Talk:Java Edition 1.0

Deletion discussion
Is this page really needed? -- Throex  '''TALK 01:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is an upcoming major update and very major milestone in Minecraft.--Tgpqaz 02:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I kind of agree with Throex; why have another page about the "real" Minecraft, when we have a huge page already about Minecraft, called Minecraft?  Fracq  Grenade    |   talk    contribs  12:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Its about the version that is going to be released, not the game in general. Its like from alpha to beta, etc. Its describing the final product of the development cycle the game has been in all this time compared to the previous versions, not the entire game.--Tgpqaz 12:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I still see no reason to have this page on the Wiki. All of the things listed are part of the Adventure Update and will be listed on that page, as well as the upcoming features page. So why have it on three different pages? It is a pointless page.. -- Throex  '''TALK 14:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, right now it does, but after the official release of minecraft, it will have updates that are not part of the Adventure Updates. Minecraft is leaving Beta. The point of the release is to create a more polished product, Minecraft 1.0 (or whatever its going to be called) is the official release and then development phase after the pre-1.0 beta.--Tgpqaz 17:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, even after the release that is what the Upcoming Features page is for and the Version History page is for. There is no reason for this page to exist at this point and time. -- Throex  '''TALK 14:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. But maybe one could make a bigger and more accurate sub-category on the Version History about 1.0, when we get to that point.  Fracq  Grenade    |   talk    contribs  15:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes FracqGrenade, I agree with that. This is what the Version History page is for. This page should just be deleted and added to the version history list after the release. All this information is already on the Upcoming Features page any way. Which will be transferred to the version history page on release. -- Throex  '''TALK 01:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh Throex, FracqGrenade, if you're going to use that reason for deleting this page, then explain to me why the pages: Minecraft 4k, Pocket Edition, Classic, Survival Test, Indev, Infdev, Seecret Updates, Alpha, Beta, Halloween Update, Adventure Update all exist. These are ALL updates or versions made by Mojang. If we have a page documenting the changes in the seecret updates, halloween update, adventure updates, I see NO REASON to delete this page, especially if this is an official update set to be released in 10 days. I propose a rewrite instead of an outright delete. There is no need for a deletion. - Asterick6 07:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I found this page useful, as I did a search for "when will minecraft 1.0 be released"
 * Yeah I think we've lost, as our arguements aren't strong enough. And we do have the pages Beta and Alpha. This page will remain on the wiki :)  Fracq  Grenade    |   talk    contribs  11:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good call. - Asterick6 23:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I also found this page useful, since I was looking for a page that could talk specificaly about this version. Also, there are pages for every other version in the wiki, so it wouldn't make sense to not have this one. I'm glad it was aproved. Skaruts 03:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep this Article
I think I'm pretty late to this discussion so I will make a new section for this. I suggest this article to be kept as it is a major milestone. It is also a different article from Minecraft because this article is about this particular milestone while the latter is about the game in general. Most of the information in the "Changes" part is badly worded and I will try to polish up that section.

Something about Minecon should also be stated here as well as the media coverage on milestone. This article should also be tagged with Template:Future as it will be released soon. I'll work on it later. Thanks. --Scykei 13:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys for helping support this.--Tgpqaz 00:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Dicussion
While this page is here, I guess I can use it to discuss this? Does anyone else out there think that the potions/enchantments and a few other features were SUPER RUSHED due to the coding freeze being right around the corner. (I know the coding is frozen as of now, but when they were first introduced, they were not) I just feel like some of these new features are going to be.. SUPER BUGGY.. even after 5 pre-releases. What are your thoughts? -- Throex  '''TALK 02:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure, as they (for at least another 10 days) are going to fix the major bugs and stuff. Maybe the minor bugs are going to be there for a while, but I do not think that it's going to be SUPER BUGGY  Fracq  Grenade    |   talk    contribs  09:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole thing is a freaking sham. Shouldnt the buggers list out "new bugs" first? Its not like they have actually made the game play any smoother, or fixed any long standing bugs, or improved performance, or... yadda yadda. the list could go on. - (this "user" refuses to use tildes to indentify himself) 11:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

While reading this page, I noticed one possible inconsistency. There are other pages about each version of minecraft, including the pre-updates, each of them listing the changes the game had in their onw time. However, most contents in the Changes section of this page aren't new to this particular version, but rather to the 1.9 pre-updates and 1.0 release candidates. Skaruts 04:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The development versions do not count towards the changes. We show the complete changes between full versions on the Version history page and also on the respective full version updates such as the Halloween Update or the Adventure Update. The development versions have their own page. Example: for Minecraft 1.0.0, we show all the changes between it and Beta 1.8 since those are the full version releases. - Asterick6 07:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Release time
I'm pretty sure that 1.0 was not released at 2:59 PM PST. I live in PST and I had the game by around 1:56 PM, and that was a few minutes after release. Would someone please look into the actual release time?


 * Fri, 18 Nov 2011 21:54:50 GMT --Krenair 13:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, what?
Wasn't "leaves having a 1/200 chance of dropping Red Apple" for Minecraft 1.1? Or is that included when you say 1.0? 72.49.172.121 00:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. It's been removed. - Asterick6 07:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit: Btw, it was actually added in snapshot 11w48a. - Asterick6 06:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Latest version
I just updated the latest version from 1.2.3 to 1.2.4. --Schrutebeets 01:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk page time
BDJP007301, referring to your edit war: changing 2100 hours to 9 PM is not an unwarranted change to information, it's just formatting .. 24 hour time isn't preferred in the English-speaking world.

Like if some IP drove by and changed sheep drops from 1–3 to 2–3, and left no explanation, that's a change of matter of fact, and "unexplained change" applies. But this was purely formatting, there was no change in a matter of fact. And it was a helpful change at that; nobody likes to convert 21 to 9 in their head. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 18:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * GMT always uses 24 hour time. As such, I wouldn't consider that formatting. -BDJP (t 19:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Formatting isn't per-timezone. GMT is just the name of a time zone, not a body that defines any kind of standard.  Nor is that website such a body.  Nor does that website advocate one way or the other -- just flipped through that site and has no problem using both 12 and 24 hour time.  – Sealbudsman talk/contr 21:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Category needed?
This page doesn't include the Version history nav template, nor is it in Category:Version, but its title includes a version number and a comment in the page source says it "serves the same purpose as the Classic, Indev, Infdev, Alpha, Beta, Halloween Update, and the Adventure Update articles", most of which do include the nav template and are in the category. If it needs changing, I'm afraid I'll have to ask somebody else to do it because I haven't yet figured out the complex relationship between version history templates and categories yet. Auldrick (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I added version history nav, which automatically puts it in the category. The BlobsPaper.png 15:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Rename to Official Release
I think of 'Minecraft 1.0' as '1.0.0', and 'Official Release' makes more sense. Thoughts? — Nixinova (talk|edits) 05:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For an article about the 1.0-to-present development cycle, the current name is weird, yes, but Official Release seems a little off too It's kind of a term that's set in the past, in the days when they first had the official release. To my ears they both sound old. I don't have a better idea though. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 02:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Rename to Full Release
Per the discussion above, I think Minecraft 1.0 sounds confusing. Minecraft 1.x may make sense, so does Official Release, but I think that Full Release makes much more sense. – Nixinova   06:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Personally, "Official release" is the best thing. But this may be an old idea ... -- Beans1512 Talk/Contribs 06:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I fully support this idea, but I believe it should be moved to Official Release. I would also like to see what others think regarding this issue. User:GunslingerN7 (Talk, Contribs) 01:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * So are we going to rename it to Official or Full Release? – Nixinova Grid_Book_and_Quill.png Grid_Diamond_Pickaxe.png Grid_Map.png 19:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * . -BDJP (t 19:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * . If we move it to Official Release though, we will have to change the page content a bit, as currently it seems to be mostly about 1.0.0. Of course, we can't summarize the changes for all updates in the Official Release, as updates keep coming out. I personally think that currently this is not a very useful page - all it does is basically summarizes the changes in 1.0.0, and adds a little bit more information in the lead section. If we leave it as Java Edition 1.0 and don't change any content of the page, it will basically be a shorter duplicate of 1.0.0.--Madminecrafter12 (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * . The history section also uses Offcial release. This page should not be just 1.0. Previously people use this page as the name for 1.0.0. But we should change the style. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Skylord wars (talk • contribs) at 21:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC). Please sign your posts with


 * One idea for the article is that we could make it in a similar style to other development stages, such as Classic. For the "Additions" section, though, we would have to either omit it or keep updating it any time a new update comes out. As for the name, I think that we should definitely call it either Official Release or Release, not Full Release. Between the two, I think Official Release is slightly better.--Madminecrafter12 (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The article is renamed to full release
Because Minecraft 1.0 is too ambiguous. --Haydkenmutthew (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Options with the future of this page
I'm revisiting the same discussion that can be seen in the previous 2 sections, but this time in a slightly different (and hopefully clearer) way. So, basically I see three (now four) options as to what to do with this page long-term:


 * 1) Make it similar to the named version pages that make up multiple numbered versions, such as the Combat Update, World of Color Update, etc. This would be like how it is now, except briefly mention the fixes that were made in 1.0.1 as well.
 * 2) Simply merge the page with 1.0.0. This page is basically just a summary of the additions and changes in 1.0.0, with just an extra paragraph. Adding a new section titled "release" or something like that on the 1.0.0 page, or just including the paragraph in the lead section, should work fine as well.
 * 3) Move to Full Release, Official Release, or Release (I personally think "Official Release" is the best). The question here is, what would be the content of the page? Would we make it like the Alpha and Beta pages, where we include all content that was ever added in the official release? I don't really think that would be practical though, due to the pile up of features that would accumulate. But if we didn't do this, then what content would we have left? Just a single brief paragraph about what time it was released and its price.
 * 4) Merge the content into Java Edition and redirect the page to either that or 1.0.0. (new option after Skylord War's comment)

I previously supported number 3, but after looking into it and thinking about it, I think 2 or 4 would probably be the most practical and make the most sense. What do all of you think?-- Madminecrafter12 Orange Glazed Terracotta.png to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 00:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * . We already have a page called Java Edition, which pretty much has the information about the official release. This page doesn't contain much content. --Skylord wars (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ooh, that just gave me the idea that we could merge this page into the Official Release section of the Java Edition page. I've now added that as a fourth option.-- Madminecrafter12 Orange Glazed Terracotta.png to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 02:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Reediting this discussion so that hopefully more people will see it in recent changes, as this is probably going to need several clear responses before actions are taken.-- Madminecrafter12 Orange Glazed Terracotta.png to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 14:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * option 4, redirecting to the JE article and adding a disambiguation template there linking to the version article. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 15:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)