a confirmed and unconfirmed feature,
 * it doesn't leave the page feeling, to the reader uninitiated in our categorization of features, that the page isn't "keeping up to date" or is "missing something".
 * Looks like a discussion on the level of the style guide: "In articles about confirmed upcoming major versions, should a section be kept that describes features which: 1) have not been explicitly linked by developers to this particular major version; 2) have been mentioned by developers during the development phase of this major version?"
 * , but close to neutral. May change my vote in the future if valid and severe disadvantages are discovered. --AttemptToCallNil, previously known as GreenStone (report bug, view backtrace) 14:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do agree yeah, this could be more of a style guide level discussion. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 00:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For me, unfortunately, I'd have to this. Just because a feature is unconfirmed doesn't mean it's just straight-up going to be in 1.10. Also, it may drive more speculation regarding what will be added if such a section is included. -BDJP (t 15:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In response to that, I'd like to clarify that I wouldn't support it myself, if the language wasn't completely clear that it's unconfirmed. I think, out in the wider world, people have the idea that certain features are confirmed, and I sort of would rather the wiki page set them straight, rather than be silent on the issue.  Meaning, I think it could clarify the matter for a lot of people, rather than drive speculation. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 00:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , mainly to stop the continual add-then-revert for stuff like the nether blocks. I wouldn't include the observer block in this, though, since it was explicitly said to not be counted on for 1.10. Anomie x (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah .. there's that, and the taiga villages, and the bark blocks, all of which are unconfirmed for 1.10, all of which were mentioned during 1.10 development, but each has, you might say, a different level of stated commitment. On the other hand, something to consider: the level of commitment could just be explicitly stated.  Like have an entry for Observer block, but then quote a developer who says "don't count on this for 1.10".  Just because that clears matters up for a reader who's heard of the Observer, but because it's mentioned during the current timeframe, thinks it's slated for 1.10. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 00:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Leaning toward opposing, since it would duplicate content from Mentioned Features, and contradicts our convention of not listing features that aren't confirmed for a particular version. I've noticed that most people who are adding these features are using the visual editor, so they won't see any HTML comments that are in the page. Maybe a 'see also' section, with link along the lines of "Mentioned Features - for game features that have been announced by developers, but not confirmed for a specific version". -- Orthotopetalk 21:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do acknowledge I'm proposing a departure from convention .. I would prefer such a thing to be hashed-out, agreed-upon, codified in some way, rather than having exceptions allowed on this and that page; I don't much like exceptions. The 'See also' section you mentioned sounds like very much the same as what I mean, so I'm unclear where lies the disagreement? – Sealbudsman talk/contr 00:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I mean a See Also section that just has a link to the Mentioned Features page; the upcoming features themselves would not be listed on this page. -- Orthotopetalk 01:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So... should the unconfirmed features be mentioned on this page? What is the final verdict? I kind of agree with not talking about them on this page, but having a link to mentioned features. On the mentioned features page, we could say that they were mentioned during 1.10's development cycle, but not expliciltly stated for 1.10. -PancakeMan77 (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

As Orthotope and PancakeMan77 suggest -- not talking about them on this page, but just linking to mentioned features -- I'd be up for just trying that, what do people think? – Sealbudsman talk/contr 16:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it'll work, but feel free to try it. Anomie x (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think so either, really. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 18:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)