Talk:Bedrock Edition mentioned features

After the mentioned features are added
Once all the mentioned features are added, how would new things be added? 75.165.49.48 04:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see what you mean, these are simply features that may be planned, they can plan a feature not on this list or mention a feature that gets put on this list at any time. – KnightMiner  (t·c) 04:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The paddle
What will the crafting recipie for paddles be?75.165.49.48 04:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It has not been stated yet, so we do not know. If you want to speculate the recipe, go to the forums instead. – KnightMiner  (t·c) 04:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, Tomasso has posted an image on twitter and was holding a paddle. This implies that paddles have been implemented,must not released to users outside of mojang.75.165.49.48 22:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Never mind. I found the crafting recipie.75.165.49.48 23:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Witches, rabbits and beacons
According to refrece 26 for Planned versions, witches, rabbits, and beacons appear to be planned. Please check this and include if it is true.67.160.25.176 00:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ref 26 doesn't mention that witches, rabbits, or beacons will be added. Don't assume they'll add certain things because they're adding other things. – JEC6789  [ Grid Book and Quill.png | Grid Map.png ] 00:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I realized I was referencing responses.67.160.25.176 23:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well they already added in Rabbits. Only 2 things left for the future. 13 December 2015 (UTC)Miner

Rename?
I think this page should be renamed because "mentioned" implies that these are not entirely confirmed. Maybe something like "Pocket Edition upcoming features" (currently, the page redirects to Planned Versions, but this could be changed).67.160.25.176 23:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That is the point, the features are not entirely confirmed. Many of the features from this page and the corresponding PC edition page get mentioned by a developer, but nothing ever happens with them.
 * If the feature is planned for the next update, only then can we assume its upcoming. In our current system, those features get listed on Planned versions, although ultimately it would end up on an upcoming Pocket Edition version page.
 * – KnightMiner  (t·c) 23:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Remove boats
A reference in planned versions says that boats are finished (check both). Because of this, boats should be removed and paddles should be made their own page, as the introduction specificly says that the features have not yet appeared in a developmental version.71.35.109.25 21:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "paddles should be made their own page". No, because they didn't appear in a development version. – LauraFi -  talk  21:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

0.11.0
Fishing, squid, enchantment tables, and maybe ocelots are planned for 0.11.0. This needs to be included. Can someone do this (it may require more than one edit)? ~From Contrapple 23:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If sources can be found to prove that these are indeed going to be included in 0.11.0, then they can be added to this page. We can't just take word of mouth. BDJP (t 23:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I used the sources for the page "Planned Versions". I can provide them. ~From Contrapple Grid Empty Map.png 23:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This page is for features that have been mentioned at some point, but are not confirmed for a specific version. If something is confirmed to be in 0.11, it should be listed on Planned versions, not here. -- Orthotopetalk 23:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If that is the case, these features would need to be removed from the page, along with skins and boats. If we are to do this, the page "Padddle" would need to be its own page rather than a redirect, otherwise it would be considered vandalism. ~From Contrapple Grid Empty Map.png 00:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree to those changes, other than giving paddles their own page, they will not get one until the feature is released, simply redirect it to planned versions instead. – KnightMiner  t/c 02:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed everything that is planned for 0.11.0 and made the pages about padddles redirect to planned versions (section pocket edition). ~From Contrapple Grid Empty Map.png 14:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Source for ocelots
Users have been removing a source just because there is another. This is no reason to remove a source. The BlobsPaper.png 17:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If you didn't notice, the tweets have the same number (608691291204022272). – LauraFi -  talk  18:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean. The BlobsPaper.png 22:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The reference you added links to the same tweet as the one next to it. While it is a valid source, it was removed because it's already on the page and there's no need to have it listed twice. -- Orthotopetalk 23:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Features for the next update
I'm pretty sure features fro the next update don't belong here, they belong on the version's page instead. The BlobsPaper.png 21:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Its obvious they don't, but no developer has announced when a build for the next update will be released or when it will be released. Its best to wait until a build is released. BDJP (t 21:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Re-addition of Windows 10 features
It recently came to my attention through the creation of a 0.13.0 page that certain features will remain unimplemented through 0.12.0 for an unspecified future release. See here for more information. This page should them see the addition and re-addition of certain features for the Windows 10 Edition:


 * Survival inventory revamped to match that of the PC version, removing the MATTIS crafting system
 * In-game music
 * Title screen from the Windows 10 Edition

Illidicia ( t + c ) 11:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Move version history nav
May you move the version history nav template to the bottom of the page? It looks like garbage with the new template at the top. --MarioProtIV (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

0.12.1 stuff
Please remove the things that were added in PE 0.12.1. --MarioProtIV (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yea, please edit this. Thanks :) --Suchti talk EMail 18:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Goandgoo@undefined please edit >.> MarioProtIV (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Goandgoo@undefined Please, Please, Please! --Suchti talk EMail 18:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Split proposal
A split proposal was recently made proposing splitting the 0.14.0 section to its own article. – KnightMiner  t/c 19:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * To that proposal, I . None of the references actually state 0.14.0, and few of them even state they are planned for the next update. I don't really see why they are separate from the other references at all as they are just as much mentioned features as the other stuff, except more recent. – KnightMiner  t/c 19:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * For every version of Mincraft released, when they released a picture of the feature it was included in the next major update so it can be reasonably inferred that the source implies the next update. Also the same situation applies to 0.10.0 and there is a page for it. Wolffillms (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * As for 1.10 – is that the one you meant? – every referenced item on that page is referenced literally as being planned for 1.10, there's no inferences of any kind. I agree about what you say about that being a reasonable inference, but as a wiki we use literal references, not so much reasonable inferences. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 03:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * per KnightMiner. – LauraFi -  talk  23:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No doubt, . KnightMiner stood on a right point. — Agent NickTheRed37 (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * While it may be fairly reasonable to assume that demonstrated features will be added in the next major release, it's still speculation. In the past, some of the Minecraft developers have complained about the wiki misleading people with inaccurate information about upcoming features. My position is that it's better to be slightly incomplete than to be wrong. If we list these as general mentioned features with no specified version, and they're added in 0.14, there's no harm done. If we assume they'll be in 0.14, but they aren't, it makes the wiki look like an unreliable source of information. -- Orthotopetalk 01:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If the wiki is missing an entire future update when it can be completely reasonably inferred by everybody that the content specified will be in the next major content update (every time a developer has ever shown a feature with a picture it was added in the next major content update), I fail to see how it is only "slightly incomplete". Also if you are worried about saying the that it is specificly for 0.14.0 in the header you could state "likely to be in 0.14.0" rather than "0.14.0" Wolffillms (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Location of a feature.. Not a mob.
In PE baby zombies will be able to ride cows and wolves how ever it has been inserted in the new mobs section while it isn't a new mob, just a new feature, so I would love to have an openion on where exacly should it be placed, mobs or general. KhaledMoharram (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The section header says "Mobs", not "New Mobs", so it seemed like a reasonable place to put changes as well as additions. -- Orthotopetalk 01:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Mentioned features.
Most of them are hinted in 0.14 however there is no tap to include them, rather they are in several taps among with other taps that are mrntioned but not at all coming in 0.14, a tap that included the featured in 0.14 used to exist but currantly they don't, so my idea is to add a tap that includes the features in 0.14 rather than leaving each of its tap (mobs, general, etc..) with the mentioned fetures in far updates (features from the pc version, general, etc...) KhaledMoharram (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That's the thing, none of them are hinted at 0.14. Few are even hinted for the next update, thus they were removed as to quote the above discussion: "If we list these as general mentioned features with no specified version, and they're added in 0.14, there's no harm done. If we assume they'll be in 0.14, but they aren't, it makes the wiki look like an unreliable source of information." – KnightMiner  t/c 17:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Removing the 0.14 section.
I disagree with that, and iam really sorry that I had to post another topic, if you could probably teach me how to reply and these commands, that would be great :) to get into topic I read the other topic about it and yes you do have a point, Yet that also means that people won't be able to know what is coming in 0.14...Even though that most of these features are 100% confirmed, the problem is that some of them are hinted but not yet confirmed for example in the new blocks added, they are all confirmed for 0.14 exept for pistons and those can be added in fetures that will come in further updates section, also as another example, maps are also 100% confirmed so I say to remove the things that aren't cobnfirmed from 0.14 and add them in their respictive section. Maybe with a little not saying that its hinted in 0.14 but not confirmed. But deleting 0.14 section isn't a good idea, it would be missleading people even more and not giving them the info they actually come to this board for. KhaledMoharram (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Please find me actual references for each feature you say is coming in 0.14 which state that it is coming in 0.14, and then it can even have its own article. Don't just say they exist, post links here. Unless such sources exist, no section is being added back, as it is misleading to promise the wikis users that something is in 0.14 if it was only hinted at, meanwhile it is not misleading to not promise a date, it is just incomplete with reason.
 * Also, to reply to a topic, you can click the "edit" link on the topic title and write your text below the last comment, placing one more  than the last person before your comment (to indent it) – KnightMiner  t/c 01:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * none of them actually litarly say it is coming in 0.14 because it couldn't be more obvious. It would be hard to tell you if its exacly coming in 0.14 even though it is, however most of them will go to the referance where tomacco said hopfully in 0.14 On almost every single feature exept for pistons and in maps, the writer said take it as a teaser for the text update The only things left are pistons and witches and a couple of general features. But it doesn't make absolutly any sence to just ditch them because they didn't say litarly, it is 100% sure exept for only one item and that is pistons, removing the intire 0.14 section would only misslead people even more to think that every single other section is also coming in 0.14!!
 * http://minecraft.gamepedia.com/User:KhaledMoharram
 * KhaledMoharram. (also if it isn't a problem can you also teach me how can people actually know who wrote the post? Sorry! –Preceding unsigned comment was added by KhaledMoharram (talk • contribs) at 8:46, 02 January 2016 (UTC). Please sign your posts with
 * KhaledMoharram, if you're worried people will think the whole 'mentioned features' page is referring to 0.14.0, the problem really is the reader taking unwarranted leaps and reading that into page, and the solution to that isn't to create a 0.14.0 section to bolster their false impression, the solution would be to more clearly state something in the lead of the page to the effect that none of the following features have been promised for release in a specific version. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 16:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, you keep saying the references "obviously refer to 0.14", but we are a wiki, we state the provided facts. We don't infer "obvious things" here, as that would be speculation.
 * As for those "hopefully in 0.14" ones you mentioned: as I said before, give us links that prove your statements. Remember, several of us disagree with you, so why would I try to prove you right when I believe the links don't exist? Prove yourself right with actual links. – KnightMiner  t/c 17:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good points, I do agree, though my point stand still but yours kinda overcome it, maybe add back the part in the top of the page sating that these fetures are hinted but in no way confirmed? KhaledMoharram (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)