Talk:Java Edition 1.14/Archive 1

Sources and assumptions
,, . Finding a source comes first, Jeb's statement was way too vague to be considered a valid source ("the next update", with no mention of the edition this statement applied to and the fact that 1.13 is actually the next update for Java). I'm glad Fusseel managed to find a good source, but please do not act based on your own assumptions next time. It can backfire pretty bad. --Pepijn (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So he was going to be talking about 1.15+, with no info about 1.14? No he wasn't. And you said "he could be talking about Bedrock" ... no he wouldn't've. And don't start edit wars, Pepijn. – Nixinova Grid_Book_and_Quill.png Grid_Diamond_Pickaxe.png Grid_Map.png 20:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's still an assumption. Do not act on assumptions. This is a wiki, not a discussion group. --Pepijn (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand, Pepijn, unsourced information is one of the most terrible things I see frequently get edited in. However the way I saw and still see it, it could not have been meant in any other way, that this was supposed to be 1.14 material. It had already been stated before that they were already working on 1.14 specifically during the works of 1.13, and that 1.13 would not have any new content. They always announce new content about the next major update at Minecon, and we had heard nothing about 1.14 yet. So 1.13 was already fully announced and the "next" update would be 1.14. It would not have been for any different edition either, he just said they had caught up and updates would come out for all editions at pretty much the same time from now on. You're right, we should not make any assumptions and always find a source, and normally I (personally) wouldn't edit in new info if I'm not really sure about it, but in this case I found the source was valid. Thanks for guarding the case. – Jack McKalling (t • c • p) 20:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's still an assumption. Just because something is very likely to happen does not mean it's fine to accept vague sources. --Pepijn (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)