Talk:Java Edition version history/Pre-classic

Pre-0.0.9a?
Why are the versions listed as pre-0.0.9a? There is no source for this being officially used to refer to the rd-xxxxxx versions. The verified, rd-xxxxxx name should take priority over the pre-0.0.9a names. Even Notch himself only referred to this phase as "Cave game" or "RubyDung". 172.249.134.116 00:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I would be in support of fixing this information. ―HalfOfAKebab (talk, contribs) 18:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

launcher versions
, for what reason did you disapprove of that recent edit about launcher versions, and then later revert it as vandalism? – Sealbudsman talk/contr 20:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * By taking a look at the IP's contributions, you can clearly see that his contributions reference two unreliable sources. -BDJP (t 20:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm looking back and I see that they're belligerent and annoying. Though, I'm not referring to any edit that used some kind of unreliable source.  I'm referring to this; that one wasn't vandalism and it isn't wrong, that I can tell. –  Sealbudsman talk/contr 20:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Particles
Shouldn't we include particles as an addition in the latest version here? Looks like blockcrack was the only one at the time. Aepokk (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Booooooooooooooo!
5.198.8.22 14:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC) Make it so that unsigned people can edit this page again!