Talk:Java Edition version history

Sign your posts with and always add new posts at the very bottom after previous sections.

Summary readability
Currently we have something like 1.2 1.5 where 1.2->wiki division, 1.5 minecraft version ->could it be possible that the summary add the word Version between the wiki division and minecraft version numbers (1.2 Version 1.5) ? --82.150.248.29 08:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought the same. I don't know what to do about it though. -- Numbermaniac  - T  - C 08:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

1.5.1 Bug : Doors are invisible (half)
/give [Player] 64 OR /give [Player] 71 But it is invisible check

--Minecraftaddict154 09:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

1.5.2
Is the 1.5.2 protocol same as 1.5/1.5.1? If so, it should be added in italics like it has for 1.5.1. -- Numbermaniac  - T  - C 02:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think that 1.5.2 is compatible with 1.5 or 1.5.1, but I'm not sure. --70.181.68.226 03:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I cannot get on to 1.5.1 servers with 1.5.2. Cultist O 04:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly. --70.181.68.226 04:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I added a note on the page at Version history. Thanks!! -- Numbermaniac  - T  - C 05:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. --70.181.68.226 05:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, can we have the Issues page back, please?
The issue tracker is a pain to browse and is full of duplicate tickets.

I would also like to stress that this is a wiki, which is supposed to document everything worth knowing about Minecraft, including all discovered glitches, bugs, and whatever else have you.

The Issues page obviously shouldn't function as a place to report bugs, but that's not the point. The point would be to list them so they can be easily browsed through. E-102 Gamma 05:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The massive amount of duplicates is a minor inconvenience compared to the mess that was the issue pages. The tracker mods do a decent job of linking duplicates to the appropriate main issues. Not only that, but anything reported on the wiki means nothing. Problems will not be looked into since Mojang will not see them.  05:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * per Kanegasi. The issue tracker is the official one that Mojang checks. They wouldn't check the ones reported on the wiki. –- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 06:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Once again, it wouldn't be for the purpose of reporting bugs, but rather, documenting them. It would be redundant if it was for reporting bugs. This should be heavily emphasized on the Issues page itself if it were to be resurrected. E-102 Gamma 15:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If there's one thing I've learned from editing this wiki for the last year and a half, it's that people are stupid and don't read directions. If we have an Issues page, people will try to report bugs on it. Bugs that cause particularly notable (mis)behavior (such as the 'black lighting' bug, or the one that prevents zombie sieges from working) can be mentioned on the appropriate pages, but I don't see an advantage in trying to maintain a centralized bug list again. -- Orthotope talk 19:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Correct. Kanegasi added a note (which I expanded) to the Block of Coal's trivia about not mentioning Minecraft 2.0, yet users still did it. Most talk pages also say that it is only for discussing the relative main page. How many people don't follow that?! –- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 21:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)