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)

What about boats?
Swimming bird explained how Tomasso is working on recoding boats: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsf-iBzLT9c at 2:13 he shows tweets from the developers. Should this be included in this page? --Kkkllleee (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's referring to Pocket Edition. Skylinerw (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I highly doubt that refers to the Pocket Edition, as the context implies "fixing boat" while the PE boats are not in development version yet. Even so, usually we do not state upcoming fixes without bug tracker links. – KnightMiner  t/c 02:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But Tomasso also promised boats that can hold multiple entities and the different colored wood types, those are new features, not bug-fixes. --Kkkllleee (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The only reference in that video we can guarantee is the PC edition is the first one about fixing boats, the rest are all promised features for the Pocket Edition, and the tweets are from a the Pocket Edition dev, but never stated for PC. – KnightMiner  t/c 03:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There are more news https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRCwo5Bnjfk here the tweets from the developers imply that not only do new kinds of boats would be added, but that version exclusive features in general are gonna have more notoriety across platforms. --Kkkllleee (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything about new kinds of boats, just changes to how existing ones behave. I'm not sure what you mean by "notoriety", but Jeb's tweet here says their goal is to get rid of version exclusive features, making the game the same on all platforms. -- Orthotopetalk 04:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * At 1:35, he is saying he made a boat out of birch but a bug made it so that it transformed into oak when broken, this implies that now it is considered proper for a birch boat to drop birch planks, but that makes no sense, unless he is saying that new boat kinds are going to be added, since he is against version exclusive features, then it is pretty much confirmed. --Kkkllleee (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Pretty much confirmed is not confirmed, it is still speculation. Stating he wants to get rid of version exclusive features does not mean all Pocket edition exclusive features are coming in 1.9, nor that there are any plans to add any of those features yet. It just means exclusive features are not desired.
 * As for the tweet you referenced (this one, right? it would be nice for you to provide that link, rather than me needing to find it), I would not conciser that as enough proof as of yet, since jeb_ is also working on the pocket edition at this time (where colored boats are confirmed). Even if referring to the PC edition, that tweet could easily refer to current behavior), as it only mentions the recipe (built from birch) and the outcome (oak planks drop).
 * So in summary, while I would not doubt colored boats are planned for 1.9, there is no source yet as to them being added in that update. You could try tweeting one of the developers to ask if it is true if you want though. – KnightMiner  t/c 20:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clearing it up. Can you teach me how to search for tweets? --Kkkllleee (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

One of the easiest ways to find tweets is to follow the developers on twitter (a list of developers is listed on Minecraft, and their twitters are listed via their articles). Clicking the  button on the tweet gives an option to copy the URL.

Otherwise, [//reddit.com/r/Minecraft the Minecraft Subreddit] tends to contain most tweets relating to new features.

Lastly, if you remember reading a tweet, but cannot find it, google is the easiest way to find it (just type keywords you remember, who tweeted it helps the most). – KnightMiner  t/c 04:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Changed "hearing impaired" to "hard of hearing"
"Hearing impaired" is a rather rude term and "hard of hearing" would be preferred. 98.203.219.61 17:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting to the talk page was not really necessary; a properly-written edit summary is sufficient. —  NickTheRed37</b> t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) 18:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess he was preparing for a flame war. --Kkkllleee (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to start an edit war
I don't want to start an edit war BDJP007301 but the reason I made the change was because the top level (one indent) point was about making the boss fight more similar to the console edition, and this is one of the features that is in the console edition and is confirmed to be added. It is relevant to the boss fight specifically as it stops you from shooting the ender crystals and you have to climb some of the pillars instead. FM22 (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * —  NickTheRed37</b> t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) </i> 14:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - Doesn't relate to the Ender Dragon in general, which you put it under. BDJP (t 15:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Point taken; will correct title –Preceding unsigned comment was added by FM22 (talk • contribs) at 15:13, 03 April 2015 (UTC). Please sign your posts with
 * since the title had been changed to specify 'boss fight'. Skylinerw (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Content dispute again
I changed one of the titles to match the bug tracker's, then LauraFi reverted it and BDJP007301 reverted LauraFi's revert. That was finally reverted by Sealbudsman. Should we use common grammar or use the bug tracker titles? --Toon</b>Lucas</b>22</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 12:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * MCT:Community portal. Why should we use the junk tracker titles? See also: – LauraFi  -  talk  17:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no official policy or guideline regarding bug tracker titles still, but we should gain consensus to avoid further disputes and edit wars about this in the future. --Toon</b>Lucas</b>22</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 22:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Why is something as silly as this a dispute? There is no reason we should keep terribly written titles from the tracker, as the titles are hardly an "official" resource, since they are written by users just like here the wiki, only lacking a style guide. There is also no reason to go to every page and correct the titles, as the titles don't hurt anyone even if illegible, but there is even less reason to revert the title to the original title after someone corrects errors. Really, how is the wiki benefited by having no spaces in "end portal frame"? Is this really a battle worth fighting? In summary, if the new title still describes the bug (especially if better), don't revert it to the old one. That is just disruptive. – KnightMiner  t/c 02:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with KnightMiner so here is my proposed policy:

Bug tracker issue titles should retain their original text, unless such text is unclear, then the recommended approach is to edit it enough so as to keep it essentially the same but more informative.
 * --Kkkllleee (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You might want to also share your proposal at the larger discussion at Minecraft_Wiki_talk:Community_portal. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png t/c 22:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Grass path, why is it still here?
OK, so, why is the grass path block still listed here on the 1.9 PC update page if it's meant for PE? Just sayin', the PE grass path page says it's exclusive to the PE version, whereas this block is also listed for inclusion in PC's 1.9. Brickticks (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You need to look at the references. BDJP (t 20:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Just. Wow. R6Games (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't you read?
Searge said: "The "?" is unrelated to the announcement @jeb_ made earlier." And it says here that block is related to that dungeon. Also the source 22: where is that dungeon mentioned? That's just bunch of pics, some of which show that new block. It should be deleted from this page, or at least it shouldn't be mentioned as source for that new block is related to the dungeon. It also isn't said anywhere that they added support for mirroring or rotating generated structures. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Blue Banana whotookthisname (talk • contribs) at 12:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC). Please sign your posts with


 * If you read the tweets and their context, Searge is purposely saying the opposite of what is true. Otherwise, why say "we did not add this very specific list of features"? Source 22 (now 28) is to show searge's ?, just in case anyone is wondering if they are the same. – KnightMiner  t/c 16:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Broken link
when i click on the link which lists the issues fixed in 1.9 (far future version), i will be redirected to the mojang bugtracker site, but the page says [Error in the JQL Query: The character '.' is a reserved JQL character. You must enclose it in a string or use the escape '\u002e' instead. (line 1, character 49)] instead of showing the list of fixed bugs. 77.171.37.50 16:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit: it seems like it was a problem with my NoScript, but it still gives the error message:

The value 'Minecraft Far Future Version - 1.9+' does not exist for the field 'fixVersion'.
 * instead of just giving the list.
 * 77.171.37.50 16:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * – KnightMiner  t/c 16:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Spectral Arrow
Dinnerbone stated that spectral arrows will be used for utility this should be added to the page. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Gggggminecraft (talk • contribs) at 15:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC). Please sign your posts with


 * – KnightMiner  t/c 15:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In the video showing the new inventory it is shown that the spectral arrow has a gold like appearance please put the new information in a subbullet (probably not the right term) there are also a few grammatical errors.Gggggminecraft (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * again. I tweaked the grammar a bit as well, but if you have any more specific ideas of what needs to be fixed, feel free to suggest that here or add it yourself once you become autocomfirmed – KnightMiner  t/c 20:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This is how it probably should look

Atleast four new arrow types One such arrow is the spectral arrow Will be used as a utility rather than for combat In the video showing the new inventory layout it is shown the spectral arrow has a gold colored tip The current info is kind of vague Gggggminecraft (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The reason it is vague is because we can only state what is stated, to avoid speculation. Specifically, the spectral arrow was never stated to not be used for combat, but rather not for damage (it could cause status effects with less damage or change mob behavior, and even utilities can be used for combat). We also do not need to state where the information came from other then in the references, just the information stated. – KnightMiner  t/c 21:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This is true but as much information as possible must be given maybe you should merge your idea with mine change not used for combat to not very good at hurting just give more information. Gggggminecraft (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Snapshot 'Release Date': Would Adding be Speculation?
I'm unsure as to whether counts as a confirmed (first snapshot) release date. Again, Searge is being overly specific like in the structure generation tweets which are apparently classed as reliable sources on this page, and Minecon seems quite a logical time to release the combat changes... –Preceding unsigned comment was added by FM22 (talk • contribs) at 20:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC). Please sign your posts with


 * While he does say "for the next 2.5 weeks", I would go with no for a first snapshot release date there, as there is nothing stating that after the 2.5 weeks there is a snapshot. They could easily release an early combat version before then, or wait until after Minecon for snapshots. He is more likely saying he won't be working on his mysterious block for the next 2.5 weeks. – KnightMiner  t/c 20:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see, won't add then

Snapshot Gallery Idea
A few snapshots have been released but are not shown on the page I think that a snapshot gallery should bel added. Gggggminecraft (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You could probably do that, try it and see if it gets removed

PancakeMan77 (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There are no 1.9 snapshots, and in any case, a link is better, not a gallery. – KnightMiner  t/c 15:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I Think he means screenshot gallery. I make the same mistake all the time. PancakeMan77 (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Offhand slot not shield slot
In the changed features section under inventory the offhand slot is called the shield slot which is wrong it's not just for shields. Gggggminecraft (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Grass Path Exclusive to PE
So, on the Grass Path page, it states "Grass paths[1] are a decorative block currently exclusive to Pocket Edition." I feel we should remove this from the page since it isnt going to be added in 1.9, unless its means that it isnt added "yet". In that case, the Grass Path page should be re-worded --vanasten1 (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The Grass Path is worded such to state the current status of the block - it is currently only available for Pocket Edition, and until there is a 1.9 snapshot with the Grass Path block, the paragraph should remain such. See MCW:FUTURE for more info. –Goandgoo</b> ᐸ <small style="display:inline-block;line-height:1em;vertical-align:-0.4em">Talk Contribs 09:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't... that be a bug?
Strongholds Doors in strongholds are no longer mis-placed.[49] Shouldn't that be a bug, rather than a changed feature? 101.174.180.52 04:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right. It was also covered in the planned fixes section, which used the same source to declare it as a planned fix. I removed it from the changes section – KnightMiner  t/c 14:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Viewing Livestream Source
The youtube livestream a fair number of the content of this page is now sourced by only lets you see the past 2 hours of video. I don't get the point of sourcing this material if the source video footage is now inaccessible anyway. I'm probably missing something obvious as I don't really know much about how Youtube Live works, but just a thought... FM22 (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You can watch the full stream on Twitch as well - http://www.twitch.tv/mojang/v/6949826?t=1h02m44s. –Goandgoo</b> ᐸ <small style="display:inline-block;line-height:1em;vertical-align:-0.4em">Talk Contribs 14:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks! I don't know too much about livestream stuff as I said before. FM22 (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know how easy it is to do, but it might be good if someone could save a copy of significant streams such as this one. Twitch has an option to save streams for people to watch later, but deletes the video after either 14 or 60 days, depending on the streamer's account status. I'm not finding a clear answer on if Youtube lets you do the same thing or not. Either way, there's no guarantee that any video will be available after the stream ends. -- Orthotopetalk 17:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * After the 2013 minecon Mojang uploaded every single panel video to youtube. This gives me hope that this year's panels will be archived to youtube. FM22 (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Marc says they will be YouTube videos, he is just not sure exactly how long until they will be uploaded. (source) – KnightMiner  t/c 20:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Shulker disguises as Blocks
I believe that Jeb said that he tried to make them able to camouflage into other blocks, but he ended up not doing that because it was to hard to code. Can someone clarify? PancakeMan77 (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That part is noted on mentioned features, as it was specifically stated that he could not do it at this time, but would like to in the future.
 * Also, please use the "add section" button to make a new topic. Do not just randomly place a new section in the middle of the page. – KnightMiner  t/c 15:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I am sorry. But what i was wondering, is if it is not being put into 1.9, why does it say under Shulker that they camouflage? That is saying that it will be in 1.9, but it will not. PancakeMan77 (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It doesn't, it says it disguises as a block, or its shell closes making it look like a block. – KnightMiner  t/c 03:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

snapshot
Wouldn't the april fools snapshot 15w14a be the first snapshot for 1.9? It had the feature that 'combat update' could be found in it? Or is that not enough to count as an official snapshot?


 * It was an April Fools "snapshot", not an actual release of 1.9. Every April Fools the developers do something for April fools. That snapshot was confirmed to be 1.9, and little to none of the features in that have been talked about for 1.9. PancakeMan77 (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The only thing that wasn't a joke was the QR code, which when scanned would reveal the name for the 1.9 update. --MarioProtIV (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The new Enderdragon Boss fight
I've heard that you could fight the dragon once again without resetting the end, but will the ender crystals stay? Just waiting for my survival to get harder. Xtremewolves (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If I recall, yes, they can be used in summoning a second dragon once the first is defeated. --MarioProtIV (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Arrow
Wouldn't the "Arrows no longer collide with an invisible wall" portion be a bug fix? PancakeMan77 (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be, yes. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T/C 21:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

End Ships?
I came across an "end ship" that had a colored beacon (with no effect assinged), obsidian on the bottom, a brewing stand (with two Health II potions) and two chests (with diamond tools). I'm no writer, so I'll just leave this info here. --FargoGoosey (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Known new blocks for 1.9
'''To the best of my knowledge, here is what we know about the new blocks added in 1.9: ''' 198:00	End Rod (Upright)

198:04	End Rod (East-West)

198:08	End Rod (North-South)

199:00	Chorus Plant

200:00	Chorus Flower

201:00	Purpur Block

202:00	Purpur Pillar

206:00	End Stone Bricks

208:00	Grass Path

'''We also know about the Purpur stairs and slabs: ''' ???:00	Purpur Stairs (Ascending East, normal)

???:01	Purpur Stairs (Ascending West, normal)

???:02	Purpur Stairs (Ascending North, normal)

???:03	Purpur Stairs (Ascending South, normal)

???:04	Purpur Stairs (Ascending East, upside-down)

???:05	Purpur Stairs (Ascending West, upside-down)

???:06	Purpur Stairs (Ascending North, upside-down)

???:07	Purpur Stairs (Ascending South, upside-down)

???:??	Purpur Double Slab

???:??	Purpur Double Slab (seamless) <--- speculative

???:??	Purpur Slab (lower half)

???:??	Purpur Slab (upper half)

'''This leaves at least four unknown blocks (203, 204, 205, 207). I suspect Purpur Stairs is one of those four; I furthermore suspect that Purpur Double Slab and Purpur Slab are two of the remaining three, rather than being lumped in with Red Sandstone in 181 & 182.'''

P.S. Oh yeah and the Dragon Head. Blah

–Preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.138.38.82 (talk) at 21:48, July 29, 2015‎ (UTC). Please sign your posts with


 * To the extent that the numeric IDs are being used (are they anymore?), you can infer what they would be by looking in the debug mode world.
 * They are (as of 15w31b): 198 = End Rod, 199 = Chorus Plant, 200 = Chorus Flower, 201 = Purpur Block, 202 = Purpur Pillar, 203 = Purpur Stairs, 204 = Purpur Double Slab, 205 = Purpur Slab, 206 = End Stone Bricks, 207 = Beetroot Seeds, 208 = Grass Path, 209 = End Gateway Portal block, and 210 = Structure Block.
 * The dragon head isn't a separate name-id or block state (ID or DV) from the regular mob head; it's only different in its block entity values.
 * There is no seamless purpur double slab. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T/C 15:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"1.9 is the first non-development version of the Combat Update"
In response to the statement "incorrect and confusing, mojang specifically stated 1.9 would be named the Combat Update, writing it like that would make it seem like it was split": the problem here is that the name "1.9" is ambiguous and can refer either to the entirety of the Combat Update, or to the specific version with the version number "1.9". This, however, is true for all such version releases: 1.8, 1.7(.2), etc. This has been previously discussed on the wiki, though I can't recall where it might have been (if anyone else can, please link it, both for context and because I would like to be able to reread the discussion =D ).

Ignoring that, though, there are two major arguments against treating these version numbers as synonymous with the named updates they're a part of: first is that if we do, there is suddenly no reason to have two separate articles, since both articles would have the exact same scope and the same content, and second is that this would break the pattern established by the other version number articles, namely that each version number is covered in its own dedicated article (excepting pre-Alpha versions (at least currently) due to their age and the sparseness of available information on any single version).

"1.9" is used by Mojang (and, inevitably, others) as a shorthand for the Combat Update only because it's shorter - it's convenient but not perfectly accurate, like saying the sun rises in the morning and sets at night (whereas in reality the sun isn't doing anything, and its apparent motion through the sky is instead due to the Earth's rotation about its axis). We do not have to, and indeed should not, follow such conventions, even when they are established by Mojang, when there are compelling reasons to break from them, and I have provided several compelling reasons here to ignore this particular one.

As a final point, I will note that the other articles for version numbers like this for the other named releases all have (or should have, at least; some of them may have been changed back at some point, and some may never have had the correct language) this language in them as well. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 06:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This discussion, while not on the exact same topic as the current one, is still relevant, and much of the reasoning in my comment there can translate, at least indirectly, to here. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 06:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I know you are addressing 's point, though I have a different concern to raise.
 * I agree with everything you say about the version and the update being two separate animals – yet as precise as it is, I still feel the exact phrase "first non-development version" to be clumsy. And I think it's at least partially because of this:  I am not convinced the snapshots are, strictly speaking, a part of the Update, so much as they represent just the development of the Update.  It seems this way to me because of the way Mojang talks about the release versus the snapshots; they don't ever announce the arrival of the Update on the blog or the tumblr until after all the snapshots and pre-releases have been exhausted, and the full version is ready.  So the word "non-development" here feels redundant.  Tell me if I'm far off, on this.
 * Anyway, if you omit that word, that leaves the phrase "1.x, the first version of the X Update, ...".
 * Or switch it up a little to say "1.x, the version ushering in / kicking off / introducing / launching / [other synonym] the X Update, ...".
 * – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T/C 15:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I see your point here, but in this case I think reader comprehension is more important: even if the development snapshots and prereleases aren't considered part of the current named update by Mojang, it's likely that most people will consider them to be simply because that's what makes sense. Of course, I could be mistaken about this, since I don't follow the fandom terribly closely. Other than that, I do agree that I'm not terribly fond of "non-development", but it's the best thing I've come up with that still avoids the ambiguity I pointed out here. But this is a fairly minor point overall, and I wouldn't be terribly broken up regardless of what's decided for it. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 15:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "... it's likely that most people will consider them to be simply because that's what makes sense."
 * I think we might just have different ideas about what makes sense in this case. Like, right now, to me, we're still in 1.8 territory, with sneak peeks at what's upcoming.  It could be just me.  But anyway ... if it comes down to just using a simpler phrase like "first release", I could get along with that. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T/C 17:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * with Sealbudsman . -BDJP (t 15:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * While I agree with Sealbudsman that "non-development" reads oddly, I do still feel development versions are part of the overall update, so maybe rewording that to "the first release of X update" (which would be consistent with both the term used in the launcher, and the term "pre-release" being before the release) – KnightMiner  t/c 15:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, "release" instead of "version"... that could work, yeah. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 15:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As a general note here, if this proposal is successful, the articles for named updates will also have to be updated, since currently they all equate the named update and the version number update as well. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 15:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Changed my mind. Unfortunately, I've now decided to . I agree with Mario on this one. It does seem like it was split. -BDJP (t 13:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Need any help with 1.9 wiki pics?
I can help you with that. I'm actually almost done ripping the 1.9 textures; I just need to get the Shulker stuff on the wiki. Does anyone know how to do the renders like the ones on the wiki? RosalinaFan573 (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Those are usually made using a mod by called MineShot, which is unlikely to be updated to 1.9 until the snapshots are done. Until then, the only way a render will exist is if someone makes one using something like blender (which would be a pain). – KnightMiner  t/c 01:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Splash
I was playing minecraft with my friend one day in 15w31c, but he was laggy and had to restart his computer. When I quit to title, I saw a splash. It said: Where there is not light, there can spider!

I am pretty sure that splash wasn't there before. I looked at this page and I couldn't find any new splashes. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.218.128.66 (talk) at 5:18, 01 August 2015 (UTC). Please sign your posts with


 * According to Splash, that one was added in 1.8.2 . -- Orthotopetalk 05:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Armor Stands
Under blocks, it says something about an armor stand. But aren't armor stands entities? PancakeMan77 (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are. I had already fixed that on 15w31a, but it seems I forgot to port the fix here. – KnightMiner  t/c 00:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Beacons on End Ships will not stay
Searge tweeted at https://twitter.com/seargedp on July 30th, "The beacon in the end city ships will not stay, @jeb_ told me it was just for testing but I forgot to remove it before we made the snapshot." It's reasonable to assume that the beacon will be removed and therefore reasonable to remove the beacon addition from the wiki page. IDK how the wiki works exactly with upcoming features. It is quite possible the wiki includes all features of snapshots. Simply put, there is no need for the wiki to report an upcoming feature to 1.9 if that feature is already proven not to be an upcoming feature. There is a possibility for the beacon addition to be kept, but as of writing this, one couldn't assume so as it isn't said to be so. 73.41.130.151 21:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The wiki only supports snapshoted/released versions except in sections marked as planned. The thing you mentioned is already noted in Planned changes, and will not be moved to the main section until it actually happened in a snapshot. – KnightMiner  t/c 00:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I see. I assumed that if something was noted under 1.9, it meant that it was planned for 1.9. I assumed this because 1.9 isn't out yet so therefore everything is technically a "planned feature" (Snapshots aren't official). I don't expect change, but a suggestion I have is this - The 1.9 page consists of things that are planned for 1.9. If they are added in a snapshot then they are added to the 1.9 page and the snapshot page, because they are then planned for 1.9. But if something is no longer planned, then you would remove this from the 1.9 page because the 1.9 page is only for things that are planned for 1.9 (Which was stated in the first sentence). End ship beacons aren't for example. You would keep the end ship beacon addition on the snapshot page though because it was in the snapshot. This way, you can remove "planned features" from the 1.9 page because all 1.9 additions are "planned features" technically. I understand that snapshot additions can also be planned additions for 1.9 but, like end ship beacons for an example, all snapshot additions aren't 1.9 planned features. I'm basically saying this possible way of having the 1.9 page because it makes more sense to me and it makes it easier for other people to understand. TY 73.41.130.151 01:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We have in the past had problems with doing things that way. Features would get stated as planned for the update (and organized among the other text), then a developer would forget or put it off for a later update, but the page would never get updated as it gets lost among the text. This would leave users unsure of what actually happened in the update, and lots of "why does this feature not work" comments.
 * Instead, the most orderly way to have it is the page describe all features that are currently in 1.9 (as in if the latest snapshot was released as the full update), and the "Planned" sections describe what might change or be added before the full release. – KnightMiner  t/c 01:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe there should be a kind of asterisk or note next to 1.9 things which is a link. They link to the planned changes part of the page where it says that the specific thing is planned to be changed. It lets people know that an addition to 1.9 might not stay. 73.41.130.151 02:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

/clone
What happened to that bit where it said that the /clone command would gain support to rotate/mirror structures? Was it announced that wasn't happening? PancakeMan77 (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * According to Searge, it's not implemented yet but will be eventually. Skylinerw (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Broken bullets
I have noticed that on my phone any bullet points that come after a <\ref> tag are not on a new line. Is anyone else having this problem (look at 'planned' sections of this page). Is this a gamepedia bug for my phone or a syntax error? FM22 (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, I fixed the spaces after the semicolons so it shows up fine in the preview but it still displays wrong! FM22 (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)