Talk:Java Edition mentioned features

Dirt Slab
I think Dirt Slab should be moved to Removed features, as it actually was implemented on Classic 0.26, and removed later. Therefore, I think Dirt Slab fits better to Removed features. What do you think? --ToonLucas22 (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Was that version publicly playable? If yes as I'd assume, I would agree to the move, and it should also be noted it in the history section of slabs. – KnightMiner  (t·c) 04:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, due to the screenshot taken I would say yes, because of course private versions cannot be accessed, and if it can't be accessed, a screenshot would not be able to be taken. Sorry if I took long to respond, is that the star on the notifications doesn't get yellow anymore when receiving a notification. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless the screenshot was taken by a developer. I'd assume it was publicly accessible though, due to the way the version history mentions it. So unless anyone has an objection, I would move it to removed features. – KnightMiner  (t·c) 15:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The screenshot was taken and posted by Notch here. The next day he posted a video demoing slabs, using the 'stone slab' texture; the version number is the same. He mentioned updates on October 13 and 24; since the dirt slab test was on October 22, I don't think it was publicly available. It's possible he turned dirt blocks into slabs to quickly test how half-blocks would work, and never intended them to be released as a separate block. -- Orthotopetalk 17:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Lanterns
"Lanterns were crafted blocks originally planned to be added in the Halloween Update... They were repeatedly postponed, until"

Uh, what? 209.58.128.135 04:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed, that sentence was leftover from the rewrite, as the third paragraph covers the postponing. – KnightMiner  (t·c) 05:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Rare Tools/Weapons
Rare Tools and Weapons should be moved to the the section "partially implemented" because chain armor already exists. Please statement your opinion.71.35.109.25 03:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Chainmail was already implemented into the game (and then obtainable in survival via trading) long before his tweets. His tweets are concerning a separate system of rare, unechantable loot with predetermined effects on them. Skylinerw (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Interwiki links - Need help
Because the former "Unimplemented features" article here was split up into into this one and Unused features, there are now problems regarding the interwikilinkiing by bots. For example, the Quiver page which is still available in some wikis, gets linked with some "Unimplemented features"-equivalent pages (which haven't been split up on other wikis than this one as far as I know) and the other way, and the removed features also mess around a little bit. I now have about no idea how to link them correctly. This is what I've gotten so far:

Unimplemented features (no equivalent page on this wiki anymore) Unused features Mentioned features Removed features I'm not sure if I'm right with everything. Also, there may be more pages on other wikis, p.g. about the quiver, that aren't listed here yet (Some languages are even missing in this list). However, feel free to correct, update and verify the list above, that would be a great help! | violine1101(Talk) 10:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * de:Nicht implementierte Features
 * fr:Fonctionnalités non implémentées
 * ja:未実装の要素
 * ko:Unimplemented features
 * nl:Niet geïmplementeerde functies
 * ru:Нереализованный контент
 * zh:未加入的特性
 * de:Unbenutzte Features
 * en:Unused features
 * it:Funzioni non usate
 * pl:Niewykorzystane elementy
 * ru:Нереализованный контент
 * en:Mentioned features
 * de:Entfernte Features
 * en:Removed features
 * es:Características eliminadas
 * zh:已移除的特性


 * With the way it was designed, Unused features was the successor to Unimplemented features, so if desired the interwikis can point there. Likewise, Mentioned features was designed to replace Upcoming features and took pieces from Unimplemented features that did not belong. If you want, you can point the interwikis following that pattern, otherwise, what you have looks good.
 * As for the individual pages like Quiver, the best solution I can think of is to from the other wikis send interwikis to the page here that covers the topic (Unused features for example), and leaving no reverse interwiki. If problem persist with incorrect interwikis being added, I know has a page listing interwikis that should not match.  – KnightMiner  t/c 16:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, Upcoming features-equivalents do exist on some wikis, which are pages that include both planned versions and some mentioned features, so I think Mentioned Features has no interwiki equivalents because I think it would be better to link those Upcoming features-equivalents to Planned versions. I think the problem is also that some pages (Rana or Quiver for example) redirect to pages like Removed features or Unimplemented features. The bot then sees, oh, there's a redirect, let's link Rana to Removed features#Rana and then it links Unimplemented features with Removed features#Rana (because of the quiver or the horse saddle or whatever) and Rana. It would be great if there would be a "redirect-blacklist" for pages like Removed features or something like that. Also, how about creating Minecraft Wiki:Interwiki portal for such interwiki cases? | violine1101(Talk) 11:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * IdefixBot will no longer edit these pages until I find a way to solve the problem. • ObelusPA2 d · FR Admin · 17:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I took the time to look at all these pages, I think that unimplemented features and unused features pages can be considered as the same pages. There are 2 different pages only in german. So I made a list of equivalent pages for me :
 * de:Nicht implementierte Features
 * en:Unused features
 * es:Características eliminadas
 * fr:Fonctionnalités non implémentées
 * hu:Nem megvalósított tartalmak
 * it:Funzioni non usate
 * ja:未実装の要素
 * ko:Unimplemented features
 * nl:Niet geïmplementeerde functies
 * pl:Niewykorzystane elementy
 * ru:Неиспользуемый контент
 * zh:未加入的特性
 * So I think that this would be the interwiki links list for all these pages. And for removed features, Violine1101's list seems to be great. I will probably edit all these pages with these interwiki links, and after, my bot will not change them. • ObelusPA2 d · FR Admin · 23:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, in the case of the German "Nicht implementierte Features", despite translating to "Unimplemented features", it contains content more similar to our mentioned features, and even specifically states those features are not in the game. I would suggest using the German language's Unbenutzte Features (or "Unused features") instead for this list, and sending the first page towards the mentioned/upcoming feature list.
 * Other than that, the list looks good. – KnightMiner  t/c 03:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unimplemented features are not unused features. Unimplemented features were mentioned by a developer but haven't been implemented (yet). Unised features are features that are actually ingame but aren't obtainable in survival mode (pg giants). So, maybe we should link unimplemented features with mentioned features? Also, es:Características eliminadas looks more like removed features than unused. | violine1101(Talk) 08:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Unimplemented features when it first existed contained mainly features that existed but did nothing. The problem was due to the ambiguity of title and the fact it allowed mentioned features, features mentioned by developers got placed there a second list of ideas mentioned by developers got placed on "Upcoming features". Because of that title ambiguity, I renamed "Unimplemented features" to "Unused features" during the rewrite.
 * As for es:Características eliminadas, the article is similar to our late unimplemented features article, which contained unused, mentioned, and removed features, like most of the other pages on the list. As such, any place we send it would not be an identical page. The main reason sending it to "Unused features" made the most sense is because we already have the "upcoming features" pages to send to "mentioned features", so focusing on the unused features content makes more sense. Overall, any way we do this will not be a perfect match – KnightMiner  t/c 16:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you KnightMiner, this is very complex... • ObelusPA2 d · FR Admin · 16:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)