Talk:Java Edition version history

Sign your posts with and always add new posts at the very bottom after previous sections.

Post-move issues
This page was moved, but the redirects that link to the subpages were not, so now there are 150 items in Special:DoubleRedirects. Could someone create a double-redirect-fixer bot? ? – Nixinova   07:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hold on. Since Classic pages now have their own page, we should redirect these pages to their own pages. It will take some time by the way.--Skylord wars (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This looks like some tedious task I'd find fun to do manually. I'm crazy like that, but the report is empty by now. – [ Jack McKalling ] [ Book.png Book and Quill.png Grid Diamond Pickaxe.png ] 19:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"Snapshot 1.x.y" vs "1.x.y-pre"
In the launcher, versions such as 1.4.3-pre are labelled as just "snapshot 1.4.3", and ingame it just says "Minecraft 1.4.3". Even the jar files on the article only say 1.4.3. This is the same for 1.6-pre and others. Should these pages have "pre" in their name? If so, should the lead sections remove the pre? This is a bit confusing. – Nixinova  05:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This was fixed a few months ago. – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 21:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

What's the obsolete Minecraft version for Java Edition
The obsolete Minecraft versions are the Minecraft versions discontinued more than ten years ago (as roughly). The Minecraft versions older than the release can be defunct, and defunctions are terminated at Alpha. --183.88.158.244 04:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Those sentences don't make any sense and there are no versions of MC older than a decade (yet). What are you talking about when you say "obselete" and "defunct"? – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 04:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Some older versions of the game no longer work on the latest version of Windows 10; specifically, most Classic, Indev, and Infdev versions cause crashes. Maybe that's what they were trying to refer to? - Luke18033 (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Use Y-M-D
Wouldn't it be better to use ymd in these small tables? they easily sort and it's just easier to see the release dates, as ymd gives the order of importance. – Nixinova   08:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But we don't need to sort here, and the used format is the default of the wiki. I think it's fine right now. – Jack McKalling [ Book and Quill.png Grid Diamond Pickaxe.png ] 08:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * After again thinking this and coming back to this talk page, YMD would be preferable as you can immediately see the one different between versions, eg 1.13.2 came out 2 months after 1.13.1 etc. – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 03:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Now with it listing both dev and full releases having YMD would be easier to do quick math comparisons (eg comparing 20181024 and 20190423 is much easier than comparing 24oct2018 and 23apr2019). – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 03:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Background colours
For some reason I can't tell the difference between the background colours of "Unavailable in the launcher, but archived elsewhere" and "No direct evidence/proof exists". Both are grey to me, and although one is probably a bit darker when used in the table, I cannot see this difference in the legend because it is so small. This applies to both the main Classic legend as well as the Pre-Classic one. – Jack McKalling 07:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've changed the colour of the former to make them more distinguishable, and also merged some colours. – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 07:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So much better, thanks! – Jack McKalling [ Book and Quill.png Grid Diamond Pickaxe.png ] 08:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding back addition summaries
Should we add addition summaries back? I looked at the history of the page, and I have found out that prior to September 2013, every update of Minecraft had addition summaries next to the version name, release date. It would write what was added in the corresponding update, bug fixes and more. Why don't we just add it back? To not make the page abnormally long, we should simply cut out the bug fix part. I don't mind if it shouldn't be added back. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.127.30.21 (talk) at 16:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC). Please sign your posts with