Talk:Java Edition version history

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

Server download
Should the download link to the minecraft_server.jar be removed on all non-current versions? Almost all of the links just take you to the current download, in this case, 1.8.5 JNRM3 (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I would leave it as a default. We might as well send the user to the latest server over no server. – KnightMiner  t/c 23:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge PC version history pages
The result of the discussion was pages merged. – KnightMiner  t/c 03:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

So, as I mentioned a bit back a couple times, I would like to see the various PC version history pages merged into one article, as they no longer have too much content for a single article. I've written up a sample in my workbench which shows the idea better I think.

The page basically contains the small tables for each major version number, including infdev, indev, classic, and pre-classic versions (as links to their articles). Overall, it basical removes the need for version history nav, as the about can handle links to planned versions and mentioned features, and the disambig page can easily handle links to other versions.

– KnightMiner  t/c 23:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * -BDJP (t 01:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks good, although I noticed that the versions earlier than Alpha are just linked from their respective version pages. Will these stay too? –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk Contribs 11:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. It helps with the consistency between parts of the development cycle, and is a good way to link the versions on the subpages, especially since both the Indev/Infdev lack of version numbers and the overall lack of content per update, it makes little to split the pre-alpha stuff into separate pages. – KnightMiner  t/c 02:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * , I also suggest leaving the phase names (Alpha, Beta, etc.) in the template, but instead having them redirect to their page (NOT version history links). --MarioProtIV (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That would make sense, but only if we were changing it from a sidebar (basically saying "these other pages help cover this topic") to a nabvox (basically saying "you might be interested in these pages"), which now that I think of it is not such a bad idea. It would also help reduce the excess of pages dumped into the minecraft navbox. – KnightMiner  t/c 02:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * support, as long as nobody would write articles for Infdev and earlier versions. — Agent NickTheRed37 (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * – I have a similar opinion as Nick about the early version articles, though to me it doesn't make a difference here. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T/C 16:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Update highlights
Frequently enough on https://www.reddit.com/r/minecraft, I see people being referred to this page whenever they ask "what did I miss in the last several years".

I can imagine people must be clicking links in this giant set of tables here, to get any idea at all.

I wonder if we could put in a third column, after 'Release Date', that would list out maybe some BlockLinks and ItemLinks of what was added in that version, maybe some short prose. So that a person could, at a glance, see the key highlights of what was changed or added since they last played. With the aim of making this page more helpful as a guide when they are pointed here. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 18:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Renaming
So with the new names, how are we going to structure this? If we add Java Edition to the beginning of all current update pages, what will the PE, Minecraft, etc pages be called? Minecraft 1.1? How can we fix this? – Nixinova •   • 07:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The way we currently do is to add Bedrock Edition in front of every one of them. See the style guide. This is to prevent confusion between original Java and Bedrock. Skylord wars (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

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)