Talk:Java Edition 1.9

Counter-edit warring
There has been some counter-edit warring (whatever it's called) on the page about the release date box. If you could look onto that, that would be great. MarioProtIV (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * My opinion, if it helps, is that there is no reason to declare the date is not set when an unknown release date is already good. We never set a parameter just to remove the "?", especially if we do not know what is correct. Mojang may have even set the release date, and just not told anyone. Also, by setting it to "Date not set", it causes much more editing with speculation trying to guess the year. --KnightMiner  (t 13:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * And setting it to "date not set" is an oxymoron. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs ⎜ 13:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Protect the page until the first 1.9 snapshot gets released
I got tired of unsourced information being added to the page, so I decided to put an editor warning visible only when editing the page, however, people still didn't stop adding unsourced information. Please protect this page until the first 1.9 snapshot gets released. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In this case, I do not think protection is necessary, as no recent false information has been added, and in the past it was mainly the doing of a single user. If it becomes excessive, I would agree to semi-protection. – KnightMiner  (t·c) 20:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Wither
Currently, the upcoming changes list the wither has "Planned Additions". That seems very useless, as it states nothing more than the wither is being changed, maybe even simply to include bug fixes. Can we require that the feature actually has some description? – KnightMiner  (t·c) 18:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That's not what it says, it says "A new bar for when there are two withers". Have you tried purging the cache, perhaps? --ToonLucas22 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Compare the time of my post with the time of your edit.


 * My main point is the additions of "Secret feature", "Changes involving x" and other similar things that have been being added. We have no rule in place against undescriptive "Upcoming features", causing people to think it is fine. – KnightMiner  (t·c) 19:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The tweet doesn't even say it's for 1.9— TheWombatGuru   t undefinedc  NL Admin  20:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Consistency
How to add consistency to the one-bullet-point additions? Is it better as separate bullet points (like I just made it) or empty headings? FM22 (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I would keep it consistent with the style of 1.8 and alike. Since there are not alot of features yet, the category headers are not needed, but individual items should have their title bold, and information as bullet points (for example, the captions would state captions as the title, and the example as a bullet point, while the new commands would go under the header of "commands" or something similar) – KnightMiner  t/c 19:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)