User talk:Ff98sha

Reply
Hi! Just letting you know that I got your email. Unfortunately, this is not an option we have to us anymore. Thanks for the suggestion! --HelenAngel (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood.-- Ff98sha (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Pocket Edition 1.1.6
Where did you get this release number from? Do you have a reference to cite? The changelog specifically avoided giving it a release number by calling it a "content update" and the Windows Store, at least, still shows the game as release 1.1.5. This kind of update is unprecedented and we don't have a consensus on what to do with it yet, but we haven't listed any other Marketplace content so I don't think we should list this. In any case, it shouldn't be treated as an update to the game if Microsoft and Mojang don't treat it like one. --– Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 08:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Cite. We Chinese region has recieved the update in iOS and this is a notice, which says that users will no longer recieve update of PE 1.2 or further in App Store China Region. As for the Marketplace contents, my edit just follow the format in 1.1.5.-- Ff98sha (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But I don't see anything official that says "1.1.6". And 1.1.5 had bug fixes, so it was an actual update to the game. I don't believe this is. When you start the game, does it say "1.1.6" in the lower right corner? --– Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 09:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nowhere say this is 1.1.6, except for the text in-game Chinese users see.-- Ff98sha (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it only in the notice you cited above, or is it on the main menu? I guess it might show as 1.1.6 to the rest of the world, too. I can't tell, since I'm on the 1.2 beta so I can't download it. But it seems odd that the Windows Store still has it labeled 1.1.5. But I guess we'll let it stand as 1.1.6 for now. Thanks for the info. --– Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 09:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Bot edits without the bot flag
See ru:Обсуждение участника:Ff98sha. Reply regarding the Russian wiki specifically must be sent there. Here, I suggest Majr assigning the bot flag to Ffbot on all language sections of Minecraft Wiki, if you (now I’m referring to you, Ff98sha) agree. —  BabylonAS (talk | ru.Wiki Admin) (fka NickTheRed37) 14:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree.-- Ff98sha (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

1.3 builds don't exist (yet)
Hi! You just moved the 1.2.13 builds to 1.3. Please be aware that there is an official changelog for each version that specifically states the version number. There also is no proof as of now that 1.3 is indeed going to be the Update Aquatic. So please don't move pages around without discussing the matter first and providing solid reasoning. – Fuzs 23:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've given the source before moving the pages.-- Ff98sha (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Is that really enough to say solidly that these builds will for sure be released for 1.3? I personally think it would be best to leave it as is until we have more solid proof, but that's just my opinion.--Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12 T • C 23:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Just read the tweet again, it says nothing about these builds being for 1.3. Even if it turns out in the future these builds are indeed for 1.3 the pages won't be moved to "1.3 build X" since that's simply not their name. – Fuzs 23:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Simply that's not their name. How do you explain there's not a release of 1.2.13?-- Ff98sha (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1.2.13 is in certification I've heard from Minecraft staff. -- Holroy (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but we've seen that tweet before and there is no mention of 1.3 being the final release to contain the Update Aquatic features. The pages are named after the official name of the specific version, e. g. this changelog which is for 1.2.13 build 5 and not 1.3 build 5 or whatever. So please move the pages back so no one else will have to clean everything up. – Fuzs 23:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Should I move all the pages back to what they originally were? I wouldn't mind doing this (hey, it gets me something to do :)), but the approval of more than 1 user would be nice.--Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12 T • C 23:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a single word in your given source says it's 1.2.13 build 5, but 1.2.13.5 (and it's 1.2.13 build 3 as you think). From violine1101 on slack:"The reason why the Bedrock builds don't have the same version number as the release they're for is that some app stores (The Play Store I think?) need to have the version numbers to always be increasing." Actually it's true since in Android 6.0+ apps with decreased version numbers can't be installed. And there's not a release of 1.2.13, so 1.2.13.X should belong to 1.3.-- Ff98sha (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is not a single mentioning in the program files of the 1.3 build 1 through 7, so what justifies your creation of this page name? -- Holroy (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe the best way is to ask for HelenAngel@undefined's advice?-- Ff98sha (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a good idea. It's certainly better than starting an edit war or something.--Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12 T • C 23:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, this explanation from violine1101 is fair enough, although it doesn't prove anything concerning our topic. The same goes for the tweet. So, yes, asking Helen is the best option right now. But I hope you already see that such rushed edits like yours don't lead to anything. That's also not how the wiki works, it's a community effort. We'll leave the pages where they are until we get some more info. – Fuzs 23:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I do think we should solve this as quickly as possible, cause right now a lot of the wiki is saying that the builds are for 1.2.13 and 1.2.14, but then the links redirect to the actual pages that are the builds for 1.3. This could be very confusing for readers.--Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12 T • C 23:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I've posted this problem on Slack yesterday, with no admin's oppose so that I did it. Maybe you can join the Slack team for quicker news?-- Ff98sha (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually am on slack, and I apologize, I was out all day and I haven't installed slack on my phone, so I didn't see it till recently.--Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12 T • C 23:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it's my fault not mentioning on talk pages before actions.-- Ff98sha (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm also confused as to why this change has happened. After all the number used by Minecraft Staff at their own site, see https://aka.ms/mcchangelogs, are still the 1.2.13.x and 1.2.14.y. Yes, it's true that they've changed how to use their beta version to be more similar to the snapshots of java edition, but they've also continued releasing separate minor updates based on parts of the builds. For example, loads of stuff was added to 1.2.10 and then removed (and re-added to 1.2.13) before the full release of 1.2.10. They've also said that 1.2.13 is in certification, so all of those builds are not leading up towards the 1.3. -- Holroy (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you please provide the certification you mentioned?-- Ff98sha (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I not sure is 1.3's builds, moved it isn't too early?——BY yfohdit （TALK·CONTRIBUTNS ） 04:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is HelenAngel (Minecraft Community Manager) say on the matter (snipped from a private dialogue): https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/279745300640301077/429998261860827137/unknown.png. --Holroy (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So it's wise to move back the pages, and make 1.2.13 belong to Aquatic Update?-- Ff98sha (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say so, who are we to change the canonical name used my minecraft.net and within the binaries (and most likely within the source control system)? When referring to 1.2.13.11 we shouldn't invent another name like 1.3 build 5 (nor 1.2.13 build 5), when it's actually 1.2.13 build 11. --Holroy (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Should I move all of them now? I wouldn't mind doing it, but I would prefer to not have them get undone. Have we reached consensus as to whether we should change all of them back to 1.2.13 and 1.2.14 builds?--Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12 T • C 14:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My only question is whether it should be reverted to the slightly incorrect "1.2.13 build 5" or in my opinion the better variant of "1.2.13 build 11" for "1.2.13.11" and similar. --Holroy (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally I think it was fine the way it was before, but I would like to get the opinions of some other users.--Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12 T • C 15:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I have the sme opinion as above.-- Ff98sha (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Holroy@undefined, please take a look at other articles for Bedrock Edition development versions. They are numbered by their build, not by what their technical beta version is called. For example, Bedrock Edition 1.2 build 9, even though its Beta version is 1.2.0.31, it's still build 9 rather than build 31. Therefore, it would actually be Bedrock Edition 1.2.13 build 5, because even though it's Beta version is 1.2.13.11, it is the 5th build for 1.2.13, and therefore build 5. Hope this helps, and let me know if any of this is confusing to you and I'll try to clarify better.--Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12 T • C 17:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've seen the usage of n'th build, and feel it's a little wrong, but not as wrong as the rename into "1.3 build n". Personally, I can live with either, but I think to actually reflect the canonical name as given in the binary, changelogs and (most likely) internal reference in the source control would be the better option. However, for starters lets rename these 1.3-pages back to what they was, and then admins should consider whether renaming all builds according to the canonical name is an option or not. --Holroy (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * --Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12 T • C 23:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi! Why not make 1.2.13 and 1.2.14 pages just redirect to 1.3, as they don't exist as released versions. • Yanis48 (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * With 1.2.13 released, I think 1.2.13.X are similar to snapshots and 1.2.13 are similar to 1.13-pre. It's better to move the pages back, and then discuss about 1.2.13 belong to what.-- Ff98sha (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , the pages have been moved. Well, all except two - for some reason 2 of the redirects are very stubborn and will not let me override them, which will make links very complicated and users will likely be confused, until those redirects are deleted to make way for a move.-- Madminecrafter12 Orange Glazed Terracotta.png to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 00:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Change Entity to Profile
Can you change the Entity infobox on your userpage to Profile? This is to stop your userpage from appearing in maintenance logs intended for main articles, and Profile is specifically geared towards user pages anyway. Thanks! - User-12316399 (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)