Talk:Lantern/Archive 1

In Notches "Lamps post" and "Lanterns post" tweet he talks about Nether tiles, portal side and yellow stone all pointing to Glowstone so I think he was talking about that instead of a lantern. -MinecraftAddict 16:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need this page right now? When the halloween update actually came out would be a better time in my opinion. Turtleey 16:14, 14 October 2010 (CDT)


 * Actually, yes, we have a page somewhere that actually links to Lantern, this page was created so that the link wouldnt be empty. --WallShadow 21:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why isn't now a good time to start at least? It's better to start with something than nothing at all. --Funkadacious

Can we get a source for the statement that all old torches will be replaced with lanterns? Just a link to the place where he said that would be good. I just feel that it would to site statements like that. Harpuia 03:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Check his twitter sometime last week. Gonna post link when I don't feel lazy. Turtleey 02:46, 16 October 2010 (CDT)
 * Thank god all previous torches are being replaced... I seriously wasn't looking forwards to going through my mines relighting everything! --Funkadacious

I heard they are being saved for beta. I forgot where I heard this so I suppose I shouldn't add it to the page. DWdiablo 01:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Lanterns Still Coming?
Notch seems to be waving on Lanterns. and it's been a long time since he mentioned them. Are there any recent statements about them? --Infirm 12:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but I think we can consider them dropped? 72.152.45.73 02:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

--99.109.60.130 00:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC) Not coming. Notch said no. Delete the page, no lanterns, m'kay?

Notch's twitter and lanterns
I would call that highly debatable. It looks to me as if he is just having fun with us, or pointing that lanterns will use lightstone dust. --Fishrock123 09:43, 12 November 2010 (CST)
 * That is very much a possibility. Its hard to get volumes of data from a couple of posts limited to 140 characters ;)  It may not be appropriate for the page, or at least not in the state my edit is currently in.  I just couldn't think of a better way or place to put it, but I thought the information was important.  --XipXoom 09:47, 12 November 2010 (CST)

I believe Notch was saying that in response to people asking where the Lantern was during the Halloween update, since they were not finished or released. So said then, jokingly, that lightstone was the lantern. =P Zetal 10:42, 14 November 2010 (CST)
 * You know, it kinda is. Jaeil 12:06, 14 November 2010 (CST)

I'm thinking that as soon as the slime spawning is fixed up, lanterns could be made of slime balls. It would put good use to the at-the-moment pointless item. GlitchKing 16:16, 20 December 2010 (CST)

You know.... Lanterns were canceled a few weeks after Halloween update, cuz notch says there silly and didn't work out right  KsaRedFx 09/01/2011 7:36 AM +5 EST

Block or Item
The lantern is block or item? --Timler 07:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say item. --Domi_Digger 12:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It may be both, like cake and beds. MarioLuigi2010 01:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Not Sure to Add or Not?
Notch replied that he's "not sure" whether he wants to add them or not. It says in the @notch, when will he add them. Then he replies "Not sure". Not, "Not sure whether I'll make them or not", but "Not sure" to the question answered. So shouldn't it be that he's not sure WHEN he'll add them, not WHETHER he'll add them? Just wondering... Nineza 21:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well. This could be trouble. But it makes the game fair... Or not...

hmmm....
If you select this page, go to 'other languages' and hit Russian, than translate to English using google; it will say: "...has been delayed indefinately." Could this be a signal to signify that Notch may never add lanterns?
 * No, it signifies that the Russian version of this page includes a phrase that translates to something like "...has been delayed indefinitely". Notch has, however, said something about maybe not implementing torches after all on Twitter, but this was quite a while ago and it would be a pain to dig back through his tweets to find it again. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 17:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

We should just ask Notch again on Twitter! I'm only half joking. --Da Mad Dok 3 April, 2011


 * I asked him; we'll see if he answers. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 07:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You do realize that Google Translate is far from accurate. Phrases in other languages can have many different meanings depending on how it's used, which is one reason google translate isn't accurate.--Cubs197 04:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No! don't Do it!
Notch! you try to ruin minecraft! Lanterns are f***ing sh** (sorry for bad language) please give it up, it would be great if you stop working for those "lanterns"! It would be NO more fun to play minecraft if torches would always would run out! i would need 12 flint and steel to light it up and could take a risk for burning my entire home out just because i've tried to let the torches burning again!
 * I like the idea of lanterns, but if implemented torches definitely should not burn out. - Jpop 02:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, torches should never run out even if lanterns are made. Hlast 14:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Lanterns weren't added because Notch stated it was "Too Complicated".
 * Does he mean that making torches go out is too complicated? Cuz' makign a lantern block is just like making a pumpkin block, most likely. 95.96.128.2 13:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Just thought of something...
Although Glowstone and Jack-o-lanterns already emit level 15 light and can be placed underwater, lanterns might still work as entity light sources because they could be less obstructive than the above light-producing blocks and maybe, if possible, function underwater. Just IMO, though; I don't know if Notch wants to bother with the idea anymore. Cobalt32 22:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Data value already decided?
Is it really still that certain they're going to replace torches? MarioLuigi2010 01:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this what we want from lanterns? (Warning! Opinions!)
I always imagined Lanterns would be placeable on the bottom of blocks, and would be a little more resource consuming than torches. Also, if they were to be added, it wouldn't necessarily mean torches would go out and need relighting, That's a stupid idea.

All Lanterns need to do, is emit light around the player if one is in the quick inventory, and be placeable on ALL side's of blocks, including the bottom. THAT'S ALL WE WANT. A nice looking non-solid (unlike glowstone) light source on the ceiling of our mansions. Like a Chandler.

Keep in mind, these are all MY opinions, and everybody has their own thoughts on these matters.

Concerning the second template
The text reads "These features only exist in older, outdated versions of Minecraft."

But Lanterns have never existed in Minecraft in the first place...? anterns were never added, so they can't really be removed, either.

Do we have a template for scrapped ideas? Eevables 21:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete!
This is a block that was only discussed as an idea from Notch. Sure, any block that WAS there should be on the Wiki, but Notch has confirmed at Minecon that he wasn't going to include them; this page has as much right to be here as every part of Upcoming Features. Can't we just delete it? 82.13.25.62 15:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I second this. It's something that was never in minecraft and never will be. It has no significance whatsover. --71.51.146.49 01:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and if it DOES get removed from the wiki, I will be quick to put it back up. If this site is going to remain complete, it needs to have records of everything. We might as well delete the sky dimension page and the crying obsidian page if we are removing non-existent features from the wiki.--67.170.243.224 06:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Those were actually in the game though, this has never been part of minecraft. --Moxxy 18:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)\

I disagree the fact that it was at one point planned to be implemented makes it a part of minecraft history 76.119.219.135 20:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We can't just add anything Notch thought about though. Unless you plan on going through his Twitter archives and adding the literally dozens upon dozens of ideas he's had than we're deleting this. If you feel that Lanterns should be mentioned somewhere on this site then put a small trivia bit in the glowstone page (which was its replacement). Something that does not, and has never existed does not deserve a page. --Moxxy 01:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then lets remove the pigmen article! While we're at it let's remove the Quiver article and the sky dimension article since we're trashing stuff that had been thought through and lingered in the games files or in official update lists!(It was announced on his blog, which was the official source at the time(http://notch.tumblr.com/post/1243370641)) Keep in mind that this is a wiki, not a game guide. The site exists so that we can document everything that is, has been and would have been in minecraft, not just things that exist or existed in the visible game. Ivyn 05:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually do believe the pigmen article should be deleted. 90% of that page is junk just like this page. Look, I'm not saying delete all trace of it ever from this wiki. You are correct that everything should be documented. The thing is they do not deserve their own pages, this lantern page's viable information can go under torches and fish (which you also commented on) can be merged with... fish. Pigmen should be merged with zombie pigmen. The reason is that these pages really only have one sentence and the source of that info that should be in the article, the rest is just users making guesses. If we leave the info were leave junk that doesn't belong on this, or any wiki. If we remove it we're left with a tiny stub that isn't any longer than a bit of trivia. Sky dimension stays since it 1) was in game at some point 2) hasn't been denounced 3) has recently been confirmed to be still being thought as something that could have been implemented. I'm against removal of any historical info, just organizing things. --Moxxy 06:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)