Talk:Legacy Console Edition version history/Archive 2

By Version Number or by Title Update?
I think this decision needs to be more fully discussed, as there will be other templates that rely on the naming convention being as it was. I have reverted the change for now and opened discussion about it here. My personal preference is to go with the TU nomenclature as well, but I don't fully understand the ramifications of such a change either. I know for a fact that such a change would affect the HESI template I have been working on, if it were widely in use. I'm concerned that there may be other templates out there that such a radical change could affect also. &mdash; Augur &#x2710; &#x2315; 06:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, this page uses the  template extensively, providing links both by version number and by Title Update number. The HESI template I've been making links to Xbox version history entries by TU number already. I'll go through the What Links Here list to see if anything else relies on the section headings being as they were, and if I can't find anything, I'll revert my own revert, restoring CRRaysHead90's edit. &mdash; Augur &#x2710; &#x2315;  07:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter other than what the developmental company refers to the version as? CRRaysHead90 22:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What the development company calls something is not as important on a wiki like the MinecraftWiki as what other templates and dependencies on the wiki may be expecting to see. If you make a small change like this on a wiki, it can have huge ramifications elsewhere on the wiki. I haven't checked all the inbound links yet, but if someone else can confirm that this change will not affect any other template then I don't see why we can't make this change as has been suggested. For future reference CRRaysHead90, it is best to bring such changes to the talk page first, if they might affect something else. As it says on the Help:Contents page, "If you're unsure about something to add, use the talk page. This is recommended especially when adding out-of-site links or bigger changes on pages." Changing the names of all the section headings would be considered a "bigger change".


 * As I mentioned above, I happen to agree with you about the Title Update (TU) number being used. I just don't want this change to break something else. &mdash; Augur &#x2710; &#x2315; 19:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How can you be the official Minecraft Wiki and not care what the developer states? CRRaysHead90 04:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Tell you what, if you want to revert my revert before I have gotten around to checking all the inbound links to this page, you go for it. I can't stop you. I'm just another editor here, just like you. I have no authority on the Minecraft Wiki. But if you break something by doing so, you should be responsible for fixing whatever you broke. Understand? &mdash; Augur &#x2710; &#x2315; 17:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Title Update 13 now out
Tilte Update 13 is now out. Somebody should update the wiki with Title Update 13's changes and make it the most recent version, because currently the latest version on the Wiki Homepage is TU12, when it should be TU13. --KamranMackey (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

correction
Under TU7 the first "notable bug" is "some players unable to sleep in beds". this actually turned out to be a different bug, namely that "cannot sleep in bed because monsters are near" had just been introduced to the xbox version but the error message wasn't displaying. people just thought the bed was broken but it was actually refusing their attempts for legitimate reasons and just failing to tell them so.

Fixed. The Handfish (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

TU14 Added
I added TU14, feel free to clean it up/add sources.

The Handfish (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hope for an update!
I know that I am not the only one that hopes that one day the PS3 edition will have 100% of the features in PC. I wonder if Mojang believes the same. Until then, just keep playing both and having as much fun as always! “Happiness can be found, even in the darkest of times, if one only remembers to turn on the light.” - Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

TU19 Questions?
Has the Book and Quill been implemented yet, if not will it ever be? Also how about the command block? -- 212.159.114.107 18:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Both of these things are not in Console Edition yet. I did not read about when the book and quill will appear, but I'm sure that at some point it will be. --<b style=font-family:sans-serif;color:purple>Naista2002</b> &#124; talk » contribs 18:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's a question. How are skeleton horse and zombie horse in the console edition if console edition doesn't have commands? Even in the PC version you can't get them without using commands. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by WildBluntHickok (talk • contribs) at 21:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC). Please sign your posts with


 * For similarity with PC, maybe. You may still be able to get them using map editors. --<b style=font-family:sans-serif;color:purple>Naista2002</b> &#124; talk » contribs 14:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

PlayStation Vita 1.02a & 1.02b
What's the differentce between PSVita versions 1.02a and 1.02b? lol | violine1101(Talk) 13:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, nothing. Someone duplicated the version, including the reference. (which only states existence of a single 1.02 version) – KnightMiner  (t·c) 14:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1.02b was added as duplicate 1.02 by @ on 26 December 2014 - whyever. I think it's okay if I remove 1.02b and rename 1.02a to 1.02. | violine1101(Talk) 14:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Edited 14:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, where did CU2/1.01 go? I'm just translating this page into German and I'm somewhat confused, if you wonder. | violine1101(Talk) 18:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Has nobody an idea? | violine1101(Talk) 17:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * All I can tell is there is a 1.0.1 before PS4 1.00, meaning PS4's first version may have been 1.00, then they skipped to the same as the PS3's version. – KnightMiner  (t·c) 18:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, but there is a version called CU3/1.02. The next PS4 version is 1.10. So as far as I know, the version numbers of the PS4 version (and the PSVita version's too, but that itsn't affected by that gap between 1.00 and 1.02) were adapted to the PS3 version numbers on 3rd of december. But well... there still is that gap between CU1 and CU3 on the Xbox One version. The official changelogs also don't list any 1.01 or CU2 version... weird. | violine1101(Talk) 22:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

New layout
It looks good in my opinion. Keeping all the PS versions in one column makes sense, as it keeps the colmns down to three, and I think it would go well with the TOC design from the german wiki. – KnightMiner  t/c 17:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC) Anyway, whatever the width of the 1-5 "Version and date" columns is, the addition summary column still is readable. I think I'll implement the new layout to the 2014-2012 tables tomorrow if noone complains about the new layout. | violine1101(Talk) 19:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't too sure about implementing this because as said here, "the fact that close to half of the width is taken up just by the version/date information is way too obtrusive". I had tried out setting the width of the "Version and date" column to a percentage like 10% in preview mode but in that case there would be wasted space on bigger displays. I implemented the new layout for 2015 only because the table would need five "Version and date" columns again for the year 2014 which indeed is taking up about a third of the monitor when using a 4:3 (1280&times;1024) display. To prevent that, on the German wiki we shortened the date (for example "January" to "Jan"). I just read the style guide and it says that numeric dates are allowed if needed. I would use the format "YYYY-MM-DD" because there will be one table for each year (It doesn't make much sense if there were five columns back in 2012). I'm however not sure about that.
 * In my honest opinion, I personally don't like it. I don't think I can explain it in words at the moment... BDJP (t 19:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you at least try to describe what you don't like about the new layout please? It would be good if we could find a consensus. | violine1101(Talk) 14:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this is a pretty good solution - 3 columns is not too wide. Only problem is how to keep it 3 columns for 2014? There are versions where all of the editions are different. –<b style=color:#282>Goandgoo</b> ᐸ <small style="display:inline-block;line-height:1em;vertical-align:-0.4em">Talk Contribs 07:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the German page, the 2014 table uses five columns. However, the dates had to be shortened, which actually is against our style guide, but the admins were okay with it. Another soultion would be to split the playstation column into three pseudo sub-rows such as this:


 * Also, dates get more confusing as they are split up to North America and Europe here. I suggest to always take the earlier date or it would just lead to overfilled columns which noone really wants to read.
 * Another possibility to display the versions would be such as this:


 * Well, this doesn't really look well as the different os sprites have different sizes. | violine1101(Talk) 17:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There is never more then three update numbers and cases with multiple release dates are few (I think I counted three cases), so I think the three column approach should work fine and we just display the different release dates in separate lines, like so:


 * – KnightMiner  t/c 02:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that looks pretty good, although until I can see the table converted, many of the entries are pretty complicated with only 1 version (only for PSVita etc). Until 2014 is converted I'm unsure whether it will all fit this mould. –<b style=color:#282>Goandgoo</b> ᐸ <small style="display:inline-block;line-height:1em;vertical-align:-0.4em">Talk Contribs 11:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@: The rowspan at PS version 1.15 was intended as 1.15 contains all features of TU22 and TU23. @: Thanks for implementing the table. I think it looks fine now. I had forgotten about this discussion as I have often been absent the last three weeks. | violine1101(Talk) 16:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Splitting into separate pages for each update?
As the Pocket Edition, Pi Edition, and the regular editions all have their updates split into separate pages, should the Console Edition follow this too? Or is it simply too difficult because of the variations of platform/version labeling on each platform? --MarioProtIV (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That has already been discussed here. It isn't too complex, but how would you name an article? The console edition versions don't have equal or similar version numbers, so it would be way more confusing than it is now. | violine1101(Talk) 21:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The pages could be named Console Edition TU /CU /PS . If one update is only for one or two platforms, just make the title Console Edition CU /PS  or Console Edition PS . An example title would be Console Edition TU25/CU14/PS 1.17. --MarioProtIV (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Who would find such a page? Noone searches for "Console Edition CU1/PS4 1.00/PS Vita 1.00" or "Console Edition CU3/PS4 1.02" (or even "Console Edition TU42/CU8/PS3 1.28/PS4 1.23/PS Vita 1.22" - this version doesn't exist but such a title is theoretically possible according your system). I think it isn't worth the effort. Also, a table is way more clear to read. | violine1101(Talk) 21:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Violine1101 on the titles, absolutely no combined all versions into one title. That would not only making linking them harder, but would look terrible.
 * I would personally love to split the article for consistancy, but until that and the other difficulties are resolved, it is perfectly fine as one article. – KnightMiner  t/c 22:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Simplifying
@: I don't see any inconsistence with the style guide regarding this edit. Why exactly did you revert it? | violine1101(Talk) 14:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)